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

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150635 Jan 28, 2013
It is odd the effect music has on creatures, isn't it? The moods and emotions it can stir. Strange phenomenon for evolved material beings.

The guitar was banned by the Church for a while after it came out. Stirred up too much licentious passions.

I am sure they played some rock and roll way back then, too. Comes natural.
Pat

Granby, CT

#150636 Jan 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA !!!!
Whew!
Why don't you save us all a boat load of trouble & take your "findings" to the media & demonstrate to the world that God is non-existant...
No?
OK then, just keep making unsubstantiated, ridiculous posts on Topix.
How easily you can spot an unsubstantiated claim when you disagree with it but are unable to spot a unsubstantiated claim if you find it personally appealing. The hypocrisy of the theist exposed once again.
bohart

Newport, TN

#150637 Jan 28, 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.
Yes, because you say its different. Tell me what violations of the law of biogenesis , that life only comes from existing life, have ever been seen using your beloved scientific method? Since we all know the answer is zero, yours is a faith based belief.Also your same old worn out lies about amino acids,polymerization, organic compounds, etc, are all lab created and mean nothing when it comes to life . Nothing

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150638 Jan 28, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
How easily you can spot an unsubstantiated claim when you disagree with it but are unable to spot a unsubstantiated claim if you find it personally appealing. The hypocrisy of the theist exposed once again.
Bean plants can grow some pretty flowers. These flowers blossom in the sunshine and can look about to see where it is, which communicates such to the rest of the plant. It has perspective.

Your perspective is that of a toadstool.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150639 Jan 28, 2013
bohart wrote:
Tell me what violations of the law of biogenesis , that life only comes from existing life, have ever been seen using your beloved scientific method? Since we all know the answer is zero, yours is a faith based belief.
Scientists wouldn't be spending so much effort trying to solve the problem of abiogenesis if existing evidence didn't point them in that direction.

By contrast, they aren't looking for perpetual motion machines, since the evidence suggests that that would be a dead end.

You really don't understand what evidence is,or how it can be used. It isn't necessary to see abiogenesis to suspect it or find it.

The mere fact that science has found so many naturalistic explanations for physical phenomena like lightning and eclipses is evidence that other phenomena will succumb to similar investigations using the same method.
bohart wrote:
Also your same old worn out lies about amino acids,polymerization, organic compounds, etc, are all lab created and mean nothing when it comes to life . Nothing
Then you don't know biochemistry. Those are the ABCs of living things and life.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#150640 Jan 28, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
How easily you can spot an unsubstantiated claim when you disagree with it but are unable to spot a unsubstantiated claim if you find it personally appealing. The hypocrisy of the theist exposed once again.
Awesome. So you can't demonstrate that God doesn't exist.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to say that?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150641 Jan 28, 2013
Tough sh!t. The research is happening without you.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, because you say its different. Tell me what violations of the law of biogenesis , that life only comes from existing life, have ever been seen using your beloved scientific method? Since we all know the answer is zero, yours is a faith based belief.Also your same old worn out lies about amino acids,polymerization, organic compounds, etc, are all lab created and mean nothing when it comes to life . Nothing

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150642 Jan 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists wouldn't be spending so much effort trying to solve the problem of abiogenesis if existing evidence didn't point them in that direction.
By contrast, they aren't looking for perpetual motion machines, since the evidence suggests that that would be a dead end.
You really don't understand what evidence is,or how it can be used. It isn't necessary to see abiogenesis to suspect it or find it.
The mere fact that science has found so many naturalistic explanations for physical phenomena like lightning and eclipses is evidence that other phenomena will succumb to similar investigations using the same method.
<quoted text>
Then you don't know biochemistry. Those are the ABCs of living things and life.
Hmmm.....biochemistry.

Let's see. You have an organic brain with a fixed matrix that over time develops new pathways and loops from experiences and chemicals added to the mix.

You smoke a little dope. It opens up new pathways for your brain to explore. Adds new perspectives.

You smoke a lot and it becomes a closed self-feeding loop. Puts a wall around the perspective. Makes one comfortable in their cocoon.

Same happens with many painkillers. Deadens the noise of the body and the world. And emotions. You get comfortably numb. And unable to expand your mind and perspectives.

A real waste, especially if this is your only time around.

Stunted growth.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150643 Jan 28, 2013

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150644 Jan 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>REDSEA!
YELLOWRIVER!
BLUELAGOON

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150645 Jan 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>A guy walks into a bar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =77PymmxMLJMXX
Ouch! Of course the first thing he does is to inform his God on how much that hurt. LOL

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150646 Jan 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean? African or European swallow?
Ok so we know a swallow must beat its wings 43 times per second, am I right?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150647 Jan 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=mVTW_-C014oXX
Not that Sue.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150648 Jan 28, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Did you here about the Japanese - Jewish restaurant, it was called Sosueme.
:)

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150649 Jan 28, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.

For people who can't maintain real companionship, an imaginary companion will suffice.

http://m.youtube.com/watch...
http://m.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150650 Jan 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Your bible can't demonstrate anything but words it contains, which is proof of nothing except that the bible contains them.

mtimber wrote, "And as the Bible has shown it can be trusted ... "

Au contraire. Your bible is riddled with error and contradiction.

mtimber wrote, "you appeal to Christian principles of morality as the defining standard of your character."

What moral principles are original to Christianity? "Thou shalt not steal"? You stole that from the Jews.

Incidentally, whenever Christians pick and choose which commandments of their bible to accept and which to reject, they are applying an external standard to your so-called absolute biblical morality to do it.
"Your bible can't demonstrate anything but words it contains, which is proof of nothing except that the bible contains them."

"You stole that from the Jews."

No need showing off your stupidity any further. Jesus was a Rabbi the Christian faith was Jewish the split came years after Jesus. However the OT was always part of Christianity and the Jewish faiths. Nothing stolen.

Silly games the atheist play.

Why under this rule then the same holds true to science. Nothing but words and numbers in all their theory's.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150651 Jan 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>How does a god - or belief in a god - give a life more purpose than it wouldn't otherwise have?

Are you implying that my purpose is to worship it? That's not my purpose - it's the deity's.

As a Christian, your life is devalued and relatively purposeless. In the eyes of your god, you are nothing but a praising machine.

Your purpose - the reason you believe that you were created - is to die and move on to a life of praising some narcissistic black hole of need. In the meantime, you consider the very flesh that you are encased in an your enemy in which you are trapped while awaiting release. You see the world as decadent, and anticipate leaving it, too.

No thanks.
"How does a god - or belief in a god - give a life more purpose than it wouldn't otherwise have? "

You really don't know? Or are you just playing dumb?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150652 Jan 28, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm.....biochemistry.
Let's see. You have an organic brain with a fixed matrix that over time develops new pathways and loops from experiences and chemicals added to the mix.
You smoke a little dope. It opens up new pathways for your brain to explore. Adds new perspectives.
You smoke a lot and it becomes a closed self-feeding loop. Puts a wall around the perspective. Makes one comfortable in their cocoon.
Same happens with many painkillers. Deadens the noise of the body and the world. And emotions. You get comfortably numb. And unable to expand your mind and perspectives.
A real waste, especially if this is your only time around.
Stunted growth.
Thank you as always for sharing your insights. You have a gift for converting the profound and nuanced into the simplistic. Your mind digests complex thought the way a protease digests protein.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150653 Jan 28, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
For people who can't maintain real companionship, an imaginary companion will suffice.
For people that can't get an inflatable woman or a real sheep:

http://www.muttonbone.com/ [Anatomically correct inflatable ewe.]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150654 Jan 28, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
"You stole ['Thou shalt not steal'] from the Jews."

No need showing off your stupidity any further. Jesus was a Rabbi the Christian faith was Jewish the split came years after Jesus. However the OT was always part of Christianity and the Jewish faiths. Nothing stolen.
The Jews say otherwise. And they reject your sham messiah and his heretical cult on biblical grounds.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 3 hr Eagle 12 4,855
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Denisova 16,810
The Consequences of Atheism 9 hr thetruth 798
Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not ... (Sep '13) 13 hr Thinking 3,045
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 13 hr Thinking 6,044
Is Religion Childish? 21 hr ChristineM 143
.com | Why is Atheism on the Rise - Final Response Sun thetruth 6
More from around the web