Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
132,581 - 132,600 of 224,656 Comments Last updated 11 min ago

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137833
Nov 15, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Another Canadian patient, Steven Graham, was able to demonstrate that he had laid down new memories since his brain injury. Mr Graham answers yes when asked whether his sister has a daughter. His niece was born after his car accident five years ago."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20268044
Most intriguing, eh?
Did they tell him that on a hospital visit? I wonder how long after his accident the birth occurred.
Very weird. I would assume they told him during a visit (I would hope so. Psychic ability gained during a coma is too Stephen King-ish for my liking)

I would assume times seems to be at a standstill for the patient.

“I write too fast”

Since: Mar 11

Hurry up!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137834
Nov 15, 2012
 
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is adaption ~ extinction is failure to adapt.
That's one component of evolution, sure. Adaptation is the mechanism of problem solving produced by natural selection.

“I write too fast”

Since: Mar 11

Hurry up!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137835
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Could that fusing be the result of gene splicing, or did someone stand too close to the microwave?
How was the bond made? Not the technique, but the molecular linkage? Anything removed to bond them? Which chemicals bonded at the ends?
It was a copying error. One enzyme cut it up, one didn't move it out of the cell fast enough, another stitched it back together incorrectly.

I don't know the specifics of the molecules involved. It's telomere DNA to non-telomere DNA bonded together. A telomere is just DNA that is repeating in a certain pattern. So it ends up being DNA-DNA bonds, like any other part of the DNA only recognizable as telomere rather than coding or noncoding sequences. That makes it one of G A T C attached to its opposite pair, just like in all DNA.

Sadly, no microwaves at that time, but my chromosomes just fused because of this damned computer.

“I write too fast”

Since: Mar 11

Hurry up!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137836
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>16Nov12.....
.....BobLoblah does Not and Never have taken any drugs of any kind.
Ps:.....Except for one time while working in da '70s in the far Northern regions of the former USSR and BobLoblah became constipated. On visiting the doctor, the doctor gave BobLoblah some suppositories, but when BobLoblah got home BobLoblah could Not figure out how to use them having never seen, nor heard of them before.
....and so Bobloblah ate them.
....and Nothing happened.
..BobLoblah returned to the doctor and when da doctor asked BobLoblah how were things going 'down below'...BobLoblah replied:
'Doc, it would have been better if BobLoblah had shoved these things up BobLoblah's arse'.
Needless to say, dat doctor is still reeling.
...and so are you tooooooooooooo.
Forever and Ever
BobLoblah
You ate suppositories?!?

hahahaha, nice!

“I write too fast”

Since: Mar 11

Hurry up!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137837
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Very weird. I would assume they told him during a visit (I would hope so. Psychic ability gained during a coma is too Stephen King-ish for my liking)
I would assume times seems to be at a standstill for the patient.
They just misunderstood that his brain was still capable of receiving input from hearing. It turns out our brains can regrow cells - no one thought that 20 years ago, but stem cells are constantly regenerated in the brain in various locations.

Don't tell Dave.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137838
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You ate suppositories?!?
hahahaha, nice!
Perhaps it explains his verbal diarrhoea
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137839
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

bob nobgobbler swallows anything- his belief system for starters.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You ate suppositories?!?
hahahaha, nice!
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137840
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>16Nov12.....
.....any friend of 'sidingDumbPhew' like you 'glackBagoon' is an enemy of BobLoblah.
Ps:.....BobLoblah believes dat ven it comes to you, dere's more brains in a bottle of wadda.
...and den sum tooooooooooooooooo.
Forever and Ever
BobLoblah
At what point are you going to try the English accent? It would certainly make you sound less juvenile!!! Poor little Bobby, he can't get any attention any other way, so he tries to draw attention to himself wit a fake accent, ha ha ha ha, what a dipshit!!!

BTW, either engage me in adult conversation or pissoff, your choice!!!!!

blacklagoon

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137841
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It's very apparent that you really know nothing about the process of human evolution. I find that unbelievable sad!!!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137842
Nov 15, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Should I start with the alphabet song and just work my way up?
No, just keep putting up god pics :)
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137843
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

bob "the nonce" nobgobbler doesn't like being ignored. He'll no doubt compose yet another list of posters he hates and spam the arse out of it. A veritable oxygen thief, no less.
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>At what point are you going to try the English accent? It would certainly make you sound less juvenile!!! Poor little Bobby, he can't get any attention any other way, so he tries to draw attention to himself wit a fake accent, ha ha ha ha, what a dipshit!!!
BTW, either engage me in adult conversation or pissoff, your choice!!!!!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137844
Nov 15, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The basic consensus is (I think) that our decisions are made "for us" by our brain - then after the fact it appears to have been a conscious decision. "We" may still retain veto power over these decisions that arise from the unconscious.
There have been a couple interesting studies on this. Here's a summary of one:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news...
"Also, the predictions were not completely accurate. Maybe free will enters at the last moment, allowing a person to override an unpalatable subconscious decision."

"We can't rule out that there's a free will that kicks in at this late point," said Haynes, who intends to study this phenomenon next. "But I don't think it's plausible."

Maybe this, maybe that.... Maybe we'll just add a few zeros to the end....

C'mon.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137845
Nov 15, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Who does that? If someone were to go around at work insulting people's religious beliefs, he/she should be fired too. However, I don't think there would be anything wrong with discussing a scientific theory. People shouldn't be so touchy about it. Does gravity upset you?
Why would gravity upset me?

What does that have to do with religion?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137846
Nov 15, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have actually seen the reports, the complete ones, not the cherry picked ones. It has never demonstrated any amount of success beyond that of chance. You're just as well off tossing the dice or wishing.
Perfect example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Prayer_f...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42705038/ns/weath...
Guess when it did finally rain, during the atheist convention, long after the prayers. I like this example because if prayer works, then your god clearly prefers the company of atheists.
You're such a dufus.

So are the people praying for rain. Prayer doesn't work that way.

I've made this point clear before, you obviously cherry pick what you read.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137847
Nov 15, 2012
 
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
A whale is a good example of Macro-evolution. Tracing the development of the nostrils through fossil records and skulls, we can follow the gradual movement of the nostril from the front of the nose to the top of the head, the whales blowhole. Consider the vestigial hind legs, the fully formed wrist parts on the Right Whale. The fact that a whales gives birth under the water as a land mammal does. In fact the mother must move under the newborn quickly to bring it to the surface before it drowns. We also see evidence that the whale was once a land mammal by the way it moves through the water. Fish swim with a side to side mouthing, whales, as well as dolphins and porpoises, move through the water with an up and down flexing of the spine as you would see in a running land mammal.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137848
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
When you work in a scientific field, you have to talk about science anyway, that's just part of the job.
ANd of course you think that science & religion are enemies, so....

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137849
Nov 15, 2012
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
There never was a free will!
Of course the free will thing is not real!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137850
Nov 15, 2012
 
scaritual wrote:
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>...
<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?
Sorry about the brick thing...

Judaism...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137851
Nov 15, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The purpose of me posting that link was to show that there are just as many "results" that prayer works vs. prayer doesn't work....

As I've said. I think that any and all "tests" are inconclusive.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137852
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I know you want to lump all religion together but it doesn't work that way.

Since I'm not Catholic, I don't care what you post about Catholics. I'm also not a Protestant, even though your argument is that Christians comes from Protestants.

To me, that's like saying a hamburger is a cow because the meat comes from a cow....

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

7 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr ChristineM 851
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 2 hr John 70,965
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr Buck Crick 261
Talking some sense into you people... 3 hr Buck Crick 29
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Magyar 101 21,407
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 5 hr CunningLinguist 30
Atheists, give up your lost religion and seek t... (Nov '13) 14 hr CunningLinguist 229
•••
•••