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: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128328 Oct 7, 2012
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
No, May 2009. Check it for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broun
Can anybody spell Larry Craig?

Broun is a political conservative; his fundamentalist religious views inform his politics. In May 2009, Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".[23] He also introduced a bill to ban the sale or rental of sexually explicit materials on U.S military installations.[24]
In 2008, Broun and 91 co-sponsors introduced H.J.Res.89, a proposition for the Federal Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would define marriage as "as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman.

He protesteth too much methinks.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#128329 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
You are dissing Hiding and her fellow "informed" and educated" cream of the human race.
No, I'm pointing out that one need not be "intelligent" in order to be educated. You appear to believe otherwise.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You are upset because he is a Republican.
I'm not the least bit "upset". I'm just pointing out that he has an irrational belief, and an especially irrational belief for someone in his position.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128330 Oct 7, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anybody spell Larry Craig?
Broun is a political conservative; his fundamentalist religious views inform his politics. In May 2009, Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".[23] He also introduced a bill to ban the sale or rental of sexually explicit materials on U.S military installations.[24]
In 2008, Broun and 91 co-sponsors introduced H.J.Res.89, a proposition for the Federal Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would define marriage as "as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman.
He protesteth too much methinks.
Why don't you go hit on him and see how he responds? You say you are fit, drive snazzy cars, and have money. Catch him in a john somewhere. Expose him. It's your civic duty.

You might enjoy it.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#128331 Oct 7, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anybody spell Larry Craig?
Broun is a political conservative; his fundamentalist religious views inform his politics. In May 2009, Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".[23] He also introduced a bill to ban the sale or rental of sexually explicit materials on U.S military installations.[24]
In 2008, Broun and 91 co-sponsors introduced H.J.Res.89, a proposition for the Federal Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would define marriage as "as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman.
He protesteth too much methinks.
I always end my propositions with a preposition.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#128332 Oct 7, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Marijuana Amnesty Day.
Each person gets to pick their own day, as many as you want.
I'd be all for celebrating - "Because" - if there was a festive time called - "Because" - I'd be there.

It would be for everyone.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128333 Oct 7, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm pointing out that one need not be "intelligent" in order to be educated. You appear to believe otherwise.
<quoted text>
I'm not the least bit "upset". I'm just pointing out that he has an irrational belief, and an especially irrational belief for someone in his position.
Funny thing, the irrational would say the same about the rational. I mean, doesn't that rational person have a clue? They must be uninformed.

Now, I'm not saying you are irrationl. You may not be.

One must be intelligent enough to absorb and understand an education. The reason why we have so many Topix atheists. Lack of intelligence tests allowing them to be educated. Money can buy anything.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#128334 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you go hit on him and see how he responds? You say you are fit, drive snazzy cars, and have money. Catch him in a john somewhere. Expose him. It's your civic duty.
You might enjoy it.
Another gay obsessed godbot.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128335 Oct 7, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
LOL, you athitards are the biggest intollerant bigots out there....
I don't see any of you OR any of us Christians bad-mouthing any politicians that believe in evolution...
But as soon as one disagrees with it, oh boy! You bigots fire in full force!
Perhaps because, if you are going to be on the science and technology committee, you should not be actively against several basic disciplines.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#128336 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
Funny thing, the irrational would say the same about the rational. I mean, doesn't that rational person have a clue? They must be uninformed.
The difference being that the rational are using evidence and logic, and the irrational are not. In this case, the irrational would be the creationist, since they don't based their position on evidence and logic but instead on a literal interpretation of a specific set of scriptures.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128337 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
James ossuary not a fraud.
James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus
July 2012.
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/...
An apologist site, that gets it's info from other apologist sites.

Here is an example of the wonderfully hilarious self deception that one of the "sources" engages in:

"Is the inscription authentic? The court held only that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the inscription was a forgery. But it surely did not find that the inscription was authentic. I have no doubt, however, that it is."

And that was the closest anyone came to a positive statement of the inscriptions history. It is not authentic, just not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be fake. But the headlines won't tell you this, no, they read as if they is no doubt at all as to it's authenticity.

How do you not see this stuff? It's like if someone agrees with you, no matter how flimsy their reasoning or how far fetched their logic, you just take it and run with it. And anything that might damage your god belief is completely ignored.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128338 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you go hit on him and see how he responds? You say you are fit, drive snazzy cars, and have money. Catch him in a john somewhere. Expose him. It's your civic duty.
You might enjoy it.
Well, that wouldn't be for me really.

I am totally comfortable with anybody's preferences in any consensual adult relationship.

And I have my own preferences.(Not prudish by the way.)

And actually, it's none of your darn business.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128339 Oct 7, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I always end my propositions with a preposition.
Even more cool is to end a proposition with a preposition.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#128340 Oct 7, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd be all for celebrating - "Because" - if there was a festive time called - "Because" - I'd be there.
It would be for everyone.
I like to take days off just "because".

I might even use my day off to watch a show about nothing.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128341 Oct 7, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you all ever listen to what you say? You seem okay with the US being a gayocracy or athiocracy. How polarizing is it for the president of the US to come out and say that he supports same sex marriage when 44 states do not and neither does the constitution and the Supreme Court that he hates?
It appears that your personal beliefs hold back science, because all evidence supports an earth no older than 7,000 years.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005...
I really hope you are a troll.

While I shouldn't even dignify you with a response, I will tell you that your outright hatred for gay people is disgusting, and your contempt for atheists is equally repulsive. Didn't your god tell you to judge not? 50 years ago people like you were using similar arguments against the civil rights movement. And no, I don't want everyone in the world to be an atheist, I just want our government to be as secular as it was intended to be. We are not a theocracy, or at least we should not be. The beliefs of the majority should not be forced on the minority. If I were ever to entertain the idea of running for public office, I should not have to pretend that I love some imaginary fairy in the sky.

As for the last part, about the age of the earth, I don't even know what to say to that. Your ignorance, no, your stupidity, is at a level that I didn't think was possible. I don't even need to address your ridiculous claim about supernovas (which actually occur once every 50 years) to prove you wrong. We know the speed of light, and we can see objects that are much, much farther away than 7k light years. Or are you on of those shining lights of intelligence that thinks the speed of light has slowed down?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128342 Oct 7, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps because, if you are going to be on the science and technology committee, you should not be actively against several basic disciplines.
The man is a product of those disciplines.

If you had an advocate of specific thought in those disciplines you would be writing a blank check for them.

Science can be wrong and it is supposed to correct itself, right? You won't get that if you have the gatekeepers with no counterbalance to their agenda.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128343 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Noticed no response from you regarding the Ipuwer Papyrus.
http://www.specialityinterests.net/ipuwer.htm...
Still think Jesus ''probably'' existed?
I'm beginning to think that you are literally blind to evidence that defies your beliefs. Many people have already touched on the subject, and you somehow still maintain the delusion that people are ignoring you because you are right.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128344 Oct 7, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that wouldn't be for me really.
I am totally comfortable with anybody's preferences in any consensual adult relationship.
And I have my own preferences.(Not prudish by the way.)
And actually, it's none of your darn business.
Hey, you are the one calling him homosexual in a derogatory way.

Prove it. You have the lip action, turn it into hip action.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128345 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The man is a product of those disciplines.
If you had an advocate of specific thought in those disciplines you would be writing a blank check for them.
Science can be wrong and it is supposed to correct itself, right? You won't get that if you have the gatekeepers with no counterbalance to their agenda.
Very Buckish post, Dave.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128346 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you are the one calling him homosexual in a derogatory way.
Prove it. You have the lip action, turn it into hip action.
Dave, I asked you to go easy on the alcohol tonight.

You know you went overboard last night.

Self control dude, self control.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128347 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
A totally reasonable thing for the leader of a supposedly non theocratic nation to do, right?

Can you imagine the uproar from christians if an atheist managed to get a "lose your religion" month established?

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
Stump a theist with 2 questions 7 min Thinking 15
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 23 min Thinking 69
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 24 min Thinking 179
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 31 min NightSerf 22,001
The Ultimate Evidence of God 7 hr sriKim 120
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 14 hr Patrick 4,085
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 15 hr Patrick 38
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••