Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208866 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Excuse me, but one CAN measure the mass of a snowflake. Take a large sample of snowflakes, and one gets an average mass for snowflakes...the larger the sample the closer one comes to a true average.
One can then take the mass of a pile of snowflake, divide by the average mass, and one gets a very close measure of the number of snowflakes in the pile.
No, not immeasurable.
Your thinking is limited.
I did not say you can't measure a snowflake. I said snowflakes. As in, you can't measure how many snowflakes there were yesterday.

An average mass and a "very close" isn't a precise measurement.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#208867 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1953?!
Try the 1860s, puddin pop.
See: Friedrich Miescher.
You can't even get THAT right.....
DNA is documented as being discovered by Watson and Crick in 1953

Prior to that it was theory without evidence, rather like your god eh?

What home school did you go to?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208868 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Again, observing a thing's effects is not observing a thing.
Observe a wake all you want, that won't tell you much about the boat.
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
But it DOES tell you there was a boat. It is still an observation. It still gives information.
There is no observation of any sort concerning your God. There is no information.
Nope. You're assuming it was a boat that caused the wake because you know that boats cause wakes.

You did not witness the boat causing the wake.

You're doing what science does, you're filling in the blanks because you must have an answer.

The wake might've been caused by a whale.

it could be a natural phenomenon.

You don't know.

But you "know" it was a boat....

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208869 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

No. Dreams themselves cannot be observed of measured.
Even though they exist.
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Then how do you know dreams exist if you have not observed them?
You don't, that's the point.

To a person that hasn't had dreams or that can't dream, dreams are nonexistent and no one can provide evidence that dreams exist.

No dream has ever been empirically observed.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208870 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Then please inform us of something we know exists that has not been demonstrated by some evidence. Dreams have been. Black holes have been. Dark matter has been.
We know virtually nothing about dark matter. We DO know it is there. The gravitational effects tell us that. And all of our experiments rule out the matter that we know. What it is exactly, we don't know yet. But we DO know something is there.
But though we know very very little about dark matter, that is vastly more than we know about this God of yours. For him, we know absolutely nothing.
Your claim is that this God of yours is natural, part of the natural world. If so, demonstrate it.
We don't know that black holes exist. We see evidence of effects and figure something is causing it. Just like you did assuming the wake is caused by an invisible boat, scientists assume the black holes.

There is no direct evidence of dark matter, either. It's a fill-in-the-blanks for what is unknown.

I never claimed that God is natural or part of the natural world.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#208871 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know the meaning of either Darwinism or Atheism.
I could explain them to you, but you still wouldn't know, because you are incapable of learning.
Here's one hint: The Pope is not atheist as you claimed.
Just because what I know as the meaning is different from what you think is the meaning is your problem, perhaps you need to buy a dictionary rather than looking at the discovery institute for your education.

Sorry to disappoint your but the discovery institute is not a source of word definition

Why do you lie? Is it congenital or is it something you picked up later in life like syphilis?

If you want to insist on your lies then please show one (JUST ONE) post where I said the pope was atheist?– Just one, otherwise choke on your own vomit.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208872 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, there are literally thousands of scientists saying the Discovery Institute is lying.
Who is saying the Discovery Institute is telling the truth?
The Discovery Institute.
Well, of course a liar is going to tell you he is telling the truth.
And you believe him.
Your accusations are of the same poor quality as those against David Barton, or anyone else who differs with your boiler-plate, canned, freeze-dried, heat-'n-serve lines.

Once we probe deeper than your accusation itself, you have nothing.

Furthermore, I don't get my opinions from the Discovery Institute. The Darwin-Hitler linkage is well-established throughout historical academics, and is irrefutable.

Of course, a know-nothing crusader for Darwinism like you finds it much easier to respond to this embarrassing linkage by tossing an insult at an irrelevant party, than to actually address the problem.

That's because you are you - the hapless Darwin's Stepped in Shit.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#208873 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You think? Have you checked Osteen's book sales?
Osteen believes in amassing riches on earth, not in heaven. Lord knows every Christian wishes to be rich and powerful. Soo he feeds their desire and it makes him even more rich than his father. He doesn't preach a lot about your soul and charity and rich people have a hard time getting into heaven.

Osteen is a sham, a rich one, but still a sham.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208874 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
By the definition that 3 popes have gone to the bother of writing that they do accept revolution
And the definition you don’t want to accept what they have written.
But thank you for eventually admitting that the head of the catholic church accepts evolution. It really must have taken balls the size of a couple of peas to make such an admission.
The Pope's did not write a definition.

To the extent they explain what they mean, their view conflicts with Darwinism.

No, babes, the Popes are not atheist. Sorry.

Maybe you can find an atheist Cardinal??

(I'm not talking about the bird)

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208875 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup RR has already explained that thank you for repeating it, I really hope you derived some enjoyment from it.
Knowing of BLs posts, which are usually scientifically accurate and hence can be quite upsetting to the average funnybot and of the idiocy (sometimes outright lies) of some of RRs and your posts then I was reminded to question the interpretation. Which is what I did and RR chose at that time to include extra evidence that he had previously chosen to pretend did not exist. It was this extra evidence that I based my statement and perhaps the actual meaning of BLs contention. So…
Of course something can exist before it is known to exist, that is just basic logic. Hell the universe has existed for over 13 billion years without a single human on this planet to know about it
However if something is not known then it cannot be known - whether it exist or not. Before humanity knew about the universe it was not known that there was a universe. Before science knew about DNA, it was not known that DNA existed. Sure it did actually exist but it was not known that it existed.
Funny thing really that for the most part scientist did not even consider DNA it at all, certainty not prior to about 75 years ago when perhaps some few theorised DNA. It was not until Watson and Crick made their astounding discovery that it was known.
Which is why I phrased my statement in the way I phrased it, just to see if any pedantic godbots would bite. Thank you.
blacklagoon's posts are usually scientifically accurate?!

Like this one?

""There is ONLY one way to determine if something is real or not, and thats reliable demonstrable evidence, and only science can supply us with that." -BL

DNA was not discovered in the 1950s, Ms Scientifically Accurate.

It was discovered in the 1860s.

You get almost nothing right.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208876 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
No, the enjoyable part was when Barf Lagoon expounded on his erroneous point, claiming dinosaurs had no DNA.
"Knowing of BLs posts, which are usually scientifically accurate and hence can be quite upsetting to the average funnybot and of the idiocy (sometimes outright lies) of some of RRs and your posts..."

-Ms Scientifically Accurate, aka ChristineMC2

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208877 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because what I know as the meaning is different from what you think is the meaning is your problem, perhaps you need to buy a dictionary rather than looking at the discovery institute for your education.
Sorry to disappoint your but the discovery institute is not a source of word definition
Why do you lie? Is it congenital or is it something you picked up later in life like syphilis?
If you want to insist on your lies then please show one (JUST ONE) post where I said the pope was atheist?– Just one, otherwise choke on your own vomit.
It's obvious you and Darwin Stepped-in-Shit would rather argue with the Discovery Institute than with me.

Can't say as I blame you, since you both lose every time.

To reiterate, the Pope and the entire Catholic church is not atheist.

Good luck winning that one. So far, your prospects are not good.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208878 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
DNA is documented as being discovered by Watson and Crick in 1953
Prior to that it was theory without evidence, rather like your god eh?
What home school did you go to?
Oh boy.....

"DNA was first isolated by the Swiss physician Friedrich Miescher"

"...in 1869"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA&#8206 ;

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208879 Jan 29, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
Osteen believes in amassing riches on earth, not in heaven. Lord knows every Christian wishes to be rich and powerful. Soo he feeds their desire and it makes him even more rich than his father. He doesn't preach a lot about your soul and charity and rich people have a hard time getting into heaven.
Osteen is a sham, a rich one, but still a sham.
The point being discussed was success or failure.

Did you think you offered something relevant?

By the way, the stupidity of your description proves you don't have the slightest clue about anything Osteen has ever said.

But thanks for the bile. There's never enough, huh?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208880 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know that black holes exist. We see evidence of effects and figure something is causing it. Just like you did assuming the wake is caused by an invisible boat, scientists assume the black holes.
There is no direct evidence of dark matter, either. It's a fill-in-the-blanks for what is unknown.
I never claimed that God is natural or part of the natural world.
Darwin Stepped-in-Shit measured his toilet bowl and extrapolated the existence of black holes.

He's very scientific that way.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#208881 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep changing your definition of Darwinism, and you haven't gotten it right yet.
Let's take the definition most amenable to your point of view:
"all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations"
Are you trying to claim that "all species" arising via small inherited variations has no philosophical implication?
Are you trying to tell us the Catholic church accepts life as a material process of variation?
No, my dear. The Pope and the Catholic church do not accept this.
I have explained to you the mode of evolution they accept, and it is not Darwinism.
You were wrong, and can't bring yourself to admit it.
Why do you continue to lie, it is a sure and obvious sign that you have nothing left and have totally lost it.

The definition of Darwinism that I use has for as long as I can remember been the general definition of Darwinism, I have repeated said that different dictionaries may give definitions that may differ slightly in wording but not in meaning. However I have always used the definition of - the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.- As you are well aware even if you do choose to lie about it.

You will note that there is nothing about materialism or atheism in there, that my dear is your own misunderstanding for which I will not be responsible.

But perhaps you think the catholic church accepts ancient Greek idea descent with modification or perhaps the concept of genus and species developed by John Ray in the late 1600's or perhaps the ideas of Immanuel Kant who speculated that life may have come from a single ancestral source.

Modern understanding of evolution derived from Darwin, you may not like it but that’s just tough - end of story.

“The..”

Since: Dec 12

"..who whating how with huh?"

#208882 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I've had feelings and dreams.

Not that they could ever be proven to exist, though...

If you've seen black holes, you're the only human to have done that.
Feelings and dreams have been proven to exist and you have observed them first hand, directly.

Admittedly, not all has been discovered in regard to dreams but dream studies continue nevertheless.

To say that there is no proof of feelings is inaccurate, to say the least.

You didn't specify what kind of black holes, a hole dug in wet soil is one example of a black hole.

“The..”

Since: Dec 12

"..who whating how with huh?"

#208883 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>I've observed God directly, not just His effect.
Then you are the only person to have done so.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208884 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you continue to lie, it is a sure and obvious sign that you have nothing left and have totally lost it.
The definition of Darwinism that I use has for as long as I can remember been the general definition of Darwinism, I have repeated said that different dictionaries may give definitions that may differ slightly in wording but not in meaning. However I have always used the definition of - the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.- As you are well aware even if you do choose to lie about it.
You will note that there is nothing about materialism or atheism in there, that my dear is your own misunderstanding for which I will not be responsible.
But perhaps you think the catholic church accepts ancient Greek idea descent with modification or perhaps the concept of genus and species developed by John Ray in the late 1600's or perhaps the ideas of Immanuel Kant who speculated that life may have come from a single ancestral source.
Modern understanding of evolution derived from Darwin, you may not like it but that’s just tough - end of story.
You continue offering vague descriptions of Darwinism to try and rescue your position.

You can't do it.

The Pope and the Catholic church are not atheist.

Maybe you should retract the claim? You aren't honest enough for that, huh?

“The..”

Since: Dec 12

"..who whating how with huh?"

#208885 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>I've observed God directly, not just His effect.
Can you describe this deity you claim to have observed directly?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 28 min Igor Trip 510
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 31 min NightSerf 29
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 54 min Chimney1 358
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Eman 22,519
Indiana Governor Mike Pence Stands Up to Atheis... 11 hr cancer suxs 5
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 13 hr Thinking 140
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 14 hr Thinking 4,118
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••