Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Hidingfromyou]

Gate Keeper 1 wrote:

<quoted text>Just

Well, we know you're not from the United Church. That likely rules out Presbyterian, too.

You're so totally not Quaker. And you're very likely not Southern Baptist.

Are you, by chance, a grotesquely thin female white Calvinist?

[Hidingfromyou]

Gate Keeper 1 wrote:

<quoted text>Ypu

You're pooh!

No, you're pooh!

No, y'pu! Y'pu, right, pooh-guy! pu'guy! pugu!

Just to follow up on my last comment - what are your thoughts on... theater? Cards? Dancing?

Ah, just what I thought. Calvinist.

[Hidingfromyou]

Givemeliberty wrote:

And Zeus is the God of all gods.
<quoted text>

NO! You heretic! Odin is the Father of the Gods!

[Double Fine]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you indoctrinated to like gays?

Nope.

We don't have a bias againts people based on their race, their religion, or who they choose to go to bed with at night

[Richardfs]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, switch socks again for us, ok?

Yer, that one is really stinking the place up and needs to go in the wash.

[Givemeliberty]

Infidel! Odin was a homeless wizard always walking here and there looking like Gandalf! Where Zeus rules mount Olympus to this very day.

Zeus bested Kronos himself and locked him forever in Tartarus! Just say no the the walking with wolf Odin and join Zeus on mount Olympus.

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
NO! You heretic! Odin is the Father of the Gods!

[Hidingfromyou]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Infidel! Odin was a homeless wizard always walking here and there looking like Gandalf! Where Zeus rules mount Olympus to this very day.
Zeus bested Kronos himself and locked him forever in Tartarus! Just say no the the walking with wolf Odin and join Zeus on mount Olympus.
<quoted text>

You might be right about that. Hey, look! Sunset!

Die heretic!!!

<pulls out knife>

[Hidingfromyou]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope.
We don't have a bias againts people based on their race, their religion, or who they choose to go to bed with at night

even if that person is (put name of person here)

:)

[polymath257]

Gate Keeper 1 wrote:

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) spelled out five proofs from reason for the existence of God. Briefly summarized, they are:
1.Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
2.Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
3.Necessity or contingency.This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
4.Perfection.When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
5.Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologe...

And Kant showed how all were faulty.

#1 assumes Aristotelian physics, which we know is incorrect.

#2 is based on causality, which we know fails at the quantum level. It also assumes that the process cannot go on to infinity. And, finally, it only shows that there are uncaused causes, not that there is a first cause (there could, for example, be many uncaused causes).

#3 is based on the flawed philosophy of necessary and contingent existence. Again, an Aristotelian viewpoint which is known to be wrong.

#4 assumes that any comparison is against a standard. This is also false. For example, we can compare the size of numbers without there being a largest number. It also assumes the idea of 'perfection' is well defined, which it isn't.

#5 is based on the idea that complexity must be produced by an intelligence, which we again know is incorrect.

Sorry, but your medieval 'proofs' simply don't hold the water you want to carry.

[polymath257]

Gate Keeper 1 wrote:

<quoted text>One argument against evolution and the complexity of so-called evolved humans is found in a simple grain of rice. Of particular interest is that the rice genome may be far more complex than previously thought and that the rice genome contains between 42,000 and 63,000 genes whereas the human genome is estimated to contain between a mere 23,000 genes.
Evolutionist frequently try to measure how advanced and superior a species is by its complexity and, implicitly, by the size of its genome, new research indicates that rice is a more advanced, and perhaps even a superior, species than humanity?
Or is it simply the case that superiority is not a matter of complexity nor of the relative size of the species' genome? In fact, when we study of grain of rice, we discover that unless the evolutionist claim that the rice evolved from humans, there is a major flaw. So, evolutionist are forced to either abandon their lie, or say that evolution is not a matter of complexity which is a domino to all of evolution.

You make some assumptions which are false:

1. That evolution necessarily leads to more complexity. Depending on the environment, it may produce simplicity.

2. That superiority is a relevant concept in biology. Evolution is about survivability in an environment.

3. That comparing complexity, especially on widely divergent developmental lines, says anything at all.

Yes, pants are complex living things. In many ways they are more complex than animals. But if you want to see some *real* complexity, look at fungi.

Perhaps you should give up your feelings of 'superiority' and actually look at the world around you. Yes, we know your religion builds up that feeling, and makes you feel *so special*, but it is a lie.

[polymath257]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> yes.
<quoted text> Never claimed authority. You have to be trained to understand abiogenesis? Only those trained? Isn't that like a cult? A secret society?

No, it is not a secret society. The training is widely and publicly available. No oaths of secrecy are required to learn it. You simply have to do the background work.

And yes, to understand technical material requires training. In the case of abiogenesis, a strong training in biochemistry is clearly required, but also geology (to know about the conditions on the early earth), some astrophysics (to know the chemicals available), and a good deal of regular biology (to know the systems as they exist now and probably existed in the past). If you don't have that training, you cannot talk sensibly about the topic.

You on the other hand speak on the Bible and when i asked you to read Exodus 1 you replied to post it and you will. Does that mean you do not even own a Bible? Does that mean you have no training on the Bible? Not one Theology class? My beliefs also speaks about hypocrisy. If i am dishonest it has nothing to do with rejection of abiogenesis or self created universe. One can reject these propositions on logic alone.

Theology starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct and that a deity exists. Every different sect has a different theology. That alone shows it isn't an area of knowledge, but is, instead, a matter of opinion and desire.

Yes, read the Bible, please. But as you do so, put it into the historical and archaeological context. Compare it to the other texts of that time and area. For that matter, compare it to other texts from other cultures. If you do so, you will realize it is the writings of a self-absorbed culture (most are) amidst greater cultures which it didn't understand and trying to match its superstition with the realities of the day. This is hardly unique.

[Imhotep]

Todays problems
Yes my slaves, prayers are delayed.

I am busy, Mohammad was having a emotional affair with Jesus. He is jealous of the recently discovered hidden wife.

And there are rumors circulating Joey Greco's 'Cheaters' is featuring this woman. Slaves have no shame.

Satan is booked solid handling Bishop Willard

I am pleased at his progress.
Alas. Satan is my only 'creation' success.
He has requested Kolob, as a perk.

Really, what is a god to do?

My slaves are rioting, my dilithium crystals have been depleted,

I desperately want another flood but can only afford Global warming.

Is it any mystery my name spelled backwards is Dog?

Mom could have done better!
'Sue' would be good.

Omg (dad) this one really makes me mad.

Which one of us do they mean?

I am the youngest, maybe Mohammad but he smells funny and I've repeatedly warned him about the odor of BBQ on his robes.

My problems are many my faithful slaves

Virtually everything I create... Dies!

Zeus is always teasing me, says I need 'The Force' and a more robust training schedule.
Other gods also torment me daily about this.

What do they think, I'm made of savoiurs?

You should see the road apples Pegasus drops <omg>

My Martyrs are busy with their virgins, the virgins have petitioned Aphrodite for a union.

It is chaos here my slaves :(

Toilets are backed up, waiting on Joe the Plummer.

Due to finances planned raptures must be suspended indefinitely.

I had to send the ghost to calm my youthful son down, since his 1st massacre, he has been anxious to return.

[G_O_D]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
NO! You heretic! Odin is the Father of the Gods!

It's Wodan you Scandinavian Heretic!

[Dave Nelson]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it is not a secret society. The training is widely and publicly available. No oaths of secrecy are required to learn it. You simply have to do the background work.
And yes, to understand technical material requires training. In the case of abiogenesis, a strong training in biochemistry is clearly required, but also geology (to know about the conditions on the early earth), some astrophysics (to know the chemicals available), and a good deal of regular biology (to know the systems as they exist now and probably existed in the past). If you don't have that training, you cannot talk sensibly about the topic.
<quoted text>
Theology starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct and that a deity exists. Every different sect has a different theology. That alone shows it isn't an area of knowledge, but is, instead, a matter of opinion and desire.
Yes, read the Bible, please. But as you do so, put it into the historical and archaeological context. Compare it to the other texts of that time and area. For that matter, compare it to other texts from other cultures. If you do so, you will realize it is the writings of a self-absorbed culture (most are) amidst greater cultures which it didn't understand and trying to match its superstition with the realities of the day. This is hardly unique.

Modern science you are referring to is a logic and definitions you are trained to follow and think in. It is not a "natural" progression of thought and logic. They churn thousands of these robots out every years.

Do not confuse that with intelligence and the ability to think in the abstract other than the level necessary for progressing through that system.

It is a "school" of thought.

The limitations of this school is the kneejerk reaction to anything proposed that does not follow the script, as opposed to considering such things. Just like any religion can. Both religion and science get modified over time.

[G_O_D]

So you are recommending the "hallicinate and babble" approach to reality, right ?

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Modern science you are referring to is a logic and definitions you are trained to follow and think in. It is not a "natural" progression of thought and logic. They churn thousands of these robots out every years.
Do not confuse that with intelligence and the ability to think in the abstract other than the level necessary for progressing through that system.
It is a "school" of thought.
The limitations of this school is the kneejerk reaction to anything proposed that does not follow the script, as opposed to considering such things. Just like any religion can. Both religion and science get modified over time.

[Drew Smith]

Eagle12 wrote:

At the same time the work place is not a platform for them to market their lifestyle. In fact they need to keep their lifestyle personal. I don’t want to know if someone is gay. It’s none of my business to start with.

So, to be completely fair, you're saying that straight people should never talk about their girlfriends/boyfriends or their wives/husbands, so that we won't know that they are straight.

Right?

[Hidingfromyou]

G_O_D wrote:

<quoted text>
It's Wodan you Scandinavian Heretic!

Ack! Mother, I am slain!

[Hidingfromyou]

G_O_D wrote:

So you are recommending the "hallicinate and babble" approach to reality, right ?
<quoted text>

Well, you summed up Dave in a sentence.

[-Skeptic-]

Gate Keeper 1 wrote:

<quoted text>I love it, Hiding is getting busted from all sides. <split>

Another hallucination from the god liars.

[-Skeptic-]

Gate Keeper 1 wrote:

<quoted text>Forever your mind is worth, not much, pnats are not complex things. If you want to argue simplicity as a motion in a time continum from past to future, then you refute evolution. The question is not whether simplicity exists within complex continums, but how it effects your evolution myth theory.
One argument against evolution and the complexity of so-called evolved humans is found in a simple grain of rice. Of particular interest is that the rice genome may be far more complex than previously thought and that the rice genome contains between 42,000 and 63,000 genes whereas the human genome is estimated to contain between a mere 23,000 genes.
Evolutionist frequently try to measure how advanced and superior a species is by its complexity and, implicitly, by the size of its genome, new research indicates that rice is a more advanced, and perhaps even a superior, species than humanity?
Or is it simply the case that superiority is not a matter of complexity nor of the relative size of the species' genome? In fact, when we study of grain of rice, we discover that unless the evolutionist claim that the rice evolved from humans, there is a major flaw. So, evolutionist are forced to either abandon their lie, or say that evolution is not a matter of complexity which is a domino to all of evolution.
I will be discussing, singularity, Black holes, quantum graavity and how Einstein's theory of relativity breaks down and how 1/0 is infinity and destroys physics when gravity no longer functions in the Black Hole and therefore puts the Big Bang or expansion of the universe theory into a quantum upheaval. By the way, scientists have never observed or seen a black hole.

People that doubt Evolution are idiots. This is proven fact.