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
CunningLinguist

Ocala, FL

#232020 Jul 7, 2014
number four wrote:
<quoted text>Look silly billy , if you claim the histories in the Bible are horrendous ...I'm just asking , what ethical moral code gives anyone of you , the right to make such value judgements ...
Behind all the pious fluff of zealous Christian claims about their God, you'll find a book called the Holy Bible. That book, which is the compilation of various writings selected by a group of politicians and clerics at a council, is not the word of an infallible deity.

To treat it as such requires that the mysteries of the universe be contracted to squeeze with the confines of this collection of writings made by men who were no more or no less inspired than any other religious writers who have ever put pen to paper and called it the word of God.

When the claims made about a product fail to match up with the actual performance of that product, it's called false advertising.

While there are some core truths to be found in almost all religious texts, including the Bible, it's time for Christians drop the pious "word of God" rhetoric and face reality.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232021 Jul 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap.
Sexual assault in the military was up 50% last year. Between woman and gays, we have literally screwed our military denying the power of mating behavior.
If you consider money as the most valuable asset of a society, you are correct. However, rational people consider our children and their best interests as the most valuable asset.
<quoted text>
Where did I do that?
You are claiming that women are incapable of rape?
Smile.
You write that sexual assault is up, then that women and gays are screwing the military by "denying the power of mating behavior."

Your sentence is bizarre to say the least. What precisely do you mean by it?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232022 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck Crick wrote:
"That was my point - that homosexuality did not evolve for procreation, and since procreation is of fundamental evolutionary focus..."
Hidingfromyou wrote (post #231885):
" Not a single evolutionary theorist makes the straw man argument you post above -'... procreation is of fundamental evolutionary focus...'
Hidingfromyou wrote:
"No, that's not what I denied. I denied that all behavior is about reproduction."
__________
If this were a dispute in court, you would now be dismissed as a witness for lying.
Meh. Whatever Buck.

So, it looks like you agree that:

1. not all behavior is about reproduction
2. not all evolution is about reproduction
3. same sex sexual behavior is not about reproduction

Anything here you disagree with?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232023 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you claimed that science says homosexual behavior in primates evolved for the purpose of tension relief.
So my question is pertinent: How would a baboon's dick up my ass relieve my tension?
Please restrict your answers to the natural and social sciences.
I didn't claim it would work cross-species. You're kind of injecting that into the conversation here.

But let's assume that the hypothesis you mention above is correct - that same sex sexual behavior is "for" tension relief. Let's also assume you have a baboon, who is your best friend in all the world. Let's also assume you're into beastiality.

If all those assumptions were accurate then, yes, I'd assume you'd have your tension relieved by enjoying a bit of anal with the monkey. Although maybe not...their penises are quite a bit thinner than human ones. It's unlikely he'd stimulate your prostate. But your neurotransmitters for togetherness would be firing anyways, since this is the baboon you're in love with.

However much I often disagree with you, though, I do not think you're into beastiality. I also don't think you're into pedophilia or any kind of sexual exploitation. I don't think you're into gay sex. I'm pretty sure you just like adult women.

Hence I'm betting that you'd probably kill any baboon who tried to cornhole you. I also think that once you were done, you'd feel your tension drift away b/c you were no longer being molested by a very strange and violent animal.

So, yes. At the end of the day, with or without the above assumptions, your tension would be relieved. And in the more likely scenario, you'd have dinner.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#232024 Jul 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap.
Sexual assault in the military was up 50% last year. Between woman and gays, we have literally screwed our military denying the power of mating behavior.
If you consider money as the most valuable asset of a society, you are correct. However, rational people consider our children and their best interests as the most valuable asset.
<quoted text>
Where did I do that?
You are claiming that women are incapable of rape?
Smile.
KiMare had a blonde moment.

Do you dye your pubes or just shave above your vagina?

“Merry Yuletide”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#232025 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly wasn't talking about your predilections for bestiality. I'd have to say that such behavior is abnormal.
Yes, exactly! Unless he considers the baboon to be his intellectual equal.
:-)

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232026 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This post is factually absurd and incoherent.
You should never comment on this subject.
So you have no evidence... fair enough and completely expected.

Buck stomps his foot again.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232027 Jul 7, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, exactly! Unless he considers the baboon to be his intellectual equal.
:-)
There is a group of macaques not tooooooo far from where he claims to live.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232028 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Why lie so much?
Your original post:
<quoted text>
My post to you:
<quoted text>
And this is our initial discussion:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
So...at the beginning our conversation was entirely about REPRODUCTION. We established using the word "procreation" for "reproduction" not "propagation of genes," despite that's where you took the conversation.
Again, I claimed that same sex sexual behavior was evolved. You made the above comment saying it couldn't be b/c it isn't effective at reproduction. The conversation went on from there.
You are the one altering the conversation, not I. You do this over and over - take the conversation away from its original point and then accuse the other person of lying. It's dishonest of you and pointless.
Give it up.

Here's what really happened.

1. You gave some lame social science crap about why homosexual sex evolved.

2. I pointed out how that doesn't fit the predictions of the Darwinian theory, and that procreation, or propogation of genes is fundamental to the theory. I stated that some allege it is the only purpose of evolution.

3. You stated that no theorist makes that claim.

4. I proved they do, and provided examples.

5. Then you back-pedaled and changed your statement to denying "all behavior is about reproduction".

During the process, you also:

1. Refuse to answer whether rape is normal behavior of primates and humans, and

2. Refused to answer how your claim is true - that a baboon's dick up my ass would relieve tension for me.

Not only are you are soundly defeated, and apparently, very embarrassed. Your whole approach to science is reduced to trendy, arrogance-of-the-age, popular nonsense bull shit.

I consider that a fruitful day's work for me.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232029 Jul 7, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, exactly! Unless he considers the baboon to be his intellectual equal.
:-)
Better - his intellectual better

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232030 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't claim it would work cross-species. You're kind of injecting that into the conversation here.
But let's assume that the hypothesis you mention above is correct - that same sex sexual behavior is "for" tension relief. Let's also assume you have a baboon, who is your best friend in all the world. Let's also assume you're into beastiality.
If all those assumptions were accurate then, yes, I'd assume you'd have your tension relieved by enjoying a bit of anal with the monkey. Although maybe not...their penises are quite a bit thinner than human ones. It's unlikely he'd stimulate your prostate. But your neurotransmitters for togetherness would be firing anyways, since this is the baboon you're in love with.
However much I often disagree with you, though, I do not think you're into beastiality. I also don't think you're into pedophilia or any kind of sexual exploitation. I don't think you're into gay sex. I'm pretty sure you just like adult women.
Hence I'm betting that you'd probably kill any baboon who tried to cornhole you. I also think that once you were done, you'd feel your tension drift away b/c you were no longer being molested by a very strange and violent animal.
So, yes. At the end of the day, with or without the above assumptions, your tension would be relieved. And in the more likely scenario, you'd have dinner.
But if your claim is correct that homosexual sex evolved for that reason, the other baboon would be a heterosexual one.

So my question remains: As a heterosexual, how would a baboon's dick up my ass relieve tension?

I can't speak from experience, but I am inclined to predict that such dick up my ass would CAUSE tension.

In turn, it would cause tension for the other baboon, as he experienced the various sensations of his head being ripped from his body.

I also fail to see how any of that fulfills the evolutionary purpose, as announced by Dawkins, of my genes to propagate themselves to the next generation.

In summary, the facts compel me to conclude you and those you cite are making shit up.



“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232031 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But if your claim is correct that homosexual sex evolved for that reason, the other baboon would be a heterosexual one.
So my question remains: As a heterosexual, how would a baboon's dick up my ass relieve tension?
I can't speak from experience, but I am inclined to predict that such dick up my ass would CAUSE tension.
In turn, it would cause tension for the other baboon, as he experienced the various sensations of his head being ripped from his body.
I also fail to see how any of that fulfills the evolutionary purpose, as announced by Dawkins, of my genes to propagate themselves to the next generation.
In summary, the facts compel me to conclude you and those you cite are making shit up.
You're failing to get it here. Also, you're once again incorrectly referring to same sex sexual behavior as somehow reproductive.

Clearly you don't really care about understanding why same sex sexual behavior evolved. If you did, you wouldn't make up such a stupid scenario and then pretend you've accomplished something.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232032 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up.
Here's what really happened.
1. You gave some lame social science crap about why homosexual sex evolved.
2. I pointed out how that doesn't fit the predictions of the Darwinian theory, and that procreation, or propogation of genes is fundamental to the theory. I stated that some allege it is the only purpose of evolution.
3. You stated that no theorist makes that claim.
4. I proved they do, and provided examples.
5. Then you back-pedaled and changed your statement to denying "all behavior is about reproduction".
During the process, you also:
1. Refuse to answer whether rape is normal behavior of primates and humans, and
2. Refused to answer how your claim is true - that a baboon's dick up my ass would relieve tension for me.
Not only are you are soundly defeated, and apparently, very embarrassed. Your whole approach to science is reduced to trendy, arrogance-of-the-age, popular nonsense bull shit.
I consider that a fruitful day's work for me.
I give up - you can't be taught. This must be why you believe in ID.

1. I gave good hypotheses that have good evidence for them. You completely and utterly failed to understand them. It's kind of normal for you.
2. You are incorrect. They fit fine into the theory. Your understanding of the theory is poor.
3. Evolutionists do not argue that all behavior is about reproduction.
4. You did not prove anything and some of your examples were quote mined. That was cute.
5. I posted the conversation from the beginning, from your incorrect disagreement and subsequent changing the topic.
______

1. Yes. I'm not going to indulge your unusual comparison of violence to sexual behavior.
2. You are lying here. I told you that the theories do not cover cross-species sex.

I'm hardly defeated. You've shat all over the chess board, knocked over the pieces, and called yourself a winner.

That's totally cool. You have displayed your contempt for education and rational discussion yet again.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#232033 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up.
Here's what really happened.
1. You gave some lame social science crap about why homosexual sex evolved.
2. I pointed out how that doesn't fit the predictions of the Darwinian theory, and that procreation, or propogation of genes is fundamental to the theory. I stated that some allege it is the only purpose of evolution.
3. You stated that no theorist makes that claim.
4. I proved they do, and provided examples.
5. Then you back-pedaled and changed your statement to denying "all behavior is about reproduction".
During the process, you also:
1. Refuse to answer whether rape is normal behavior of primates and humans, and
2. Refused to answer how your claim is true - that a baboon's dick up my ass would relieve tension for me.
Not only are you are soundly defeated, and apparently, very embarrassed. Your whole approach to science is reduced to trendy, arrogance-of-the-age, popular nonsense bull shit.
I consider that a fruitful day's work for me.
Darwinian theory?

Is that the theory where he said buck, buck, buck, buck, buck over and over again until hens flocked to him?

That cracks me up. My friend and I laughed like hyenas.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232034 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You're failing to get it here. Also, you're once again incorrectly referring to same sex sexual behavior as somehow reproductive.
No, I'm making the opposite claim.

Homosexual sex is not reproductive.

That's my point. Given Darwinian theory, and particularly Dawkins' take on it, it should have evolved to aid reproduction. That's why it does not fit.

Enter: your bull shit.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232035 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But if your claim is correct that homosexual sex evolved for that reason, the other baboon would be a heterosexual one.
So my question remains: As a heterosexual, how would a baboon's dick up my ass relieve tension?
I can't speak from experience, but I am inclined to predict that such dick up my ass would CAUSE tension.
In turn, it would cause tension for the other baboon, as he experienced the various sensations of his head being ripped from his body.
I also fail to see how any of that fulfills the evolutionary purpose, as announced by Dawkins, of my genes to propagate themselves to the next generation.
In summary, the facts compel me to conclude you and those you cite are making shit up.
You're an idiot. You didn't explain you were talking about two primates of the same species - just you and a baboon.

Here is the explanation:

http://books.google.co.jp/books...

Please stop trying to be so dishonest.
Iron Balls McGente

Fargo, ND

#232036 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Once again, for the slow of mind, I claimed that homosexuality is not a reproductive strategy.
No shet. How long did you do to college to learn that? Do a research paper on that one.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232037 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

3. Evolutionists do not argue that all behavior is about reproduction.
I never said they did.

I do not think all behavior, World Cup Soccer, for instance, is about reproduction.

Evolutionists DO argue that the purpose of evolution is reproduction - propagating the selfish gene to future generations beyond the death of the individual.

That was my claim, you disputed it, and you are proven wrong:

Richard Dawkins:

"Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

It's a knock-down argument, and you lose.

“Merry Yuletide”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#232038 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm making the opposite claim.
Homosexual sex is not reproductive.
That's my point. Given Darwinian theory, and particularly Dawkins' take on it, it should have evolved to aid reproduction. That's why it does not fit.
Enter: your bull shit.
Never mind, Buck. You could always find yourself a female baboon.

At least that wouldn't be gay.

“Merry Yuletide”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#232039 Jul 7, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Better - his intellectual better
LOLOL!

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Uncle Sam 2,282
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr _Bad Company 143
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 14 hr polymath257 23,199
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 20 hr Yiago 148
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) Sat thetruth 34
God' existence Sat thetruth 67
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists Fri Crazy Mess 1
More from around the web