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
150,961 - 150,980 of 226,605 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157061 Feb 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"A few details."
Yeah, like a god, behind the whole thing.
Dude, it's transparent.
There is no such hypothesis in ID.

Counselor is assuming facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

Does Big Bang Theory have a god "behind the whole thing"?

What is the causation?

Ohhhh nooooh! Don't try to tell me you are leaving it as an open question!

Hubble and those dudes had a god behind it all!

They didn't say so, but I just know it!

Two standards much, Counselor?

...By the way, David Berlinski is an ID proponent and a member of ...gulp...the dreaded Discovery Institute.

He doesn't believe in god.

Same culprits??

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157062 Feb 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, OK.
Partial schizophrenia.
The conservative creationists do pooh pooh intelligent design.
They're like the Tea Party Christians.
But the "big tent" Christians endorse it.
So what?

Some Christians endorse Darwinism. Some science professors in Baptist and Catholic colleges endorse Darwinism.

Is Darwinism creationism, then? No.

All christians believe the universe was designed. Some of them specifically support Intelligent Design Theory; some do not. Some Intelligent Design Theorists are christian; some are not. Some are not even theists. Some Darwinist scientists are christian; some are not.

None of that goes to show ID is creationism.

So far you're batting "0".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157063 Feb 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
And god is what it's really all about. Trying to mix observable science with the transcendental argument.
<quoted text>
There is no transcendental argument in ID.

Who told you that, GiveMeLiverwurst?

If it's there, show it.

If you can, then I'll show you the transcendental argument in the Big Bang Theory.

Is SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) that studies signals from space for elements of design a Creationist organization?

According to your standard, it is, and should not be allowed to be discussed in schools.

(Which would render recruiting researchers problematic)

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#157064 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
Some Christians endorse Darwinism. Some science professors in Baptist and Catholic colleges endorse Darwinism.
Is Darwinism creationism, then? No.
All christians believe the universe was designed. Some of them specifically support Intelligent Design Theory; some do not. Some Intelligent Design Theorists are christian; some are not. Some are not even theists. Some Darwinist scientists are christian; some are not.
None of that goes to show ID is creationism.
So far you're batting "0".
Dude, I'm going to have to take off a couple innings.

Off to Mexico tomorrow. Baja. Gotta go pack.

But hey, only a portion of the trip is at taxpayer expense.

The rest, Catcher is pleased to fund.

Welcome back, Buck. This place has been boring.

Scoot over to the Why should Jesus love me thread. It's a gas.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157065 Feb 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
Darwinian evolution depends on life arising spontaneously.

They have to believe in chemical evolution to life. They work on duplicating it in laboratories every day.

No luck yet.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157066 Feb 27, 2013
Sure there is but mainly it's all about the argument from ignorance :)
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no transcendental argument in ID.
Who told you that, GiveMeLiverwurst?
If it's there, show it.
If you can, then I'll show you the transcendental argument in the Big Bang Theory.
Is SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) that studies signals from space for elements of design a Creationist organization?
According to your standard, it is, and should not be allowed to be discussed in schools.
(Which would render recruiting researchers problematic)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157067 Feb 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, I'm going to have to take off a couple innings.
Off to Mexico tomorrow. Baja. Gotta go pack.
But hey, only a portion of the trip is at taxpayer expense.
The rest, Catcher is pleased to fund.
Welcome back, Buck. This place has been boring.
Scoot over to the Why should Jesus love me thread. It's a gas.
I figured you would eventually have to flee the jurisdiction.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#157068 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I figured you would eventually have to flee the jurisdiction.
No, but hey listen.

I'm headed to D.C., Supreme Court, gay marriage cases (Perry et al.). Participated in an amicus brief for Howard University, establishing that the current discrimination is no different to the racial/anti miscegenation discrimination that existed well into the 1960s.

Welcome to the new order, Buck.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#157069 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.
Till it passes peer review and is accepted as a solid theory, I will continue to give it no credence.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#157070 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwinian evolution depends on life arising spontaneously.
They have to believe in chemical evolution to life. They work on duplicating it in laboratories every day.
No luck yet.

The Origin of life is not included in the ToE as it is not a theory attempting to explaining the origin of life. It is theory that explains the changes in organisms over time by natural selection.
It also explains it by common descent. But it is not in any way founded or dependent on life arising spontaneously.
Chemical evolution is also observed, but the origin points where life began has no working theory only hypothesis.

There has been progress in the lab in attempts to recreate life.
It probably wont take much longer for them to actually succeed either. It's not a worldview that is stopping ID or a belief that drives the efforts in abiogenesis. It is simply an effort to answer the question , on how life did arise.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#157071 Feb 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Buck?
Dave Nelson wrote:
No. A retarded gorilla.
What's the difference between Buck and a retarded gorilla?
















Dave.

Thank you! I'll be here all week, be sure to try the waitress and tip the punch.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#157072 Feb 28, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
That’s you personal opinion that you believe as fact.
ID isn't science and that's a fact.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#157073 Feb 28, 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.
ID is Pseudoscience

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157074 Feb 28, 2013
ID is embarrassing when I travel outside the USA or am around my international friends who all laugh at the idiots who made up ID and argue for it. Gosh it makes Americans look stupid and I have to remind people only morons fall for that crap.
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
ID isn't science and that's a fact.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#157075 Feb 28, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
The two largest Creationist groups in the world, Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research....
REJECT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
.....
Isn't this the the pot calling the kettle black???
Thinking

Shaftesbury, UK

#157076 Feb 28, 2013
Most christians over here accept Evolution, compartmentalise it and get on with their lives.

ID is for the embarassing toddlers that are still screaming "no no no!"
Givemeliberty wrote:
ID is embarrassing when I travel outside the USA or am around my international friends who all laugh at the idiots who made up ID and argue for it. Gosh it makes Americans look stupid and I have to remind people only morons fall for that crap.
<quoted text>

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#157077 Feb 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Most christians over here accept Evolution, compartmentalise it and get on with their lives.
ID is for the embarassing toddlers that are still screaming "no no no!"
<quoted text>
IDiot.... hummm that seems about right.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#157078 Feb 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent Design is just as much fact as non-intelligent design.
But you favor the latter?
Gee, I wonder why.....
“cdesign proponentsists”

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#157079 Feb 28, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Kids are open minded creatures. What does it hurt if they hear both sides and decide for themselves? We are talking about theories in creation and how we all came about. Is it such a crime for kids to make their own determination?
But when it comes to teaching intelligent design we are not talking a religion but Science. Since when has a debate in science been a bad thing?
“cdesign proponentsists”

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#157080 Feb 28, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
"We don't care about it's religious content, it just cannot be taught as fact. Especially in science class."
I’m like you in that I believe in separation in church and state.
However Intelligent Design is not about a religion as it is about science.
A good healthy debate in a science class is not a bad thing for science.
“cdesign proponentsists”

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 32 min Eman 21,541
Becoming a parent changed everything. 1 hr Givemeliberty 1
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr greymouser 5,922
It seems there are more Atheists in the Christi... (Jun '13) 2 hr Mikko 18
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 2 hr Mikko 63
Our world came from nothing? 11 hr Thinking 438
The Ultimate Evidence of God Mon James 68
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••