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
150,941 - 150,960 of 224,461 Comments Last updated 4 min ago

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157039
Feb 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But what you know is wrong.
I have found no person on these threads who knows anything about ID except for the packaged, stacked, and stocked cliche's and putdowns found on your average liberal or atheist blog.
I spent 2 weeks trying to get IAnus to admit a book on ID in 1984 predates the Aguillard decision of 1987.
He would not admit 1984 came before 1987.
You ever seen an asshole doctor admit he was wrong? I haven't. And I've had more than average contact with them - given my electroshock and anti-psychotic therapy.
Buck Crick wrote:
I have found no person on these threads who knows anything about ID.
Here's why :
Buck Crick wrote:
I've had more than average contact with them - given my electroshock and anti-psychotic therapy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157040
Feb 27, 2013
 
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,they are not entitled to their own facts.
Intelligent design can't be demonstrated scientifically,evolutionary biology can and is.
Intelligent design is a creationist ploy to get religious superstitious bollocks into the science class,and anyone who can't see that is either willfully ignorant or downright thick.
You know less than nothing about Intelligent Design Theory.

If you could begin at zero, you would be ahead of where you are now, because you think you know something about it.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157041
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thatís you personal opinion that you believe as fact.
This is going to be a big shock to you but the world is made up of other people that have opinions just as you do.
So in the sea of opinions your little drop in the ocean doesnít make that big of a difference.
There are those in the science community that support Intelligent Design and there are others in the closet but they also secretly believe it.
Evolution is the only science that has a enforcement arm. If you are a scientist and you donít believe some far out theory in Physics, no problem. Or if you donít believe a theory in biogenetics, no problem. If you donít believe a theory in space science, no problem. But if you donít believe in evolution, your fired.
There is no belief in evolution, you can be educated in it and have understanding, or be ignorant and deny it.
This is like an argument with a child, if you keep asking maybe you will get a different answer. No Eagle evolution is not a belief, it is the study about what happened on Earth with life.
It doesn't answer if god created life, it answers what happened to the living creatures since the first known life existed here.

It wont matter how much you think it's a belief, and if your god shows up he would have to tell you it is what happened to life on Earth.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157042
Feb 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot.
1. ID was being presented BEFORE the court ruling you allude to, which is Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987. Namely, the 1984 book The Mystery of Lifeís Origin by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., Materials Science, University of Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., Geochemistry, Colorado School of
Mines).
2. ID is NOT ILLEGAL to teach. One judge ruled it unconstitutional in one school district in Pennsylvania. Judge John Jones III, who ruled in the case admitted his opinion "has
no precedential value outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania".
3. ID has no hypothesis about divine creation, and is inconsistent with Creationism, and is rejected by the largest organizations in the world who promote Creationism. Some of the leading scientific advocates of ID, including Michael Behe who has written 2 books on the subject, publicly accept human/ape common ancestry, which is a contradiction of the teachings of Creationism.
You don't know what you're talking about.
I do.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157043
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if we take the notion of a supreme being that set the universe in motion and then let it evolve into the universe we live in now,that is not what the creationists will even contemplate, their goal is to introduce old testament genesis gibberish into the science class.
Intelligent Design theorists are not Creationists.

Which one are you against? Make up your mind.

If you don't know the difference, shut your stupid mouth about it.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157044
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,they are not entitled to their own facts.
Intelligent design can't be demonstrated scientifically,evolutionary biology can and is.
Intelligent design is a creationist ploy to get religious superstitious bollocks into the science class,and anyone who can't see that is either willfully ignorant or downright thick.
What are you afraid of?

Kids might actually reject evolution?

If evolution canít stand on itís own merit and science then it can stand at all.

In that case you should be worried.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157045
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> There is no belief in evolution, you can be educated in it and have understanding, or be ignorant and deny it.
This is like an argument with a child, if you keep asking maybe you will get a different answer. No Eagle evolution is not a belief, it is the study about what happened on Earth with life.
It doesn't answer if god created life, it answers what happened to the living creatures since the first known life existed here.
It wont matter how much you think it's a belief, and if your god shows up he would have to tell you it is what happened to life on Earth.
Evolution theory relies on the origin of life being spontaneous abiogenesis. Darwin admitted that himself. To admit otherwise is to admit the non-necessity of the purely material sequence of events.

And evolution may or may not require belief, depending on which definition of "evolution" you are referring to.

There are about 9 definitions in scientific literature. The simplest is "fact". The more elaborate ones are speculative.

The elasticity of the term is what you are utilizing when you present it in black and white terms.

In other fields, that is called "propaganda".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157046
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do.
Last time I witnessed you elaborate on the subject, you did not.

I don't know if you've educated yourself since.

Specifically, you could not understand, or chose not to understand, that the Intelligent Design hypothesis does not postulate, nor needs to postulate, nor implies, nor alludes to, nor needs to allude to, a deity.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157047
Feb 27, 2013
 
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you afraid of?
Kids might actually reject evolution?
If evolution canít stand on itís own merit and science then it can stand at all.
In that case you should be worried.
Since it's the framework theory for the field of biology, I'd say it stands pretty well. Now, when you come up with another theory to replace it, you may have a leg to stand on. I won't hold my breath though.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157048
Feb 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But what you know is wrong.
I have found no person on these threads who knows anything about ID except for the packaged, stacked, and stocked cliche's and putdowns found on your average liberal or atheist blog.
I spent 2 weeks trying to get IAnus to admit a book on ID in 1984 predates the Aguillard decision of 1987.
He would not admit 1984 came before 1987.
You ever seen an asshole doctor admit he was wrong? I haven't. And I've had more than average contact with them - given my electroshock and anti-psychotic therapy.
Yep.

You spent 2 weeks in a pedantic exercise about irrelevant details.

We saw it.

But this doesn't give "intelligent design" any validity.

It's still a hoax even if one book came before the other or whatever it is.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157049
Feb 27, 2013
 
So stupid. You sure fight hard for the campfire tales of ancient desert nomadic sheep farmers who sacrificed goats while chanting to their dark god to be accepted as science.

Remember Michael Behe has said at the DI they always start each day with prayer. Very scientific.

Lol!
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution theory relies on the origin of life being spontaneous abiogenesis. Darwin admitted that himself. To admit otherwise is to admit the non-necessity of the purely material sequence of events.
And evolution may or may not require belief, depending on which definition of "evolution" you are referring to.
There are about 9 definitions in scientific literature. The simplest is "fact". The more elaborate ones are speculative.
The elasticity of the term is what you are utilizing when you present it in black and white terms.
In other fields, that is called "propaganda".

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157050
Feb 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent Design theorists are not Creationists.
Which one are you against? Make up your mind.
If you don't know the difference, shut your stupid mouth about it.
Yes, they are the same culprits.

They're in disguise, that's all.

C'mon Buck, don't kid the kidder.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157051
Feb 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy for you to say.

Sorry Buck , at least you wont try to control everyone with tyrannical laws. He/She/it is like the Bloomburg liberal
that wants to say I can't have a 32 oz coke if I want one.
I'm like the guy in this ........

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

I like a big fat cigar why?
I might suddenly decide I want one.^^
She/he it wants government to control everything.
It was about time

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157052
Feb 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot.
1. ID was being presented BEFORE the court ruling you allude to, which is Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987. Namely, the 1984 book The Mystery of Lifeís Origin by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., Materials Science, University of Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., Geochemistry, Colorado School of
Mines).
2. ID is NOT ILLEGAL to teach. One judge ruled it unconstitutional in one school district in Pennsylvania. Judge John Jones III, who ruled in the case admitted his opinion "has
no precedential value outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania".
3. ID has no hypothesis about divine creation, and is inconsistent with Creationism, and is rejected by the largest organizations in the world who promote Creationism. Some of the leading scientific advocates of ID, including Michael Behe who has written 2 books on the subject, publicly accept human/ape common ancestry, which is a contradiction of the teachings of Creationism.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Good to see you back..Buck

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157053
Feb 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I witnessed you elaborate on the subject, you did not.
I don't know if you've educated yourself since.
Specifically, you could not understand, or chose not to understand, that the Intelligent Design hypothesis does not postulate, nor needs to postulate, nor implies, nor alludes to, nor needs to allude to, a deity.
Deity, schmeity.

Intelligent design is a hoax, deliberately perpetrated.

Take it from the Catcher.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157054
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Since it's the framework theory for the field of biology, I'd say it stands pretty well. Now, when you come up with another theory to replace it, you may have a leg to stand on. I won't hold my breath though.
Every scientist who works on Intelligent Design accepts evolution.

Their sin is scientific dissent on a few details.

To stalk and destroy dissenters is not the way science should be done.

The Darwinists' problem with ID is not because they see a threat to science. It's a worldview thing.
It was about time

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157055
Feb 27, 2013
 
Didn't take long for them to pile on the attacks to discreedit you personally. I still doubt we see any of them respond to your arguments...Buck

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157056
Feb 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution theory relies on the origin of life being spontaneous abiogenesis. Darwin admitted that himself. To admit otherwise is to admit the non-necessity of the purely material sequence of events.
And evolution may or may not require belief, depending on which definition of "evolution" you are referring to.
There are about 9 definitions in scientific literature. The simplest is "fact". The more elaborate ones are speculative.
The elasticity of the term is what you are utilizing when you present it in black and white terms.
In other fields, that is called "propaganda".

No evolutionary biologist thinks life was spontaneous.
Darwin was right about one thing, the theory grew since him.
the evidence points that he was right about common descent.
No one is sure life began from just one LUCA though.
The latest cutting edge thought is that there may have been 3 that shared DNA/RNA in development. No one is sure there was no exterior intervention. We just can't pin it down yet.
ID maybe true, but nothing has been presented to validate it.
But it is fringe science , unless it can come up with real evidence it will remain so.Personally I haven't ruled out the possibility. Life could be a construct, but without something that points to it. It is like speculation into what was before time.
Fortunately if life is a construct, we should eventually be able to find something that points to it. I have my doubts about that and ever understanding "before time".

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157057
Feb 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Every scientist who works on Intelligent Design accepts evolution.
Their sin is scientific dissent on a few details.
To stalk and destroy dissenters is not the way science should be done.
The Darwinists' problem with ID is not because they see a threat to science. It's a worldview thing.
"A few details."

Yeah, like a god, behind the whole thing.

Dude, it's transparent.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157058
Feb 27, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they are the same culprits.
They're in disguise, that's all.
C'mon Buck, don't kid the kidder.
Are they?

The two largest Creationist groups in the world, Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research....

REJECT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

John Morris, President, Institute for Creation Research:

ďThe differences between Biblical creationism and the ID movement should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

Creationist crusader, Ken Hamm: "Intelligent Design is dangerous".

Same culprits? What are you suggesting - mass schizophrenia? Most ID papers and several of their books are DEVASTATING to Christian creationism.

I hope you are more logical in court. I will allow you to go on losing this case for as long as you like.

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.

12 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
What does "Atheism" mean? 17 min religionisillness 27
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 20 min religionisillness 394
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 21 min religionisillness 19
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 39 min Growupchildren 21,401
Our world came from nothing? 42 min Growupchildren 245
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 23 hr Liam R 21
Talking some sense into you people... Mon Cujo 27
•••
•••