Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258485 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#220636 Mar 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The real Heaven of the Topix Atheist! nonexistent heaven?
It's a colloquial expression. Heaven forbid you'd practice anything other than uneducated pedantry.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#220637 Mar 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Christianity isn't a cult.
<quoted text>
No it isn't.
<quoted text>
Thanks for sharing your belief.
Or is that your lack of belief?
You're very fond of dictionary definitions. According to the dictionary, Christianity is a cult. I don't think it is because it is a Self-Idolizing Army of One with Dear Leader as a mere smokescreen.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#220638 Mar 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
But Haeckel's fake drawings are still in Biology textbooks today. They're still being taught as fact. The latest high school textbooks to have his fake drawings were printed in 2010.
2010.
Cite the source of this terrible cut and paste job.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#220639 Mar 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't stop the song from playing of the person writing it.
Once again, in English this time, for those who don't Riverdance, please.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#220640 Mar 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
https://maps.google.com/maps...
I see a lot of corners.
You sure about your statement?
Absolutely. I've been there. I'm much more confident of my statement than you are of whatever this was, you drunken idiot:

"That doesn't stop the song from playing of the person writing it."
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#220641 Mar 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. That's why it was placed in biology texts in 2009.
Can't get a thing past you Darwinists, huh?
Cite your source.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#220642 Mar 21, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
Find work
Huh? Are you in Wernersville State Hospital?
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#220643 Mar 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. That's why it was placed in biology texts in 2009.
Can't get a thing past you Darwinists, huh?
Now I understand fully why you are considered dishonest. Please explain why they still remain in some textbooks. If you don't fully disclose that they remain there as part of a historical discussion which explicitly discuss Haeckel's mistakes and contrast them with actual development, then you further expose yourself as a lying fool. I think that is a role you cherish, so flap away, court jester. The cognoscenti need a good laugh.

You've attached your cart to self-aggrandizing, self-enriching, braying donkeys who offer nothing of substance other than their bank accounts.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220644 Mar 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
But Haeckel's fake drawings are still in Biology textbooks today. They're still being taught as fact. The latest high school textbooks to have his fake drawings were printed in 2010.
2010.
They are not, however, presented as evidence. They are presented as historical reference.

This is the same as a physics text mentioning phlogiston or the luminiferous ether. The mention would be of historical interest, not proposing that these are still considered viable theories.

Let me guess...you STILL have not read any of the links I posted about evo-devo. Gee...I must be psychic.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220645 Mar 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. That's why it was placed in biology texts in 2009.
Can't get a thing past you Darwinists, huh?
The same post to you...

They are not, however, presented as evidence. They are presented as historical reference.

This is the same as a physics text mentioning phlogiston or the luminiferous ether. The mention would be of historical interest, not proposing that these are still considered viable theories.

Let me guess...you STILL have not read any of the links I posted about evo-devo. Gee...I must be psychic.

Buck is just as much an idiot as he always was.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220646 Mar 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You know this how?
Darwinism would predict a more "efficient" route of the laryngeal nerve, but it also is allowed to predict the more circuitous route. This means it predicts whatever we get, which means it's useless as a predictor.
No, ToE would not predict any such thing, once the positions of the nerve and the blood vessel were fixed. It would require a discontinuity to have the nerve "jump" from one side of the vessel to the other. There is no know mechanism for such to happen. Therefore, once the configuration was fixed, it remained that way.

If you understood the mechanisms of evolution, you would know this.

(BTW...evolutionary biology is littered with such kluges where more efficient patterns would work, but the biological history prevents such patterns from existing. For example, the spinal column of humans. The tetrapod spine works wonderfully like a suspension bridge in a horizontal position. But in the vertical position in humans, it leads to disk compression in older individuals. It is not an efficient design. But the horizontal spine of quadrupeds was all that was available for evolution to work on.)

And you once claimed to have a degree in biology. What a joke you are.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220647 Mar 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
"The vagus nerve in the stage 16 embryo is very large in relation to the aortic arch system. The recurrent laryngeal nerve has a greater proportion of connective tissue than other nerves, making it more resistant to stretch. It has been suggested that tension applied by the left recurrent laryngeal nerve as it wraps around the ductus arteriosus could provide a means of support that would permit the ductus to develop as a muscular artery, rather than an elastic artery"
- Gray's Anatomy, 39th edition 2005, p. 1053.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean in relation to the evolution of the laryngeal nerve. It is purely descriptive of the anatomy and has nothing to do with its evolution.

Typical Buck post...a total non sequitur.
Buck Crick wrote:
Biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig:
"So, today's evolutionary explanations (as is also true for many other so-called rudimentary routes and organs) are not only often in contradiction to their own premises but also tend to stop looking for (and thus hinder scientific research concerning) further important morphological and physiological functions yet to be discovered. In contrast, the theory of intelligent design regularly predicts further functions (also) in these cases and thus is scientifically much more fruitful and fertile than the neo-Darwinian exegesis."
Yes, Buck, and for every odd-ball biologist such as Lonnig I can post a thousand biologists that disagree with him. You should know by now that you can almost always find one "expert" that will take whatever position you are looking for. In Lonnig, you have succeeding in finding a crank that agrees with you. Congratulations.

Even Lonnig's own department at the Max Planck Institute criticized him for his anti-evolution views. He is on the fringe, no where near the mainstream of biology.

He is definitely off his rocker in his last sentence, because ID regularly predicts...nothing. It has no stated mechanisms (other than "some entity did something at sometime by unknown means"). Without clear, testable mechanisms one can not make any scientific predictions.

Today's reading assignment is on the laryngeal nerve and its implications of evolution.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/...

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#220648 Mar 21, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ToE would not predict any such thing, once the positions of the nerve and the blood vessel were fixed. It would require a discontinuity to have the nerve "jump" from one side of the vessel to the other. There is no know mechanism for such to happen. Therefore, once the configuration was fixed, it remained that way.
If you understood the mechanisms of evolution, you would know this.
(BTW...evolutionary biology is littered with such kluges where more efficient patterns would work, but the biological history prevents such patterns from existing. For example, the spinal column of humans. The tetrapod spine works wonderfully like a suspension bridge in a horizontal position. But in the vertical position in humans, it leads to disk compression in older individuals. It is not an efficient design. But the horizontal spine of quadrupeds was all that was available for evolution to work on.)
And you once claimed to have a degree in biology. What a joke you are.
He has a degree in fundiedenial biology.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220649 Mar 21, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
What would intelligent design predict?
Exacatacally.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220650 Mar 21, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>We? Billions of Christians spread across 40,000 schisms is hardly a we. Each Christian has a god modeled after themselves. A dystopian army of one.
Isn't it amazing how for every believer, his God's opinions are exactly the same as those of the believer?

And change believers, God's opinions change as well.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220651 Mar 21, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Coward.
Typical Buck. He won't address real arguments. Buck arguments consist of calling people names.

At least, most of the time. And always when you bring in the writings of an expert. Buck will not even bother to glance at them.

A "seeker of truth" my arse. All Buck is interested in is validation of his own beliefs.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#220652 Mar 21, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Cain is a fictional character in an ancient fable.
Is that your Topix Atheist! lack of belief?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#220653 Mar 21, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>He answered that in the statement. He wrote, "His god", which, for a Christian, means the individual themselves.
No shit, Sherlock.

I was making fun of all the stupid ass atheists that bore their repetitive "which god?" billshit.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220654 Mar 21, 2014
This is kinda weird.

WBC tweeted...

"Westboro Baptist Church thanks God for Fred Phelps Sr.’s passing"

I suspect the new WBC management was a bit careless in their wording. If that isn't the case, they must have had a great dislike for their former pastor (whom they excommunicated a few months back).

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#220655 Mar 21, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>You're very fond of dictionary definitions. According to the dictionary, Christianity is a cult. I don't think it is because it is a Self-Idolizing Army of One with Dear Leader as a mere smokescreen.
Christianity doesn't fit the definition of a cult.

Dumb ass.

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
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 7 min Eagle 12 - 61
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min Eagle 12 - 79,914
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Eagle 12 - 32,581
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Sep 16 blacklagoon 3 91
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Sep 15 xfrodobagginsx 101
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
what science will NEVER be able to prove Sep 15 Me _ Myself _ I 8
More from around the web