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. Read more

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#150279 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
ďThe [undetectable] and the non-existent look very much alikeĒ-Delos B. McKown
McKown would've been a terrible DNA theoretician 150 years ago.....

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150280 Jan 26, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
U got a point actually!
U could use a bra, thongs and other stuff as weapons! a tie is a weapon for sure!!
I never knew there was a sharp metal thingy inside of a wire bra. It came outta my bra as i was wearing it and it stabbed me in the blumin' chest, i was in so much pain, i had to tell the teacher i wasn't feelin' well just so that i could go home and quickly take if off. Also wearing bra's give u back and chest problems, i'm sure they do, they need to do a survey thingy on this subject.
But u guys have it easy, u don't have to wear body tight clothes, but us girls have to wear tight everything! You just eat a little bit more than usual, then u got to hold your stomach in all day long.
i think we should all take our clothes off and burn them!! That's the only way!!! I think u should start it off, Tide!
Go Tide, go Tide, burn your clothes, feel freedom!!
I'll never wear a bra again.

You have my word.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#150281 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll never wear a bra again.
You have my word.
Lets hope that Ar Ar doesn't try to follow your example.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150282 Jan 26, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
As an example there is a law of biogenesis, that life only comes from existing life. The absence of evidence that this law is violated after many and repeated attempts is in fact evidence of absence. Given the number of ways we have looked, and the strictness of the law,( hence the high degree of testability),the prolonged absence of evidence of violations is very,very good evidence for the law.
Thats a great arguement.
The difference is that we are very early in our investigations of abiogenesis. it is only recently that we have learned the chemical foundations for life (even the simple fact that DNA is the genetic material was only learned 55 years ago). We are also only beginning to really understand the conditions on the early earth. In addition, when we have investigated this question, the obstacles that originally appeared have, over time, been found to be *less* of a problem than expected. It was originally thought that organic compounds could only arise in living systems. That was shown wrong. Then it was thought that amino acids couldn't form under conditions expected on the early earth. That was found wrong. Then it was thought that polymerization to form more complicated chemicals would be unlikely and that was found wrong. And it was thought that membrane systems wouldn't be able to form and *that* was found to be wrong.

The problems are that we do not understand the chemistry for life nearly well enough to solve this problem yet. But each obstacle that was thought to be there has been shown to dissipate under study.

So the question of abiogenesis is closer to attempting to bridge a gap than anything else. Life *is* a chemical process. The main question is how the original chemicals came together in the correct amounts and in the right places.

We can also turn this around and note that *every* time we have found a cause for *anything*, it has always been a physical cause. That is absolute and nothing has ever even hinted at anything different. So, again, it is reasonable to suspect a physical cause for the beginning of life.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#150283 Jan 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an atheist forum.
At least it is on my phone and pc.
Most posters see it in the Top Stories forum. Get over it.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#150284 Jan 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that we are very early in our investigations of abiogenesis.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150285 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll never wear a bra again.
You have my word.
Good! I'm in a fighting mood today, so don't get on the wrong side of me!!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150286 Jan 26, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Most posters see it in the Top Stories forum. Get over it.
That's where i see it too!

Some people think the world revolves around them! Yh, i'm talkin' about u, liberty guy!:-p

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150287 Jan 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that we are very early in our investigations of abiogenesis. it is only recently that we have learned the chemical foundations for life (even the simple fact that DNA is the genetic material was only learned 55 years ago). We are also only beginning to really understand the conditions on the early earth. In addition, when we have investigated this question, the obstacles that originally appeared have, over time, been found to be *less* of a problem than expected. It was originally thought that organic compounds could only arise in living systems. That was shown wrong. Then it was thought that amino acids couldn't form under conditions expected on the early earth. That was found wrong. Then it was thought that polymerization to form more complicated chemicals would be unlikely and that was found wrong. And it was thought that membrane systems wouldn't be able to form and *that* was found to be wrong.
The problems are that we do not understand the chemistry for life nearly well enough to solve this problem yet. But each obstacle that was thought to be there has been shown to dissipate under study.
So the question of abiogenesis is closer to attempting to bridge a gap than anything else. Life *is* a chemical process. The main question is how the original chemicals came together in the correct amounts and in the right places.
We can also turn this around and note that *every* time we have found a cause for *anything*, it has always been a physical cause. That is absolute and nothing has ever even hinted at anything different. So, again, it is reasonable to suspect a physical cause for the beginning of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis

Something zapped them in just the right way.

It wasn't Charlie Darwin. He just noted some of the eventual effects.

Those chemicals had to be forced to merge in the right circuitry. 14 or less billion years is not enough time for the process to start. Plus the processes had to survive a varying environment. One cosmic ray could ruin a bacterium's day. Plus all the other environmental thingies that could strip it apart.

Give it up, Einstein. You were produced by something beyond your comprehension. And a lot smarter than you.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150288 Jan 26, 2013
Clementia wrote:
Good! I'm in a fighting mood today, so don't get on the wrong side of me!!
I'll help you.

I know some moves.
Jox

United States

#150289 Jan 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>

I gave up waiting for proof of your god a long time ago.
No you haven't. You know you are lying to yourself.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#150291 Jan 26, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>...Give it up, Einstein. You were produced by something beyond your comprehension. And a lot smarter than you.
Which, by you way of reasoning, must have been produced by something beyond its comprehension and a lot smarter that it ... which must have been produced by something beyond its comprehension and a lot smarter that it ... etc ... etc ... etc.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#150292 Jan 26, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So a creating man from a lump of clay with a magical **poof** by some invisible sky deity must require a ton of proof.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150293 Jan 26, 2013
scaritual wrote:
Lets hope that Ar Ar doesn't try to follow your example.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150294 Jan 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You come here to troll but want to cry when treated as such? You have no moral ground to stand on. I have a friend who is a mod on topix/ chicago tribune we met while campaigning for Obama. I have advertised on topix before and will again.
Good luck with that troll :)
<quoted text>
I donít care about your world power and influence.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150295 Jan 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
There is no way you have a high school level education. Just no effig way.
<quoted text>
Thank you,:)

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150296 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Look again:
"before all ... had died"
"some standing here which shall not taste of death"
'Before all die' is the same as 'while some still live.'
Not, there even when you say it is.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150297 Jan 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
He told the children at his feet that some of them would not die before the end came. Are you so retarded that you think there are some 2000 year old people walking around waiting for Jesus? You of course have no answer for this.
Lol! Hey what's the largest CHRISTIAN church again?:))
<quoted text>
Your septic tank is full of human excrement. Thatís why itís backing up.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150299 Jan 26, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not, there even when you say it is.
Whatever this means.

Will any other poster step up and translate Eagle's post for us?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#150300 Jan 26, 2013
I think he was trying to be insulting, in his own low IQ way. I could be wrong though, after all when trying to decode word salad it is akin to walking the tightrope without a safety net.

Remember when he said an Arab walking into his Dad's hospital room converted him to Christianity? Lol! Who even knows where he was going with that lie!
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever this means.
Will any other poster step up and translate Eagle's post for us?

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
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 39 min Mr_SKY 6,248
News The Consequences of Atheism 1 hr thetruth 1,106
News Atheist monument to counter ten commandments (Jul '13) 1 hr thetruth 14
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr thetruth 17,897
News 'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma (Jul '13) 1 hr thetruth 7,547
News Evolution is a philosophical humanistic religio... 4 hr geezerjock 1
how the athiest created in the world ? 6 hr Thinking 2
More from around the web