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 (Page 6,635)

Showing posts 132,681 - 132,700 of223,131
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137934
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps it explains his verbal diarrhoea
hahaha!

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137935
Nov 15, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't forget to tell her that evolution is a lie!
I don't have to tell her that, evolution does a good enough job at doing that.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137936
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, just keep putting up god pics :)
I have a confession, RR. I'm actually the actor, James Woods.

Oh, no! I feel a transformation happening!!!

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137937
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, those were pretty conclusive results. In each trial with good methodology - double blind studies - prayer has no results on those who don't know they're being prayed for.

For those who are being prayed for, and know it, they have slightly worse outcomes, presumably because they feel guilty.

However, if you pray for yourself, you have a slightly better outcome, equal to a weak placebo effect.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137938
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thinking wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
16Nov12.....

.....You sit dere in front of yer screen waiting fer BobLoblah's next message more impatiently dan you wait fer your next 'Fix' from the local runner to your house.

Ps:.....No kneed fer BobLoblah to do annudder list as Our Pope did quite vell and will be around for Christmas with his blessings for the Faithful and his unDressings for the Hateful like you.

Meanwhile, your berry own BBC, just today, has confirmed dat there are OVER 450 kids associated with your mr. seville (now roasting in hell)... that were sexually molested by you Brits and your comedians on da tube...including yer less-than-glamorous rocker Gary Glitter. You,'dinKing' probably will show up in da list as you take great pleasure in phucking little kids having started out vit your sister.

You otta yank a condom down over yer head and prance around as a Brit prick.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137939
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
For the timn record, evolution does not upset me. Not in the slightest.
What gets me going is the assumptive nature of evolution. The theories & hypotheses & guesses that go hand oin hand with it. Just like the post from blacklagoon where he says we "know" how the nostril evolved in whales...
I don't think evolution happened the way we think it did. There's just too many pieces of the puzzle that are missing to fully know.
wooooooooshhhhhh...WHACK!

"Hiding, what the hell?"

"RR, I just hit you with a whole lot of evolution!"

"Damn, that smarts girl, now git me a beer."

"Oh...ok."

"And a sammich!"

WHACK!

"Ouch! Hiding, what the hell?"

"I just hit you with a whole lot of evo..."

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137940
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ok...first line in your first link:

"The efficacy of prayer has been the topic of various studies since Francis Galton first addressed it in 1872. Double-blind studies have failed to find any effect."

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137941
Nov 15, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>This is the first paragraph of the wiki you posted:
The efficacy of prayer has been the topic of various studies since Francis Galton first addressed it in 1872. Double-blind studies have failed to find any effect. According to the Washington Post, "...prayer is the most common complement to mainstream medicine, far outpacing acupuncture, herbs, vitamins and other alternative remedies."[1] Physician Fred Rosner has expressed doubt that prayer could ever be subject to empirical analysis.[2]
On the issue of intercessory prayer Christian teachings have emphasized the need for guidance from the Holy Spirit as to what needs to be prayed for and have taught that "God can not be coerced."[3][4][5]
You ninja'd me! Again!

Damn you and I think alike...

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137942
Nov 15, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
"God can not be coerced."
I find these quote especially strange. Would a god really be so petty so as to deny his followers the power of prayer if they were simply trying to do a study on it? "People are trying to find out if I'm real, time to deny the ones who are praying for relief from sickness."
If a deity exists and if that deity created the universe, he not only doesn't answer prayer, but he really, really loves parasites, bacteria and beetles, in that order.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137943
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thinking wrote:
And your priests say "jesus christ" when they climax over choirboys.
<quoted text>
16Nov12.....

.....and da BBC screams out 'I'm dinKing' while dey climax over kiddies on member's guest-shows.

Ps:.....You're a member, aren't you 'dinKing'!!!

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137944
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thinking wrote:
And your priests say "jesus christ" when they climax over choirboys.
<quoted text>
16Nov12.....

.....and you 'dinKing', scream out dis jest as you ejaculate into your weekly troll-op.

Ps:...for a fee, of course.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137945
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I thank you, as always for you in depth explanation. I thought we were talking about chromosome #2. Anyway, I canít believe this macroevolution because it requires way more faith than I can muster up.
Setting aside my religious belief in the Genesis account. I find it difficult to believe there were no 1st in life. For example the very first oak tree, fig tree, bird, fish, jellyfish. The first chimp, giraffe, and the very first human.
All numbers no matter how great or small are synonymous with the number one. This must be true in biology and in mathematics. Without the first there can be no seconds, thirds, or fourths. This is one reason I think evolution is full of sh**. No disrespect intended.
To you it is science, to me itís fantasy science because it lacks very basic common sense. Hiding, there had to be a first. The only exception would be the creation of the cosmos. Iím not sure if all those stars, suns, were made at once or one at a time.
We were talking about Chromosome 22...I just gave you the window period in which it must have occurred - 6 to 2 million years ago. Before humans by about 1.8 million years. So it's not a great "Adam" for your mythology.

Nature is messy. It doesn't really work in jumps like your imagination requires. It does for some things, like cliffs, earthquakes and other quantum events, but not for species.

The reason species are different is b/c they're a whole lot more complex - humans have about 25000 genes. They get changed one by one. You can't change one gene in humans and get a non-human. But if you change one or two genes per generation, in a few hundred generations you're going to have something that isn't human.

There are genes you can change that subsequently have large effects on morphology, like the controller genes. Even still, from one generation to the next, they are not going to look substantially different from their parents. But if you could take them out of time and compare them at, say, generation 1, 250, 500 and 1000. you'd see striking differences between gen 1 and 1000.

Try thinking in terms of generational time, not in terms of the artificial species categories.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137946
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're disgusting.
16Nov12.....

.....Yes,'dinKing' is 100% disgusting....and it doesn't take anyone toooooooooo long to notice dat, as you have done.

Ps:...Meanwhile, BobLoblah has been putting BobLoblah's boot up this filty-minded, foul-mouthed excuse for a human bean for a long, long time now. It becomes very spiteful and just likes to pick on Christians with Catholics being always in its crosshairs.

BobLoblah believes dat 'dinKing' got screwed in da wrong hole by its daddy and its schidt-for-brains can only see as far as the end of its daddy's pole.

BobLoblah nose dat 'dinKing' readsUP on everyding dat BobLoblah writes and at dis very moment is seething and conjuring up its latest retortation.

....meanwhile 'dinKing',(in da only language dat you unnnaStan)... you are a khuntface and a member of Jimmy Seville's entorage in the boys of BBC who phucked all da kiddies dat stopped by over da years.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137947
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Was not there a first airplane and the first pilot?
The first automobile?
The first bicycle?
The first red rose?
In your case to bringing it closer to home, the first as*h*le.
Yes, for the first 3, no for 4, 5 I can't speak to.

Do you know what a ring species is? It's a species that has a huge geographic barrier in the middle of its range. So the species goes around it - that effectively breaks up the species' environments such that each population has a slightly different one.

So think of them as living around a ring. None in the middle, and they can only reproduce with each other along the sides.

If you compare one population to the two adjacent it, they look almost the same. But if you compare populations that are separated by a lot of distance (in ring species only), they look quite different. In fact, they don't look like the same species, even though they are connected through gene flow along a geographic continuum.

Got that?

All species are like ring species, except that we're travelling through time. So if you take an extant individual now and compare it to one member of the same lineage 500 generations ago, then 1000 generations ago, and so on, the differences add up until you get a very different morphology.

Your problem is in how you conceptualize nature. You are thinking of it in terms of discrete categories. Normally you use bad categories, like "horseshoe crab" instead of species categories that are more specific (hence the word "species").

But in this case, if you want to understand how species change over time, you have to drop the categories and see them as gene pools. Over time genes are added and subtracted from the gene pool - and that creates slightly different morphologies (bodies with physical characteristics).

Does this make sense to you? Am I using difficult technical jargon?

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137948
Nov 15, 2012
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Like the avatar...
;-D
Oops!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137949
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha!
16Nov12.....

.....it must be kinda cold now, what with both of you 'christineM' and 'sidingDumbPhew' living in yer car.

Ps:....how are da pissUps going!!!

BobLoblah can correctly suppose dat da sulphuric Acid enema given to ya did da trick.

....try it again, as you continue to have some schidt-for-brains remaining....

..and den, skip on over to da BBC and take part in one of 'dinKing's' kiddie porm shows.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137950
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a confession, RR. I'm actually the actor, James Woods.
Oh, no! I feel a transformation happening!!!
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo
16Nov12.....

.....You're Not worthy to be James Woods vomit.

Ps:...James Woods (as a Roman Catholic) took great care of his dying brother and was at a loss when he passed away. Needless to say, James Woods took care of everything to ensure that his brother got ALL the blessings he deserved from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137951
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

16Nov12......

.....Elmo (of Sesame Street fame) continues to be screwed by his puppetteer...annudder hAtheist dat has gone beyond the pale in abusing one of the World's most lovable characters for children.

Ps:....Elmo will be 'yanked' from Jim Henson's program in the near future as 'considerate' people will not want Elmo to be thought of as being associated with this hateful, hypocritical, hAtheist...dat bears such a likeness to a lotta schidt-for-brains hereIN....such as 'dinKing','christineM','siding DumbPhew', and a whole lotta udder hateful, hypocritical, hAtheists.

..and dat's fer shure tooooooooooooo.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137952
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>16Nov12.....
.
BobLoblah
You really love my posts, hey? You read each and every one so very carefully!

Do you memorize them? Pray on their veracity?

I'm quite flattered to have you as my groupie, Boblblbalha!

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137953
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, for the first 3, no for 4, 5 I can't speak to.
Do you know what a ring species is? It's a species that has a huge geographic barrier in the middle of its range. So the species goes around it - that effectively breaks up the species' environments such that each population has a slightly different one.
So think of them as living around a ring. None in the middle, and they can only reproduce with each other along the sides.
If you compare one population to the two adjacent it, they look almost the same. But if you compare populations that are separated by a lot of distance (in ring species only), they look quite different. In fact, they don't look like the same species, even though they are connected through gene flow along a geographic continuum.
Got that?
All species are like ring species, except that we're travelling through time. So if you take an extant individual now and compare it to one member of the same lineage 500 generations ago, then 1000 generations ago, and so on, the differences add up until you get a very different morphology.
Your problem is in how you conceptualize nature. You are thinking of it in terms of discrete categories. Normally you use bad categories, like "horseshoe crab" instead of species categories that are more specific (hence the word "species").
But in this case, if you want to understand how species change over time, you have to drop the categories and see them as gene pools. Over time genes are added and subtracted from the gene pool - and that creates slightly different morphologies (bodies with physical characteristics).
Does this make sense to you? Am I using difficult technical jargon?
Hiding, Iím just too old and full of unbelief to be saved,(accepting evolution). Itís just impossible for me to accept evolution. Itís just too far fetched and it takes a hell of a lot of faith and imagination. I just donít have either.

To claim that whales were land animals and came from four legged beast like wolfs is just over the freaking top. I canít be reached, Iím too far gone. Asking me to believe in evolution is like asking me to believe in childrenís fantasies.

Fusing a chromosome doesnít even sound like an easy thing to do. What I mean by that it doesnít look to me that it happened because Mrs. Chimp ate strawberry ice-cream while pregnant. Evolution is just crazy, ludicrous.

And looking at chromosome counts is pretty much meaningless. A pig has 38 chromosomes and so does a lion. Neither one look like first cousins to me. A potatoes has the same count as humans. Some peoples head looks like back side of a potatoes but thatís as close as it comes.

I donít know how in the hell you believe all this bull sh** Hiding? Evolution is operating in the land of make believe. Why we teach this horse sh** to kids is beyond me.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 132,681 - 132,700 of223,131
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••