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

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129314 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess he means that though evolution (ie; somehow or another) an entire species of, say bird, evolved into a different species of bird. All together, all of their genes mutating at the same time. Spontaneously. To attain a goal of a better existance....
That makes no damn sense at all.
Do they even know how ridiculous the sound?
Not sure if anyone ever said this. Possibly it was a creationist pamphlet creating a straw man.Science certainly does not make such a claim, nor needs to for evolution of birds.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. None of the differences between dinosaurs and birds needed to occur at once.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#129315 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Who created god?
Uncreated outside time and space.
Prove infinity does not exist?
In math if you have an infinite number of days past you never get to today.
Science does not claim the universe has no cause.
Agree
It just does not make up a cause like religion does.
It is neutral on God. Atheists assume no God and highjack science to validate their atheism. True science is neutral. Atheism assumes no God.
The Hawking's hypothesis says energy likely always existed. Thus energy could have caused the big bang.
That does not count for intelligence or life or design. It is lacking. Besides it assumes energy is infinite. If energy is infinite in reality what is it's source? Hawkins assume the universe created itself. In order for a thing to create itself, it would have to exist before it self created. It is a logical absurdity. The only sufficient cause for everything has to be God. It cannot be anything else. Any other explanation lacks sufficiency.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129316 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
uh-huh....
How are the plants aware enough to compete?
Would you guess that it's autonomic?
How could a plant understand that it's being eaten?
Why haven't plants that are perfect food "evolved" with toxins to prevent eing eaten? ie; potato, tomato, lettuce, basil, parsley, onion, etc,etc...
You've said before that evorution is brought on by necessity, adaptation. Are you now saying that a plant knows what's necessary for survival? A plant is cognisant?
The plant does not need to think. The mutations that occur on occasion that helps to prevent being eaten just keeps that kind of plant able to flourish. It flourishes when the old kind may die off to the point of extinction due to being eaten.
If no mutations occur that keeps the plant able to adapt to the environment, the species goes extinct with no line of its sort to continue.

99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth have gone extinct.

This fact is in perfect line with the theory.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129317 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
ummm.... So, not just one fish grew legs, an entire species did. All at once?
And whatever the palm tree came from, they all popped up at once?
And the eagles, they all came at once? As a SPECIES?
lol
Either your reasoning or your science is proving God more & more....
The fish that grew something like a leg had offspring that survived because they were able to escape a predator.
All the other fish in the original species didn't escape the predator , leaving the mutated fish as the only survivor.
It like saying the war killed everyone on the island , but a few had escaped and did because they were tall enough to walk through the water without drowning.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#129318 Oct 13, 2012
Mike D!

Whatup?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129319 Oct 13, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Uncreated outside time and space.
<quoted text> In math if you have an infinite number of days past you never get to today.
<quoted text> Agree <quoted text> It is neutral on God. Atheists assume no God and highjack science to validate their atheism. True science is neutral. Atheism assumes no God.
<quoted text> That does not count for intelligence or life or design. It is lacking. Besides it assumes energy is infinite. If energy is infinite in reality what is it's source? Hawkins assume the universe created itself. In order for a thing to create itself, it would have to exist before it self created. It is a logical absurdity. The only sufficient cause for everything has to be God. It cannot be anything else. Any other explanation lacks sufficiency.
"In math if you have an infinite number of days past you never get to today."

That is only saying you cannot count the whole sum of days.
But you can start counting from a point anywhere along the line of days and arrive to today.
Which is exactly what calenders , watches etc. do.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129320 Oct 13, 2012
Evolution is the change over time in the frequency of alleles in a *population*. The individual is not the population.
Populations (species) evolve. Individuals don't.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You have a strange perception of how things work. You are using a definition of evolution as the process. In your case it is a noun, not a verb.
The word "evolution" is *always* a noun. Did you notice that "-ion" ending?
Dave Nelson wrote:
The absolute reality is each individual within the species has to evolve to carry the genes forward to the current end product.
Nope. Individuals don't evolve. Species do.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#129321 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That would imply that they are aware. They're not.
.. plants are aware and some scientists think they can see, smell and feel ..

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129322 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why would the "natural" selection be interfered with when a human eating a tomato is in fact "natural" to begin with?
Because the phrase "natural selection" refers to selection that is not consciously done by humans.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"Those that have biological features that tend to prevent them from being eaten also tend to reproduce more than those that don't have those biological features."
That would imply that they are aware.
It implies no such thing. One can benefit from one's biological features without being aware of them.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"For plants such as potatoes, tomatoes, and others that have seeds, it *benefits* them to be eaten, because it tends to spread their seeds."
Spread their seeds? Through poop?
Or through partially eaten material being carried away from the plant. Or by being spat out by the animal. Or by being carried away for storage by animals but never consumed in their new location.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The digestive system of the animal eating the plant destroys the seeds.
Incorrect. Seeds can pass through the digestive system without being destroyed.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129323 Oct 13, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
"But once humans discovered these plants, and began to cultivate them for being nutritious and tasty and non-harmful, the *natural* selection of the plants was interfered with." What about humans using the same methodology in schools of thought in their societies and civilizations? Each a "culture". Would this then become interfering with natural selection?
The term "natural selection" has to do with biological evolution. So I have no idea what you are referring to when you try to apply it to "schools of thought".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129324 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I guess he means that though evolution (ie; somehow or another) an entire species of, say bird, evolved into a different species of bird. All together, all of their genes mutating at the same time.
Nope.

It doesn't mean that all of the genes mutate at the same time. A mutation can appear in one individual, and if favorable then spread throughout the entire population over time (a number of generations).

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#129325 Oct 13, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. plants are aware and some scientists think they can see, smell and feel ..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129326 Oct 13, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Uncreated outside time and space.
<quoted text> In math if you have an infinite number of days past you never get to today.
<quoted text> Agree <quoted text> It is neutral on God. Atheists assume no God and highjack science to validate their atheism. True science is neutral. Atheism assumes no God.
<quoted text> That does not count for intelligence or life or design. It is lacking. Besides it assumes energy is infinite. If energy is infinite in reality what is it's source? Hawkins assume the universe created itself. In order for a thing to create itself, it would have to exist before it self created. It is a logical absurdity. The only sufficient cause for everything has to be God. It cannot be anything else. Any other explanation lacks sufficiency.
A logical absurdity? You may have to prove that in mathematical terms to the greatest mind on the planet on that subject(Hawking).
From what I understand, Hawking says the source is the pressure from the vacuum in space.

You say," In order for a thing to create itself, it would have to exist before it self created."

Energy is not the universe, so your claim does not apply. Energy was used in the creation. Natural laws such as gravity are the forces which move the energy to become the big bang.

Why you skip to from the creation of the universe to the beginning of life, I do not know.
If the universe was caused by natural forces, why could not life also be caused by natural forces?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129327 Oct 13, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
Mike D!
Whatup?
How is it going? I have been on the political debate thread.
Someone on there just told me, non believers are superstitious for being non believers.
I await him to explain that one.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#129328 Oct 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Evolution is the change over time in the frequency of alleles in a *population*. The individual is not the population.
Populations (species) evolve. Individuals don't.
<quoted text>
The word "evolution" is *always* a noun. Did you notice that "-ion" ending?
<quoted text>
Nope. Individuals don't evolve. Species do.
A species is a collection of individuals.

"1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evo...

Note the reference to process. Which in biological evolution is through the individuals. The way you are defining it is a magical poof between start and end process. Those genes got there somehow, Bubba. Unless Darwin sprinkled magic pixie dust. BTW, he thought evolution could be a process of a higher intelligence.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129329 Oct 13, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
A species is a collection of individuals.
"1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evo...
Note the reference to process. Which in biological evolution is through the individuals. The way you are defining it is a magical poof between start and end process. Those genes got there somehow, Bubba. Unless Darwin sprinkled magic pixie dust. BTW, he thought evolution could be a process of a higher intelligence.
Darwin was just the first to formally introduce the theory of evolution. If he thought it was gods way, that does not mean it was gods way.
Even if it is actually a god causing evolution, it does not mean evolution does not happen. We know animals and plants evolve.
So the main dispute is how it happens.

If you could show a god causes evolution, you will be rewarded the Nobel prize and be the most famous person on the planet.
If you could show with evidence god even existed you would be famous.
If you could show a god did a single thing ever, you would be famous.

If you wish to believe evolution is caused by god, fine, but just do not expect to call it science.

But it looks as if you deny evolution even happens.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129330 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Who created god?
Prove infinity does not exist?
Science does not claim the universe has no cause. It just does not make up a cause like religion does.
The Hawking's hypothesis says energy likely always existed. Thus energy could have caused the big bang.
hehehe You don't see the hypocracy in what you just posted?!

"Science...does not make up a cause like religion does."

"energy could have caused the big bang"

LMAO!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#129331 Oct 13, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So when your god commanded the Isrealites to slaughter and rape, that was not justified?
To allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction). Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise. If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later. Just like the children in Noah's time when God destroyed all but eight these children would of grown up to be as there parents, because evil was the norm, so that meant these children didn't have a chance so it was better for the children to die and go to heaven thsn grow up and go to hell, don't you agree?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129332 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure if anyone ever said this. Possibly it was a creationist pamphlet creating a straw man.Science certainly does not make such a claim, nor needs to for evolution of birds.
Birds evolved from dinosaurs. None of the differences between dinosaurs and birds needed to occur at once.
BUT!! The self-proclaimed smart people here say that "a species evolves, not an individual".....

A species "evolving" to a better suited species is impossible. ONE individual wolud havebto start the chain reaction...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129333 Oct 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
It doesn't mean that all of the genes mutate at the same time. A mutation can appear in one individual, and if favorable then spread throughout the entire population over time (a number of generations).
Then go talk to Hiding. Shevseems to think that a species evolves, not an individual...

And she claims to be a teacher (and a PhD student at the same time).

Y'all can't seem to get your stories straight....

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 16 min love_spell 22,997
Our world came from nothing? 39 min Larry 1,059
Islam for peace, or violence? 3 hr JIN 51
Man center of the universe. 4 hr hpcaban 88
Does Being 'Spiritual But Not Religious' Really... 5 hr hpcaban 4
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr Pahu 1,402
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' Mon Thinking 90

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE