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: 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

Södertälje, Sweden

#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

Södertälje, Sweden

#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”

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#157081 Feb 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Most atheists would agree with you.
Topix atheists are a different breed.
“cdesign proponentsists”

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#157082 Feb 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You promote teaching ToE.
There is much speculation & assumption in that particular theory.
There is ZERO evidence that all life on this planet came from one life. But you promote that assumption to America's youth as if its fact.
You know!!“cdesign proponentsists”
Imhotep

United States

#157083 Feb 28, 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".
Best Explanation?

Abductive Reasoning yields only probable truth, and yet it doesn't attempt to predict specific future, probable occurrences the way inductive reasoning does. Rather, it seeks to provide the most plausible broad, explanatory hypothesis.

Diagnosticians: moving from facts or data or events to a coherent, plausible explanation.
Detectives: evidence theory
Historians: facts explanations
Scientists: data hypothesis
Physicians: symptoms diagnosis
Mechanics: problem solution

Abductive reasoning can be helpful in efforts to determine which argument for a given event is best.

I use an abductive approach to decide which explanation best settles the controversy surrounding these two provocative apologetics issues:

1. What is the best explanation for Jesus Christ's true identity? Was He man, myth, madman, menace, mystic, Martian, or messiah?

2. What is the best explanation for complex life on planet Earth? Was it more likely the result of divine creation or naturalistic evolution?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#157084 Feb 28, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The fight is against something you believe doesn’t exist.
Your not fighting the belief UFO’s exist.
Nor are you asking the elimination of the tooth fairy.
Your not going to war against Dracula.
Your not fighting the elimination of Santa.
You are not fighting the people who say we didn’t land men on the moon.
But you are fighting against God. God must be real or you wouldn’t be fighting so hard.
Thanks for the reply, Eagle12.

A Topix exchange of views isn't 'so hard' and I don't see it as fight. I was using the language of your post.

I simply confront ignorance. If one only believes anything as far as the belief can be justified by reason and evidence, it is no problem to change one's mind. It is when one invests too much that something is true or correct that one has a problem changing one's view. Acts of faith and religious dogma that insist on irrational things being sacred or non-negotiable impede people changing their minds.

Resisting change unreasonably is 'un-USAmerican' too. It would be better for the USA (and therefore the world) if the USA remained innovative and abandoned religiously fundamentalist dogma like:'Jesus was sent by a god and died for our sins'. He was just another prophet of a religion - one that ancient Rome found politically advantageous to promote. Obvious nonsense should be seen for what it is.

Even facts change with time. Once it obvious that the world was flat. "Any fool" could see that for themselves. It is obvious now that Abrahamic gods are no longer tennible, but it takes time and effort to get such 'radical'(and for some people, counter-intuitive) discoveries accepted by the general population.

The USA overcame prejudice against women, blacks, gays. Now it's time to overcome all prejudice and hostility to atheism.

Religion = superstition
Get over it.

Your and You're...
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You 're-and-Your
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#157085 Feb 28, 2013
Speaking of ingnorance, I meant 'tenable', not tennible!(I can never be bothered with spellchecker!:-)

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#157086 Feb 28, 2013
I have an Aussie buddy who is a Methodist minister of all things and he face palms at ID! Yes a Methodist Minister in Australia Lols at ID and accepts the proven science of evolution!
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>

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... 4 min Thinking 2,230
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 5 hr Thinking 23,171
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 17 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 17 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 17 hr Geezerjock 1
Australia: black magic pervert retard 19 hr Thinking 4
Evidence for God! 20 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web