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

Location hidden

#157802 Mar 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You believe in god because you're afraid or your upcoming death due to old age and finger chopping and your belief gives you a measure of comfort.
Death is a natural part of life. Stop being so afraid that just makes your limited remaining time miserable. Instead celebrate and cherish your memories of magnets and strings with family.
<quoted text>
I am almost 20 years past my first death. Went through the process. Hardly afraid of it.

Now, tell us your experience in the matter. Impart your knowledge to everyone.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157803 Mar 2, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
I told u! Richard dawkins thinks evolution created organisms and that he 100% knows that the universe has no intelligent design. He said he is willing to have an intellectual discussion about a scientific God, but he will not accept the possibility! WHY NOT? How can a scientist say he is not even gonna think of an alternative theory and just stick to one coz he don't want to talk about a God coz he don't care!
James Watson has said so much sh*t without evidence. He said black people r thick cos of genes and he said stupid is a DISEASE of the genes!
I will not support scientists who talk sh*t!!! They r giving a bad name to science! science is about coming up with an hypothesis and testing it and taking into consideration ALL the evidence! Half of science today is people's views/theories stated as facts and it's ridiculous that if anyone speaks out against it, they are called nuts and said to be against science!
Religious people who speak out about science do so because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, not because they have controverting evidence.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157804 Mar 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of what you see me post on here is my very own independent deductions and perspectives. I use the basic principles of applied physics and just carried them out further. I've even done some experiments and have worked in that kind of world. I use data obtained by modern science, but definitely not the theories behind it. There is a basic pattern to nature, and they have wondered away from it.
Your experience and perspective seems to be one that "reviews" the thoughts of others and make determinations of what is right and wrong. Instead of getting your hands dirty and injured, and your brain befuddled from trying to figure things out the hard way, You are not as unique as you would like to believe.
This illustrates why I say you are the second smartest guy on this thread. You have the ability to integrate complex information from one source with patterns from other sources, including your own experiences, some of which are unique.

That requires intelligence of a quality far above regurgitating blurbs sucked out of atheist propaganda sites - which is mostly what one gets here.

Kudos, Dave.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157805 Mar 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Am intelligent person would have chosen the word "others" instead.
Just sayin...
Because you actually LIKE to be wrong?

Ok.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157806 Mar 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This illustrates why I say you are the second smartest guy on this thread. You have the ability to integrate complex information from one source with patterns from other sources, including your own experiences, some of which are unique.
That requires intelligence of a quality far above regurgitating blurbs sucked out of atheist propaganda sites - which is mostly what one gets here.
Kudos, Dave.
You gonna let him have the top tonight?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#157807 Mar 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This illustrates why I say you are the second smartest guy on this thread. You have the ability to integrate complex information from one source with patterns from other sources, including your own experiences, some of which are unique.
That requires intelligence of a quality far above regurgitating blurbs sucked out of atheist propaganda sites - which is mostly what one gets here.
Kudos, Dave.
Gee, thanks, Buck.

I would be even smarter if I had more info.

I am really amazed at the consistent low quality of reasoning ability of these Topix atheists. I mean it is below average.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#157808 Mar 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You gonna let him have the top tonight?
Oh, that Topix atheist wit, intelligence, and maturity. Most impressive. Really is.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#157809 Mar 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
But you KNOW there's a god, right?
Right.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#157810 Mar 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit.
I'm disappointed in you.
I thought you were better than that.
"Better", meaning that she agrees with you?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#157811 Mar 2, 2013
Beautiful day in SE CO. Cool air and hot sunshine.

My bones love it.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157812 Mar 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Please, I've been on here long enough to be sensitized and reactive to the stupidity of Topix atheists. You scared me. Thought one of them might have turned you.:-)
LOL

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157813 Mar 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Rocks falling out the sky is gravity, rocks rolling around in your head is reality.
And you're the one that thinks they're bat man.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157814 Mar 2, 2013
What you say I true I do however think ridicule and humor is a great weapon to shine a light exposing the darkness of superstition.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Buck is a bore, and I do not understand why smart people do not ignore him and have intelligent discussions with each other instead. That is why I rarely visit and attempt to communicate with someone who has written something somewhat interesting and provocative, and have my doubts whether people prefer such discussions, rather than arguing with the idiots. Sorry to be so blunt. If you enjoy it, no problem with argument, but I do not get the value of it, compared with discussion with another intelligent person with whom one has nuanced quibbles, or with whom one can discuss multiple dimensions of interesting questions. For example, I think we missed a great opportunity as a species when the asteroid went by so close. It should have been located much sooner and visited as it departed, with adequate technological means to explore its size, shape, make-up, etc, and get some ideas for what could be done to nudge a future approaching asteroid off course if it were coming dangerously close to earth. In short, humans should tentatively play God with the future of earth, in order to save it - rather than to allow idiots to do continuing harm.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157815 Mar 2, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got it backwards. Darwinian evolution predicts abiogenesis. It doesn't rely on it - though, only abiogenesis makes sense from the perspective of our contemporary sciences.
Who cares if Darwin say so? He is 160 years out of date now. He said quite a few things that are no longer considered correct. Only his basic premise still holds. His genius lay in revealing evolution, not in working out the details we have at our hands now.
Your last point is meaningless. It doesn't add weight to any argument you might put forth except "we don't know how life started, but we have some good hypotheses we're testing."
No, I had it correct.

Current evolutionary theory relies inextricably on abiogenesis.

You admitted so yourself - you just didn't know it, when you said, "only abiogenesis makes sense from the perspective of our contemporary sciences"

You could have just as correctly worded your statement "ONLY ABIOGENESIS makes sense with our contemporary evolution theory".

So then, what if abiogenesis does not make sense, i.e., is not true? What happens to the paradigm without it?

The Darwinian paradigm collapses and must be reconstructed because ANY ALTERNATIVE TO ABIOGENESIS REQUIRES EXTERNAL AGENCY.

Thus and then, it can no longer be assumed that random variation and natural selection is the sole mechanism of biologic diversity.

Also, out goes the assumption of universal common descent. Out goes the assumption, even, that life evolved through orderly sequence, instead of multiple life forms arising at different times. Out goes the assumption that multicellular organisms arose from unicellular organisms. Out goes the assumption that life arose in its most simple form and progressed ALWAYS to more complex.

Abiogenesis is inextricably linked with the large-scale views of evolutionary theory.

It was so in Darwin's day; it is so now. Darwin was greatly distressed by this, and so began the tricky campaign in science for bifurcating the two concepts.

It works very well, at least among the non-skeptical.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#157816 Mar 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're the one that thinks they're bat man.
Then why isn't my name bat man? Clearly thinking isn't your
forte. What is absolutely amazing is how the most indoctrinated and venomously religitarded on the entire topix site, congratulate each
other on their cleverness. But cannot manage to admit anything but a constant denial of any achievement of modern science.
Thinking the whole time their inability to grasp and describe theory
explaining function is because it's false, and their only recourse is a magical skydaddy who is beyond all reasoning ability is why all humans cannot understand.

But the truth is that they like so many fundies reject science, because they are lacking the ability to understand it.
To admit their own shortcoming is blaspheme and rely on the god card to pull them out of the pool of crocodiles.
In reality they like you int the real world will academically be torn limb from limb and shredded to pieces, if they have to present anything credible.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157817 Mar 2, 2013
My statement to Dave is based on his own musings about what happens after you die and how because I am young I am not able to comprehend his viewpoint on the desire for an afterlife. Fear of what happens after death is a common thread with believers don't you agree?

I could die in a car crash tonight but death does not scare me anymore than falling asleep does.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Here you are arguing with Dave Nelson, and I have forgotten most of the names of the ones I think are not worth discussing things with. At least BC is memorable, however awful! You I remember as mostly sensible, but maybe a bit too sure in the way you state things - I doubt if you are such a authoritarian personality as to insist that you know. You are venturing good guesses about people's psychology - fear of death or of dying - and making reasonable suggestions for how to live more happily now. I think you are likely correct in many cases, but not absolutely correct in all cases. Still you are closer to rational than most - either "hard" believers or "hard" atheists who claim to know one thing or the other. I consider myself to be an agnostic (not making a knowledge claim) atheist (not believing in a God such as it is usually defined - and my own definition is definately not the usual one, nor do I connect with it in any way as a believer in it - it is more of an attempt at definition that is useful to trump all other definitions that I think are ridiculous). Good luck with your arguments if you enjoy them. If you ever want a converstion with me, I do not have my own computer, and only have time on Sat AM late after Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris Perry on MSNBC. From 11 to 1 central time. That is my way of both giving up on topix and yet not giving up on some persons I think are worthwhile conversing with, such as you.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#157818 Mar 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy shitballs.
Did Koder just admit to an err?!?
There's hope...
Atheist don't make mistakes but mistakes make Atheist.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157819 Mar 2, 2013
Exactly which is why science always seeks to progress and improve. Few events brings a scientist more joy than being shown observable data that improves upon or eclipses what they had previously found.

Every day thousands of scientists all over the world dive into previous aspects of theories testing and retesting them literally millions of times hoping for a new discovery.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> That was to Clementia. I can see a difference in trying to correct people who make false accusations - such as that scientists are afraid to say they don't know - because they do not know any better, and those who make false accusations because they are outright liars. I suspect many who make false statements because they do not know any better are resistant to learning that they are mistaken, and won't reform after they are corrected, however! But your answer was interesting. You might also note that there are differences among the sciences and between physical sciences and socalled social sciences, and among scientists themselves, as to how authoritative and arbitrary they should when they think they have discovered the answer to something - or THE ANSWER if they are too sure and too proud of themselves.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157820 Mar 2, 2013
Am intelligent person.....
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Am intelligent person would have chosen the word "others" instead.
Just sayin...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157821 Mar 2, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Buck is a bore, and I do not understand why smart people do not ignore him and have intelligent discussions with each other instead. That is why I rarely visit and attempt to communicate with someone who has written something somewhat interesting and provocative, and have my doubts whether people prefer such discussions, rather than arguing with the idiots. Sorry to be so blunt. If you enjoy it, no problem with argument, but I do not get the value of it, compared with discussion with another intelligent person with whom one has nuanced quibbles, or with whom one can discuss multiple dimensions of interesting questions. For example, I think we missed a great opportunity as a species when the asteroid went by so close. It should have been located much sooner and visited as it departed, with adequate technological means to explore its size, shape, make-up, etc, and get some ideas for what could be done to nudge a future approaching asteroid off course if it were coming dangerously close to earth. In short, humans should tentatively play God with the future of earth, in order to save it - rather than to allow idiots to do continuing harm.
If I notice a "smart person" on here, compared to myself, I'll give them your message.

You effing moron.

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... 13 min Eagle 12 2,599
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr thetruth 202
Atheism: On the Rise? (Jan '13) 3 hr chris toal 39
Evidence for God! 4 hr thetruth 368
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 5 hr thetruth 8
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 5 hr thetruth 162
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr thetruth 1,451
More from around the web