Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221290 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the entire theory is not proven.....
Neither is the Theory of Gravity.

Feel free to jump off a cliff and fly.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#221291 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the entire theory is not proven.
Second, every hypothesis introduced is unproven. Such a policy would mean no new discoveries.
Third, ID is not being promoted "over" evolution. ID accepts evolution, but proposes an additional component to evolution, as the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is inadequate to explain biological diversity, unless we just assign God-like powers to it. Materialists are perfectly willing to do that.
.. again, science never claims mutations are unguided ..

Mutations + proven natural selection = diverse species.

.. why do believers try to refute science? It seems like a losing proposition since science never excludes a possible guiding mechanism. What's being threatened ??.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221292 Mar 25, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Training to become a priest, opening 25000 churches, restoring church infrastructure, opening centres of religious education over period of 54 years
Sure beats bucks 20 years. Just like three popes beat his one archbishop.
And I see you have not seen your physician about your erection problems
I know you imagine buck makes you hard but face it, if you can’t get it up for a woman then you will not be able to get it up for buck. But buck doesn’t mind that you penis is shrunken and floppy when he is screwing your butt hole so that’s all right then just so long as you lick his butt when he shouts.
You are such an idiot. Why do you think an atheist cannot allow churches?

Stalin: "There is no god".

When did Stalin reverse that position? Can you point to him saying "There is a god"?

Didn't think so.
IPSEC

Haslet, TX

#221293 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the entire theory is not proven.
Second, every hypothesis introduced is unproven. Such a policy would mean no new discoveries.
Third, ID is not being promoted "over" evolution. ID accepts evolution, but proposes an additional component to evolution, as the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is inadequate to explain biological diversity, unless we just assign God-like powers to it. Materialists are perfectly willing to do that.
This post explains your ignorance. Thank you.
IPSEC

Haslet, TX

#221294 Mar 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're changing your tune. Why is that? I responded to your laughing at the idea that scientists lie for political purposes, which they do.
Do you assume that every scientist is forthright?
I didn't change tunes and I didn't make that assertion. Your dishonesty is legion.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#221295 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Irreducible Complexity made it into the scientific publication "Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences" this past December.
Let me know when your IG makes it in.
In fact, why don't you sit in that spot you're in and wait for it, Moron?
I told you IC is an argument out of stupidity didn't I?
It is either a statement with little meaning , or a process that is not understood yet.
Time and time again it is demonstrated with every claim why this is so.
The whole movement is nothing but religious fanatics who try to leech into science any way they can. You would be one of them. It's the watchmaker fallacy reworded and rehashed same old bullshit. Just like you , the same old tired ass rehashed leftover dried up bullshit on a new stick.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221296 Mar 25, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither is the Theory of Gravity.
Feel free to jump off a cliff and fly.
Maybe I would evolve wings?

I'll feel free to question any umproven theory. But thanks anyway.

You might also look up the logical fallacy you just employed - "excluded middle".
IPSEC

Haslet, TX

#221297 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The sub-prime market started well before Bush.
Bush had introduced legislation to curb it. Democrats rejected it.
Zero down housing and Fannie and Freddie were also democrat products. Enterprise zones forcing lending by banks to people who could not repay it - democrat products.
That's wholly dishonest. Both parties were complicit.

"The only difference between the parties is the speed at which they hit their knees when corporations knock on their office door" - Ralph Nader
IPSEC

Haslet, TX

#221298 Mar 25, 2014
Phantom2010 wrote:
<quoted text> The Son of God never told anyone to convince anyone of anything. All he said was to share.
To convince and to share are not the same thing.
Then why the indoctrination with song and sermon before children can think critically enough to inoculate themselves from the virus?

"Give me a child before the age of five and I shall have him for life"

The Jesuits
Josef Goebbels
The Most Dishonorable Reverend James Dobson (R-Rekkers)
IPSEC

Haslet, TX

#221299 Mar 25, 2014
Phantom2010 wrote:
<quoted text> Is your assumption that I expect you to believe me just because I share my faith?
Whatever gave you that idea?
The continual push to rewrite the secular laws of our land by the charlatans of religion.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221300 Mar 25, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. honest underdog ??..
.. why promote an unproven hypothesis (ID) over proven scientific theory? For me, that was a big mistake ..
.. absolutely nothing in evolution theory claims random mutations are unguided so there's no logical reason to challenge a scientific method dedicated to the exploration and understanding of our natural world ..
.. the very first religious system was naturalism. Humans looked around and said, "What a beautiful tree, what a beautiful sunset, there's more to this than we understand." Science explains the tree, the sunset, but it will never explain the sense of wonderment ..
.. this forum has become exhausting for me due to constant repetition. Any new ideas ??..
I have a new idea.

No, I don't. Just kidding.

But I can give you many reasons why Data is better than C-3PO.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221301 Mar 25, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. again, science never claims mutations are unguided ..
Mutations + proven natural selection = diverse species.
.. why do believers try to refute science? It seems like a losing proposition since science never excludes a possible guiding mechanism. What's being threatened ??.
Yes, they claim mutations are unguided - random accidental coding.

Why do you call exploring alternative scientific explanations "refuting science"?

Science refutes science all the time, if done properly.



RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221302 Mar 25, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't change tunes and I didn't make that assertion. Your dishonesty is legion.
You ignored my question.
IPSEC

Haslet, TX

#221303 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Chrissy, we both know you want me. Thus your redneck stiffy comments.
I know what you're thinkin'.
Yeah, just what I thought. No one jot, one tittle, one iota of an example where ID has led to scientific discovery or improved our lives. And, you already admitted it wasn't falsifiable. Fail.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221304 Mar 25, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you IC is an argument out of stupidity didn't I?
It is either a statement with little meaning , or a process that is not understood yet.
Time and time again it is demonstrated with every claim why this is so.
The whole movement is nothing but religious fanatics who try to leech into science any way they can. You would be one of them. It's the watchmaker fallacy reworded and rehashed same old bullshit. Just like you , the same old tired ass rehashed leftover dried up bullshit on a new stick.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...
Nice string of assertions.

Come back when you have some facts.
IPSEC

Haslet, TX

#221305 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I would evolve wings?
I'll feel free to question any umproven theory. But thanks anyway.
You might also look up the logical fallacy you just employed - "excluded middle".
Way before that in the pantheon of logical fallacies is your ridiculousness of ID, an argumentum ad ignoratium. But, you're soaking in it, Madge.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221306 Mar 25, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>No, from everything you have written, this far. There is a record of your miscellaneous ramblings that strangely form the pattern as I described it. Your inherent insanity precludes you from understanding even the nonsense you proffer. You can get help for your condition. Therapy and medication can help you find your way out of your immoral, ideological morass and back to reality.
By the way, you don't just "(note) the possibility of an outside(,)(sic) intelligent source", it is the only play in your ridiculous, non-evidential, defrocked wheelhouse. You can try to deflect your inanity in any manner you wish, but you can't even buy an ally among the anonymous, fellow-deluded you co-mingle with here. Even they find you unpalatable.

At this point, I've posted at least four articles about the Big Bang. All of them noted an intelligent force as a possibility, if not likely.

You, on the other hand, have ignored that and dumbed down on troll responses and personal attacks.

It seems you are anxious to argue faith, but unprepared to reason...

Smile.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221307 Mar 25, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. again, science never claims mutations are unguided ..
Mutations + proven natural selection = diverse species.
.. why do believers try to refute science? It seems like a losing proposition since science never excludes a possible guiding mechanism. What's being threatened ??.
One of the problems with "species" is that the definition of "species" is ambiguous throughout the sciences.

My preferred definition is 'two organisms that can naturally produces fertile offspring" yet that exclude asexual, parthenogenic and hermaphroditic species.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221308 Mar 25, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, just what I thought. No one jot, one tittle, one iota of an example where ID has led to scientific discovery or improved our lives. And, you already admitted it wasn't falsifiable. Fail.
You are raving Moron.

But don't let it spoil your day!

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221309 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I would evolve wings?
I'll feel free to question any umproven theory. But thanks anyway.
You might also look up the logical fallacy you just employed - "excluded middle".
You should google "sarcastically insulting a moron" which is what everyone does to you.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 13 min yehoshooah adam 4,325
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr brenda6 899
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr John 32,291
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr 15th Dalai Lama 77,078
Atheists are subhuman filth that need to be exe... 13 hr Roec 1
Religion sux ? Tue Eagle 12 - 4
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... (Dec '16) Tue Frindly 291
More from around the web