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
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#137779 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít think the majority of scientist are involved in some kind of mass conspiracy. Understanding that there are many disciplines of science. Only a very small percentage are evolutionist. These evolutionist truly believe in their discipline.
However, there is a hell of a lot of speculation and imagination in this field. Great spans are missing in their theory. It is and remains a science of the imagination. Full of artist conceptions to convince students and the public that it indeed happened.
Itís an interesting theory. But it lacks any real substance. I have looked at the fossil record. Itís pretty damn scarce for human evolution. A single bone from six million years ago. Another millions later. Here a bone and there a bone. O McDonald had a farm E I - EI - Oooo.
Doctor, Iím going to have to remain a sinner when it comes to macro evolution. I just canít come down to the alter over a speculation based theory.
In 2009 there were 135,000 articles published in peer review and scientific journal supporting evolution. Guess how many were published refuting the FACTs of evolution......yep, ZERO, why is that do you suppose? If the TOE is so chalked full of speculation rather than hard cold facts, why has no one published anything pointing out these alleged flaws? Maybe you could publish something. Is there any reason why you couldn't have something published in a reputable scientific journal? If you feel so strong about how wrong the TOE is, and seem to know without doubt, then do the world a favor and publish something so we can all know how flawed the Theory is. Of course you just might have to demonstrate some knowledge on the subject, maybe make the publisher aware of your credentials as an expert on the subject. I'll be waiting for your article, I can't wait to hear how 135,000 experts on the subject are totally wrong, and you are right. Good Luck.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137780 Nov 14, 2012
Ban Stalkers wrote:
<quoted text>THIS IS THE DEAL FOLKS, THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO LIVES AND ARE LOSERS. SO, THEY TRY TO GET INTO PEOPLE'S LIVES SO THEY CAN ATTACH THEMSELVES TO A LIFE. YES, LEACHES, BLOOD SUCKING FOR LIFE.
I fink sumbody's pwojectinnnng :( Poor baby, it's ok.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137781 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave is yours. Dave is so yours.
Damn! Jedi mind trick again!
Yes! It never fails. You can have sloppy seconds :)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137782 Nov 14, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, here's a tough one for you: Dave or Eagle?
Easy - Dave. He is an obstinate jerk, but all his batshit lunacy is charming, in a crazy old person kind of way. Eagle just doesn't have that certain something.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137783 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we use duct tape?
If so, then Eagle, no contest.
If not, then Eagle, no contest.
But it's better with duct tape (apologies to Eagle).
Pshhh

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#137784 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Recently a senior NASA scientist involved in Mars exploration was fired because he came out and said he didnít believe in macro evolution. He as a case pending in court.
David Coppedge was not a senior scientist at NASA but a computer specialist who worked on the Casini mission to explore Saturn. It is quite possible to advance in IT without understanding science in a larger sense, which is why the term "computer scientist" is a misnomer more often than not. NASA attorneys argued that Coppedge was "a stubborn and disconnected employee who decided not to heed warnings to get additional training, even when it became clear the Cassini mission would be downsized and computer specialist positions eliminated," not because of his view, and Superior Court Judge Ernest Hiroshige agreed in a tentative ruling earlier this month.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#137785 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh.. Here's one of many tests that show prayer DOES work:
"1. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"
Methods
Cardiac patients from the San Francisco General Medical Center were randomly divided (using a computer-generated list) into two groups. The names of the patients in the "test" group were given to a group of Christians, who prayed for them while they were in the hospital. The intercessory prayer team members were chosen on the following basis:
Born again Christians on the basis of John 3:35
Led an active Christian life on the basis of
daily devotional prayer
fellowship in a local Christian church
The "placebo" group received no prayer. Neither the "test" nor the "placebo" group of patients knew if they were receiving prayer. Likewise, the hospital staff, doctors, or nurses were "blinded" since they did not know which patient belonged to which group.
Results
Statistics were acquired from the prayer and placebo groups both before and after prayer, until the patients were discharged from the hospital. There were no statistical differences between the placebo and the prayer groups before prayer was initiated. The results demonstrated that patients who were prayed for suffered "less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated." Statistics demonstrated the the prayer group had a statistically significantly lower severity score based upon the hospital course after entry (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis of all the parameters measured demonstrated that the outcomes of the two groups were even more statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In science, the standard level of significance is when a "p value" is less than 0.05. A value of 0.01 means that the likelihood the result is because of chance is one in 100. A p value of 0.0001 indicates that in only one study out of 10,000 is the result likely to be due to chance. Table 2 from the study is reproduced below. The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001). The author points out that the method used in this study does not produce the maximum effect of prayer, since the study could not control for the effect of outside prayer (i.e., it is likely many of the placebo group were prayed for by persons outside of the study). It is likely that a study which used only atheists (who had no Christian family or friends) would produce an even more dramatic result. However, since atheists make up only 1-2% of the population, it would be difficult to obtain a large enough sample size."
www.godandscience.org/.../pra ...
The basic problem with this study is that similar studies have shown contrary results, so that it fails a basic test of good science: repeatability.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#137786 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote: And Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion. They are different.
Similar, yes. But still different. There's a lot if beliefs & traditions that Catholics do that Christians don't.

scaritual wrote: You mean Judaism?

LULZ>...
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you f_cking brick. I said Christianity..........
I know it's hard for you to comprehend. No need to get angry.

You mentioned: "Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion"

Just what "ancient religion" were you talking about?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#137787 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion. They are different.
Similar, yes. But still different. There's a lot if beliefs & traditions that Catholics do that Christians don't.
The problem with your posts is not your concept, but your terminology. You use the word 'Christians' to denote members of both the whole of Christendom and a subset of it. I would suggest using an adjective to make your meaning clear, i.e.,'fundamentalist Christians' or 'vangelistic Christians' or even 'Biblical Christians' to indicate the subset rather than just 'Christians.' Isn't it worth the effort of typing a few more letters for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion and the appearance of contradicting yourself?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#137788 Nov 14, 2012
booooots wrote:
<quoted text>Don't worry,some girls develop late. Maybe, when you turn 16 you fill out.
Daaaa! You promised not to tell!!!

River...are they...are they getting bigger?

sayyes sayyes sayyes!

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#137789 Nov 14, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Pshhh
What can I say? The Jedi mind trick you used was overwhelming.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#137790 Nov 14, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic problem with this study is that similar studies have shown contrary results, so that it fails a basic test of good science: repeatability.
I'm not sure what Riverside is talking about, but when I searched his key terms, this is what I came up with:

"Intercessory Prayer and Cardiovascular Disease Progression in a
Coronary Care Unit Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial"

"Conclusions: As delivered in this study, intercessory
prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after
hospitalization in a coronary care unit."

http://buckcash.com/opinions/iconspicsetc/May...

That's from the Mayo Clinic, about the most respectable medical research clinic around.

I found this study that, at first glance backs up RR, but if you read anything to do with the study, it's a complex joke that aims to make fun of people like RR. Here, their stated goal:

"To determine whether remote, retroactive intercessory prayer, said for a group of patients with a bloodstream infection, has an effect on outcomes."

That means "we want to see if prayer after someone has been healed and released is effective." So...they didn't pray for people not healed! hahaha

It goes on:

"Remote intercessory prayer said for a group of patients is associated with a shorter hospital stay and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection, even when the intervention is performed 4-10 years after the infection"

Isn't that awesome! So the next time you get sick, if you get better, remember to pray for yourself 4-10 years after the event. It will help the past.

But there's more:

"Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was associated with a shorter stay in hospital and a shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection. Mortality was lower in the intervention group, but the difference between the groups was not significant. A larger study might have shown a significant reduction in mortality."

meaning they invalidated their findings! The best is their references:

"Borges JL. Labyrinths. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1970. A new refutation of time."

I laughed and laughed.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#137791 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know all the facts Hiding.
Here we have a established scientist that has advanced to the top.
Leading a team of other scientist.
He worked for NASA 15 years. This wasnít a probationary employee.
But he wasn't an established scientist, he was a computer specialist. Leading a team in IT is hardly indicative of a rise to the top. those 15 years were actually part of the problem. The Casini mission is beginning to wind down, resulting in downsizing. Only those who had kept their skills sharp would be attractive to the managers of other projects. Not having done so, Coppedge was at risk for layoff anyway. The same goes for his apparent inability to work smoothly with others as part of a team.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#137792 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, you f_cking brick. I said Christianity..........
scaritual wrote:
scaritual wrote: You mean Judaism?
LULZ>...
<quoted text> I know it's hard for you to comprehend. No need to get angry.
You mentioned: "Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion"
Just what "ancient religion" were you talking about?
He probably meant Judaism. It's pretty unlikely he meant Sumerian mythos, though it's possible, since he uses the word "ancient."

:)
:p
:)

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#137793 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Eagle...why does the Chromosome fusion have to be gradual according to evolutionary theory?
On the contrary, the fusion itself could only happen in one go. After that, evolution gradually changed it to what it is today (some mutations on the teleomeres, some rearranging of DNA).
If you know anything about meiosis, you can understand why the fusion had to happen in one event. If you don't know anything about meiosis, it works like this:
During meiosis, all your chromosomes are divided into two (non-identical) as one germline cell becomes two sperm cells (I'm oversimplifying). They recombine in the egg.
Prior to meiosis, the germline cells divide by mitosis - that breaks them apart at the centromeres, replicates each chromosome, divides the cell wall (with each half cell taking half the identical chromosomes). Then, meiosis and, if the sperm is lucky, recombination.
The division of chromosomes is done by enzymes. They act like scissors, cutting the chromosomes in half. During mitosis, that's done at the centromeres. During meiosis, that's done at roughly the halfway mark. Immediately after mitosis, different enzymes stitch the chromosomes back together. After meiosis, the stitching has to wait until fertilization with the egg.
The "stitching" enzymes will stitch anything they find. So if, for whatever reason, the chromosomal material couldn't get out of the way in time, the enzyme would include it in the stitching. It's a dumb enzyme, right?
That's what happened. In this one, extremely rare instance, the wrong chromosome was too slow in being moved out of the cell half. So it got stitched together, making chromosome 22.
That could only happen in one event. It couldn't happen in more than one event, b/c the event requires the genetic material from both parts of the now chromosome 22. Secondly, it's such an unlikely event that it would extremely improbable to have, say, 1/4 of a chromosome being attached and then, at some later date, another quarter and another. Third, we only find 2 teleomere fragments in the middle of chromosome 22, not a several - so, only one event.
Next, Darwin was wrong about many details about evolution. He is 160 years out of date. Sorry. Compared to what we know now, Darwin was drawing on chalk boards. Yes, he came up with the central theory, but he was wrong on the speed, didn't know anything about genetics, and added some garbage to his book that simply doesn't work.
The speed of evolution is only limited to the mutation rate and the kinds of mutations that can occur. That's it. When environments change very rapidly - say, a large meteor hits the planet - species either evolve or go extinct. If the mutation rate is slow and the species is a specialist, it's probably going extinct. If the mutation rate is high, it might be ok.
Last - what changes are you going to see in morphology with the fusion of the chromosomes? Why would you see any change in morphology?
The fusion of chromosome #2 in one is exciting.

This means that a human kind appeared suddenly with 46 chromosomes.

It also means the chromosomes have been unchanged since #2 first fused.

All this discussion proves man didnít evolve as claimed. A slow gradual change over 6 million years is not possible if chromosome #2 fused in one event.

This means there had to have been a first. A first man with the 46 chromosomes with #2 fused. That first man was Adam.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#137794 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
He probably meant Judaism. It's pretty unlikely he meant Sumerian mythos, though it's possible, since he uses the word "ancient."
:)
:p
:)
Who knows what Ar Ar meant? He rarely knows or understands what it is he believes, except to say that he believes what he believes, and what he believes, he believes is right.

When he argued he wasn't a Protestant over on PTAG:

RiversideRedneck wrote: " If anything, I'm Pentecostal, or maybe even Evangelical, but not Protestant."

When he mentioned "ancient religion", there is no telling what he had in mind. It could have been Judaism, older Canaanite beliefs, or as you said, ancient Sumerian practices.

In retrospect I think he meant Christianity, it's just that his writing and terminology is so vague and misinformed he makes these claims or statements and when someone responds - to what he actually said, not what he thought he said - he gets upset.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#137795 Nov 14, 2012
I am afraid your trailer park mom lied to you about what lasagna is, and what all those strange men were doing there at 2AM it wasn't to fix her window unit air conditioner.

Oh and Catholics are Christian something else she lied to you about.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No sir. That would be lasagna.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#137796 Nov 14, 2012
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>In 2009 there were 135,000 articles published in peer review and scientific journal supporting evolution. Guess how many were published refuting the FACTs of evolution......yep, ZERO, why is that do you suppose? If the TOE is so chalked full of speculation rather than hard cold facts, why has no one published anything pointing out these alleged flaws? Maybe you could publish something. Is there any reason why you couldn't have something published in a reputable scientific journal? If you feel so strong about how wrong the TOE is, and seem to know without doubt, then do the world a favor and publish something so we can all know how flawed the Theory is. Of course you just might have to demonstrate some knowledge on the subject, maybe make the publisher aware of your credentials as an expert on the subject. I'll be waiting for your article, I can't wait to hear how 135,000 experts on the subject are totally wrong, and you are right. Good Luck.
Microevolution, Iím completely sold on Doctor. So all those articles on microbiology I have no problem believing. I would venture to say out of that 135,000 articles, most were probably about microbiology.

How many scientist are working directly on macro evolution? I would estimate that number to be very small compared to microevolution.

When I talk about speculation Doctor Iím always referring to macroevolution. This discussion about chromosome #2 is very interesting. When the chromosome fused that was the first mankind. With all 46 chromosomes just like we have today.

What I take from the chromosome #2 discussion is mankind came on the scene suddenly and not gradually as traditionally thought. This means there was a first man. That man Doctor was Adam.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#137797 Nov 14, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
But he wasn't an established scientist, he was a computer specialist. Leading a team in IT is hardly indicative of a rise to the top. those 15 years were actually part of the problem. The Casini mission is beginning to wind down, resulting in downsizing. Only those who had kept their skills sharp would be attractive to the managers of other projects. Not having done so, Coppedge was at risk for layoff anyway. The same goes for his apparent inability to work smoothly with others as part of a team.
You make a good point. With the mission winding down. And potential lay offs forthcoming. This may have spawned some to go into survival mode.

Was he really that hard to get along with or was he working with some Soap Opera Drama Queens out to get him so they could jockey into a safer position?

Anyway heís fired and life goes on.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#137798 Nov 14, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, you admit here that you don't know all the facts, yet you continually state things about the case as if they are facts. More importantly, you assert his story is fact and not just a grudge for being fired, slackers make all sorts of excuses when we fire them, it's not uncommon.
No problem with this part of your statement,{slackers make all sorts of excuses when we fire them, it's not uncommon}.

Sometimes people are caught up in work politics and the wrong people are let go.

Wrongful terminations do happen. Iím not saying that is the case here.

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
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 37 min Gillette 15
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 43 min Reason Personified 14,440
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 56 min Gillette 963
Why Christians should stick up for atheists 3 hr thetruth 5
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 3 hr thetruth 3
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 4 hr thetruth 22
Siro is writing a new book Sun thetruth 5

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE