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 11

Location hidden

#128350 Oct 7, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didnít see any reference to him being a Speleologist.
Obviously you see him in a derogatory way. Itís not his fault that science of evolution is mostly unproven hype. Every time evolution is challenged. Evolutionist and their supporters start reaching for their baseball bats.
There convincing philosophy is to beat the hell out of the deniers of Evolution. Evolution is the only science with this type enforcement arm. If evolution has such a convincing argument. Why do evolutionist need such combative enforcement?
Iíll tell you why. Because there is no convincing argument. Thereís a hell of a lot of speculation, guesswork, imagination, fraud and artist conceptions.
Now you do a good job in Traffic Court tomorrow.
No, it is actually because evolution is one of the many scientific fields that draws a lot of opposition from the religious right, and to let them peddle their ignorance unfettered would be a disservice to the entire country. Or do you still wish that the sun revolved around the earth?

The church has always been an enemy of scientific progress, and although it would be unnecessary in a perfect world, people unfortunately have to devote countless man hours to combating the fake controversy drummed up by IDers and the like.

And like it or not, evolution is not fluffed up. I know it makes you sad to think that we might have descended from "lower" life forms, but to continue to deny a well supported scientific field is not even ignorance, it is outright stupidity.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128351 Oct 7, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:
What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise ó is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.[3]
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley.[4]
In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.
The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."
Leo commented,
A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).
John 8:44-45
King James Version (KJV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Replace every mention of homosexuals with "black people, the black agenda, etc," and perhaps you will gain some insight into what a backwards bigot you are.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128352 Oct 7, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Democracy.

Majority rules.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#128353 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Cut your post for space. There are actually three references. Papyrus Ipuwer
2. Ermitage Papyrus.[The Ermitage-Leningrad]
3. Monolith of El-Arish.[Museum of Ismailia]
Now when His majesty fought against the evil-doers [Israelites] in this pool, the place of the whirlpool, the evil-doers prevailed not over his majesty. His majesty lept into the place of the whirlpool.''It was said he was lifted by a great force.''
http://scienceandhistoryfaith.com/9.html
The land is utterly perished and nought remains.
Perished is the land
The sun is veiled and shines not in the sight of men.
None can live when the sun is veiled by clouds...
The river is dry (even the river) of Egypt.
The earth is fallen into misery...
Ermitage Papyrus.
Also, the link above, didn't work.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#128354 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Try this link
http://sciencehistoryfaith.com/9.html
Thanks.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#128355 Oct 7, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I can agree with that, because, there is nothing to disagree with that I can find wrong with it.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128356 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone irrational would say the same thing you just did. They have their own.
Can't you see the logic? Evidently not.
Creationism is actually more logical. You were created by people that were created, and so on. Every device you use was created. There is nothing poofed into existence that you have seen. So, somewhere back in time, something created all of this somehow. Abiogenesis could even be a product of that creation process. Part of a process.
Just because a book recorded something wrong doesn't mean the basic process or beginning does not exist. You have several science books, with beaucoup evidence and logic that are wrong. But they seemed to be right when they were written. They may even be right, but wrong in interpretation.
Identify what you are railing against before railing.
Dave, I commend you for going easy on the booze tonight.

I can tell because you wrote such a long post.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128357 Oct 7, 2012
Well, another day.

Time for bed.

Still nothing intelligent or witty from Catcher.

Evolution produced such things faster.

Hmmm, maybe in his case it changed course. Need to check him for red shift.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#128358 Oct 7, 2012
So long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Speaking of majority I wonder if Mormon Mitt has his concession speech written?
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Democracy.
Majority rules.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#128359 Oct 7, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a lie.
Thanks for letting us know.

Here's how it goes:

This is a lie. No wait, that's not true.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128360 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.
Bet you'd change your tune if an atheist politician proclaimed that the bible was a fairy tale. Or would you support his right to use his power to undermine your religion?

A politician should not let his personal beliefs, beliefs that are not founded on anything but the bible, affect his behavior. It is even more ridiculous that he sits on the science committee. Now, it would be one thing if he had anything of substance with which to back up those claims, but he doesn't, and you and I both know it. If he had any legitimate evidence to back up his claims, I would have no problem with it. He is coming from the same place that all science deniers do - willful ignorance inspired by their religion and their need to believe in god.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#128361 Oct 7, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
How long will it be before the US becomes a basket case and the laughing stock of the world.
A little over 29 days?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128362 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone irrational would say the same thing you just did. They have their own.
Can't you see the logic? Evidently not.
Creationism is actually more logical. You were created by people that were created, and so on. Every device you use was created. There is nothing poofed into existence that you have seen. So, somewhere back in time, something created all of this somehow. Abiogenesis could even be a product of that creation process. Part of a process.
Just because a book recorded something wrong doesn't mean the basic process or beginning does not exist. You have several science books, with beaucoup evidence and logic that are wrong. But they seemed to be right when they were written. They may even be right, but wrong in interpretation.
Identify what you are railing against before railing.
Creationism absolutely is not the most rational choice. Following your logic, whereby we cannot believe that life has a non supernatural origin because we did not directly observe the start of the universe, or the beginning of life - then we also cannot believe in a god, because not only have we never directly observed him/her/it, we have zero evidence for anything supernatural ever occurring.

Why should we assume a supernatural mechanism for the universe and for life when we don't have even the slightest bit of solid evidence for the supernatural? This is not for lack of effort, people desperately search for a "sign" but none have been forthcoming.

Doesn't it make more sense to assume a naturalistic explanation, when naturalistic means are the only ones we have ever observed and have evidence for?

I know you will disagree, because you need to believe in god, for some reason.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128363 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Democracy.
Majority rules.
Actually, in a democracy, at least in theory, the majority is supposed to have a responsibility to the minority - one that includes not forcing the religion of the majority down everyone else's throats.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128364 Oct 7, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
So long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Speaking of majority I wonder if Mormon Mitt has his concession speech written?
<quoted text>
I hope it invokes the power of Joseph Smith and the glorious planet of Kobol.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#128365 Oct 7, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I hope it invokes the power of Joseph Smith and the glorious planet of Kobol.
No more strange than the book of Enoch , which this is based on.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#128366 Oct 7, 2012
Maroni be praised! Lol! Hey you gotta be a pervert to be a Mormon they teach God literally had sex with Mary. Joseph had to listen to that outside their home in Nazareth/Bethlehem depending on what gospel you are reading.

Maybe Mitt will talk about if Mary got hers? Lol!
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I hope it invokes the power of Joseph Smith and the glorious planet of Kobol.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#128367 Oct 7, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Maroni be praised! Lol! Hey you gotta be a pervert to be a Mormon they teach God literally had sex with Mary. Joseph had to listen to that outside their home in Nazareth/Bethlehem depending on what gospel you are reading.
Maybe Mitt will talk about if Mary got hers? Lol!
<quoted text>
Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth.

As the Church responded to this question posed by Fox News:

The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.[1]
This answer has a long history. In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:

Question 10: Do you believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, as described in Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35?
Answer: We believe that Jesus of Nazareth "was the only begotten of the Father." It is not stated in either text cited that he was "begotten of the Holy Ghost," and the contrary is described in Luke 1:35. It was the "power of the Highest" that overshadowed Mary, and Jesus was "the Son of the Highest." The Holy Ghost came upon her, she "conceived" under the influence of that divine Spirit, but Jesus is nowhere declared as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but as "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14; Hebrews 1:5.) Even the sectarian creeds do not fall into the error that beclouds the minds of some apostates, but say of Jesus that He is the Son of God, "conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," etc

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Concept...

Mormons are no different than other christian sects.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128368 Oct 7, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth.
As the Church responded to this question posed by Fox News:
The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.[1]
This answer has a long history. In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
Question 10: Do you believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, as described in Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35?
Answer: We believe that Jesus of Nazareth "was the only begotten of the Father." It is not stated in either text cited that he was "begotten of the Holy Ghost," and the contrary is described in Luke 1:35. It was the "power of the Highest" that overshadowed Mary, and Jesus was "the Son of the Highest." The Holy Ghost came upon her, she "conceived" under the influence of that divine Spirit, but Jesus is nowhere declared as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but as "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14; Hebrews 1:5.) Even the sectarian creeds do not fall into the error that beclouds the minds of some apostates, but say of Jesus that He is the Son of God, "conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," etc
http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Concept...
Mormons are no different than other christian sects.
Yeah, they're all equally out there.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#128369 Oct 7, 2012

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
Islam for peace, or violence? 13 min Uncle Sam 32
Our world came from nothing? 19 min Uncle Sam 1,036
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 7 hr Chiclets 22,987
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' 18 hr Thinking 90
Man center of the universe. 18 hr Thinking 87
Razer and Ben Affleck take on the atheists Oct 17 Thinking 6
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 16 Mikko 1,401

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE