Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Imhotep]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
we to believe these are your words and not from an Atheist web site?
I find it so odd that if a Christian goes to a Christian site and repost something already in print. The Atheist cast repulsive comments for such action.
You have also failed to list your source which can be found. This is plagiarism, my good Atheist friend. It is taking what someone else owns and claiming it for yourself.
These are not your arguments but repost from off the shelf Atheist web sites. I would challenge you to come up with your own words and research.

Try this site, Christian.
PTL!

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

Learn from this one
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

[polymath257]

Serah wrote:

While I see no irreconcilable conflicts between the book of Genesis and evolutionary science, what we are learning about the relatedness of all living things through the information molecule of DNA offers the chance of a new and exciting interpretation of God’s plan in creating humans in His image.

From *your* post. Francis Collins understands evolution and knows it happened. He also thinks it is consistent with the Biblical account.

Once again, as long as he does his science correctly and doesn't attempt to get religion taught as science, I have no problem.

[It aint necessarily so]

Serah wrote:

<quoted text>Perhaps you have experienced amazing coincidences or deja vu?

Yes to the déjà vu.

[It aint necessarily so]

solopassage wrote:

Jesus corrected the Jewish doctrines of the Old Testament by introducing a new system of ethics

What ethics were introduced by Jesus?

[Thinking]

We should expect coincidences to occur.
If there weren't coincidences I'd suspect the world was only pseudo random.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes to the déjà vu.

[Dave Nelson]

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know. I'm not an architect, I'm a musician.
I play the violin. The acoustics were nice. You tell me.

My momma was a Florida Cracker with some musical talent, and a love for music. Was raised with a variety of music playing in that house.

She said something one time that has stayed with me. She said God loved musicians.

Maybe he pains some of them to get more soulful sounds out of them. Not the topical math based stuff, but from the soul.

One of the more profound effects of my death experience was a realization of how important music is. It is very quiet when you are dead and disembodied.

[Dave Nelson]

Come to think of it, life IS an emotional experience.

It's what gives it flavor.

[RiversideRedneck]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

The existence of the Christian god. Its existence is demonstrably false.

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.

[Dave Nelson]

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]

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]

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

[Dave Nelson]

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.

[It aint necessarily so]

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.

[RiversideRedneck]

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]

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

[Dave Nelson]

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.

[Dave Nelson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Langoliers]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>REDSEA!
YELLOWRIVER!

BLUELAGOON

[Langoliers]

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>A guy walks into a bar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Ouch! Of course the first thing he does is to inform his God on how much that hurt. LOL

[Langoliers]

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?