Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Catcher1]

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.

[Dave Nelson]

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.

[Givemeliberty]

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.

[River Tam]

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.

[timn17]

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.

[River Tam]

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?

[timn17]

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.

[timn17]

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.

[timn17]

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.

[Aura Mytha]

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.

[Givemeliberty]

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.

[Aura Mytha]

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.

[timn17]

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.

[Givemeliberty]

Some interesting links and I even have some videos by former Mormon head preachers on the subject.

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon385.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

http://www.bible.ca/mor-god-had-sex-with-mary...

http://www.mrm.org/virgin-birth

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/cults/mormon...

[River Tam]

Givemeliberty wrote:

I even have some videos by former Mormon head preachers on the subject.

Former Mormon head preachers.

That's not a title I would walk to with open arms.

[Givemeliberty]

The one guy on the atheist experiance was in the inaugural class at BYU and was considered a superstar on the Mormon world.

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>
Former Mormon head preachers.
That's not a title I would walk to with open arms.

[Hidingfromyou]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

None of my atheist friends talk about deities. They think it's stupid that I come on here to bother with ignorant, uninformed people who despise the wonderful variety of human cultural expression and belief like yourself.

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen to your friends.

No kidding. My friends mean the religious here, btw.

[Hidingfromyou]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>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?

Gate Keeper is a troll. Same poster as Sir Doc 1-1000, Martina Naratilova and various other takes on Happy Lesbo.

He's a miserable wretch who hates life so much, he comes on here to share his misery. His deep and abiding concerns are about how pedophilia shaped his life - I keep telling him, it wasn't his fault.

Sad, sad person.

[Hidingfromyou]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>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.

Can we replace those words with "white trash" or "white ghost" instead?

[River Tam]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Gate Keeper is a troll. Same poster as Sir Doc 1-1000, Martina Naratilova and various other takes on Happy Lesbo.
He's a miserable wretch who hates life so much, he comes on here to share his misery. His deep and abiding concerns are about how pedophilia shaped his life - I keep telling him, it wasn't his fault.
Sad, sad person.

He's my wittle boi and I'm very pwoud of him. When he was neutered, he stopped whining after 4 weeks. He stopped licking after 12 weeks. He stopped trying to hump the neighbor's Bull Mastiff after the third attempt and 77 stitches.

Hims my wittle boi.