Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Serah]

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>
No, ever heard of Stephen Hawking?

Ever looked at the debate between Francis Collins and Richard Hawking?

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4047

***Since Francis Collins has now been selected by Obama to head the NIH, we thought readers might be interested to read this debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins from November 2006.- Josh

a little extract...

***DAWKINS: Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. However, what Dr. Collins has just been--may I call you Francis?

COLLINS: Oh, please, Richard, do so.

DAWKINS: What Francis was just saying about Genesis was, of course, a little private quarrel between him and his Fundamentalist colleagues ...

COLLINS: It's not so private. It's rather public.[Laughs.]

DAWKINS:... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?

COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.

TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?

COLLINS: If you're willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there's nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? And if you accept the idea that Christ was also divine, which I do, then his Resurrection is not in itself a great logical leap.

TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?

COLLINS: Not at all. If you are in the camp I am, one place where science and faith could touch each other is in the investigation of supposedly miraculous events.

DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.****

Yep, in answer to your question, I have heard of Stephen Hawking

[Richardfs]

Serah wrote:

<quoted text>Getting any benefits of scientists?
Cola Component - May damages DNA - Cervical Spondylosis
www.cervical-spondylosis.com/cola.htm - United States
Research shows that E211 can switch off vital parts of DNA, causing serious damage to cells. Laboratory tests suggest this could even result in degenerative ...
Light Switcher: E211 additive switches off parts of DNA
lightswitcher.blogspot.com/.../e211-additive-... ...
28 May 2007 – E211 additive switches off parts of DNA. This weekend The Independent newspaper reported on a recent soft drinks research, which reveal...
**********

The next time you become ill make certain you ask for medicine produced by the use of creation science.

[Serah]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
But Serah is not dishonest.
Her ignorance is such, that she is unable to think for herself.
It will sound cruel, I know, but I wonder how she can even take care of her daily needs without assistance.

Insults and rudeness to cover your lack of knowledge? Too bad, it shows your intelligence level right off the mark, and not having met you before, I can wonder how you know I am not dishonest? I might be the biggest flipping liar alive for all you know!!

Your ignorance is astounding

[Serah]

I love Hawking's excellent statement here;

" Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. "

Funny how people have so much faith in one who has no faith in his own belief!

They may or may not solve it!! BRILLIANT deduction

[Subduction Zone]

Martina Navratilover wrote:

<quoted text>I am quite totally awesome,thank you much. Clearly. You were told "god didn't do it" and that's as far as you got. You've accepted a fiction, intellectual laziness and built your entire understanding of the world on science fiction.
Totally worthless.

You have to love how Martina calls everyone who disagrees with her a follower of science fiction and yet she never links to science based sites.

Hmm, I wonder how she spells hypocrite?

[Richardfs]

Serah wrote:

<quoted text>Ever looked at the debate between Francis Collins and Richard Hawking?
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4047
***Since Francis Collins has now been selected by Obama to head the NIH, we thought readers might be interested to read this debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins from November 2006.- Josh
a little extract...
***DAWKINS: Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. However, what Dr. Collins has just been--may I call you Francis?
COLLINS: Oh, please, Richard, do so.
DAWKINS: What Francis was just saying about Genesis was, of course, a little private quarrel between him and his Fundamentalist colleagues ...
COLLINS: It's not so private. It's rather public.[Laughs.]
DAWKINS:... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?
COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.
TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?
COLLINS: If you're willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there's nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? And if you accept the idea that Christ was also divine, which I do, then his Resurrection is not in itself a great logical leap.
TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?
COLLINS: Not at all. If you are in the camp I am, one place where science and faith could touch each other is in the investigation of supposedly miraculous events.
DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.
COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.****
Yep, in answer to your question, I have heard of Stephen Hawking

What has that got to do with Stephen Hawking and who is Richard Hawking?

[Tide with Beach]

Serah wrote:

<quoted text>Ever looked at the debate between Francis Collins and Richard Hawking?

(edited for space, conversation between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins, not Stephen Hawking)

Yep, in answer to your question, I have heard of Stephen Hawking

Have you really ever heard of Stephen Hawking?

Derp.

[Hidingfromyou]

Serah wrote:

<quoted text>Tell these Scientists they don't exist lol.... what a crack up this forum is!!
*** http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scie...

Wow, I'm stunned at their idiocy. They're a discredit to the research institution that produced them.

But thanks for showing me that list.

Let me modify my statement to "No research scientist could be a creationist."

[Hidingfromyou]

Serah wrote:

I love Hawking's excellent statement here;
" Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. "
Funny how people have so much faith in one who has no faith in his own belief!
They may or may not solve it!! BRILLIANT deduction

Dawkins - his name is Dawkins.

The thing is, people who've adopted your views will never solve it. You've decided the three words of intellectual laziness are good enough.

[Hidingfromyou]

Serah wrote:

<quoted text>in your eyes, but in my eyes, your statements are totally worthless... and very very lazy indeed

My lack of your "god did it" produces new knowledge and technology.

[Serah]

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>
The next time you become ill make certain you ask for medicine produced by the use of creation science.

My Dr and I have an agreement - I don't have tests because regardless of the result, I wouldn't have the treatment for cancer if in fact, that is what the result required. I do not have anti flu injections and do my darndest to eat the natural foods that are available. I am not saying that science is not worthy, as such, I am just saying they have caused us a lot of harm over the decades, and also could not tell you how many times they have changed their minds.
They have been known to lie about test results so that they can get their drugs approved.....
***Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2... ***
Have you read up on the history of diabetes in America? Amazing doncathink?

[Serah]

***Food is not considered junk just because of high fat or sugar content, there is a long list of poisonous chemicals used by the food industry that are striking people down. And there are many serious nutritional deficiencies in today's food that diminish the body's capacity to deal safely with these chemicals and heavy metals -- with magnesium and selenium deficiencies at the top of the list.
For instance, according to Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, a researcher from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, the poultry industry's practice of using arsenic compounds in its feed is something that has not been studied: "It's an issue everybody is trying to pretend doesn't exist." Arsenic exposure is a risk factor for diabetes mellitus. Inorganic arsenic is considered one of the prominent environmental causes of cancer mortality in the world. Chicken consumption may contribute significant amounts of arsenic to total arsenic exposure of the U.S. population according to the Journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

"Arsenic acts as a growth stimulant in chickens -- develops the meat faster -- and since then, the poultry industry has gone wild using this ingredient," says Donald Herman, a Mississippi agricultural consultant and former Environmental Protection Agency researcher who has studied this use of arsenic for a decade.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/023701_diabetes_fo...

[Catcher1]

Serah wrote:

<quoted text>Insults and rudeness to cover your lack of knowledge? Too bad, it shows your intelligence level right off the mark, and not having met you before, I can wonder how you know I am not dishonest? I might be the biggest flipping liar alive for all you know!!
Your ignorance is astounding

Serah, have you been to Paris?

[Hidingfromyou]

Serah wrote:

<quoted text>Seen the size of the list of scientists who believe in Creation?
Oh wait, you might not know what Creationist means...
***cre·a·tion·ism
&#8194; &#8194;[kree-ey-shuh-niz-u hm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
3.
the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creati... ****
You calling all of them dishonest? What about Francis Collins; calling him dishonest too? LOL......

Francis Collins is not a Creationist in that he believes in a 6000 year old planet and Adam and Eve. He doesn't - for him, these are myths.

Collins wrote that people who do not believe in evolution are not educated.

So, no, Collins is not dishonest. He's honest in his faith, but he doesn't analyze his faith in the same manner that he does his science. That's fine, it's not a problem. Science is a tool to be used by anyone, since it is designed to remove human bias.

I apologize. I was using "Creationist" to mean one who adopted the young earth creationism, where the world is 6000 years old, Noah's Flood happened and Adam and Eve were created out of mud by God. All those are myths, they're not real and Collins does not believe in them. He does believe in the resurrection of Christ, though.

[Serah]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you really ever heard of Stephen Hawking?
Derp.

Of course I have.... he is hard to miss!!

***A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.

In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15... ***

Why would we have to believe someone who could not possibly know many of the things he states? Probably because he mirrors others beliefs and they cling to it.....

[Tide with Beach]

Serah wrote:

I love Hawking's excellent statement here;
" Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. "
Funny how people have so much faith in one who has no faith in his own belief!
They may or may not solve it!! BRILLIANT deduction

First, that was Richard Dawkins you're quoting.

Secondly, atheists do not have "faith". If at any time an atheist were to use the word "faith" or "belief" concerning themselves, invariably, the words "trust" or "think" would be more appropriate.

Your last comment is simply embarrassing.

[Atheist Silurist]

Martina Navratilover wrote:

<quoted text>I am quite totally awesome,thank you much. Clearly. You were told "god didn't do it" and that's as far as you got. You've accepted a fiction, intellectual laziness and built your entire understanding of the world on science fiction.
Totally worthless.

The religious mindset is to reject anything the is seen to conflict with their preferred book of myths and fables. No amount of evidence will convince them something they don't want to believe. There is a name for this kind of thinking, it's called wilful ignorance or religious faith.
There is mountains of evidence the earth is billions of years old,but there are millions of people that believe the retarded notion that it is less than 10 thousand years old. What can be causing this kind of disjointed thinking? it seems to come exclusively from the religiously afflicted.

[Serah]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, I'm stunned at their idiocy. They're a discredit to the research institution that produced them.
But thanks for showing me that list.
Let me modify my statement to "No research scientist could be a creationist."

LOL..... you are stating that Francis Collins, the scientist who cracked the DNA code as such, is not real? Does not exist? My, my, you might need to modify your statement again LOL

[Hidingfromyou]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
But Serah is not dishonest.
Her ignorance is such, that she is unable to think for herself.
It will sound cruel, I know, but I wonder how she can even take care of her daily needs without assistance.

I disagree. She is dishonest in that she makes insane claims about evolution and biological science. She is misrepresenting her knowledge of both while insisting that she can authoritatively speak about biological science.

That's dishonest.

[Serah]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Serah, have you been to Paris?

No, I haven't