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 (Page 7,607)

Showing posts 152,121 - 152,140 of217,806
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Dont kill innocent people just”

Since: Jul 12

"because they're inconvenient"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158217
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
"proof" really is hard for you, isn't it?
No, that's not what I said to Buck. I discussed the situation with him from the point of view of his "IF" - if we can never demonstrate abiogenesis. That was where his discussion started from.
However, as I wrote, all our sciences predict abiogenesis. Further, biochemistry and molecular biology demonstrate it's the only likely explanation - did you read Aero's excellent news piece? Moreover, the biochemists are testing possibilities.
No, proof isn't a difficult concept for me. It's evidence or argument helping to establish a fact or truth.

You say abiogenesis is "the only likely explanation". This is why I say people like you are indoctrinated to think the way you do.

People like you firmly believe that abiogenesis is "the only likely explanation" and no doubt your test "results" will confirm that....

“Dont kill innocent people just”

Since: Jul 12

"because they're inconvenient"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158218
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok.
I kind of disagree with you on the concept of "right and wrong" being embedded in our heads. I'd suggest there are "mechanisms of learning morality" in our brains and that those that favor group cohesion and us/them classifications are more easily learnable. Otherwise, you're left trying to explain why it was moral for the Mayans to sacrifice children but not for Americans.
Damn you and your logic!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158219
Mar 3, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, Buck.
And at one point yesterday, for one brief, shining moment, I agreed with you, and said so.
However you push the limits, at one point the universe contained no life.
Now it does.
Let's assume I take your word for that.

Do you know if the universe, at its inception, contained properties designed with the propensity to produce life?

This would require, of course, some intelligence independent of the universe in space and time.

And if the elements and properties present in the exploding birth of our universe had this built-in propensity for life, how would the present picture differ, scientifically, from what we observe today?

I submit it would not necessarily differ at all. The possible exception might be the signs indicative of intelligent design.

But wait! Is that even an exception? Some conclude it is there.

“Dont kill innocent people just”

Since: Jul 12

"because they're inconvenient"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158220
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:

Most atheists don't. All of my atheist friends think I'm stupid for wasting my time on these sites.
If I was an atheist, I'd agree with your friends. I'm not an atheist and I've spend all of maybe 5 minutes of my life on atheist websites - usually just to get a laugh.
Also, the atheists you know are mostly from Christian culture - they've left that part of their life behind, but are sensitive to just how Christian their culture is now, how much it runs deep in so many parts of American society, etc. So they talk about it - many might still be working out what it means to have given up the dominant religion in your country.
Trust me, atheists in Japan are totally different. They still perform Buddhist and Shinto rituals for the social meaning - they just don't care or think about the deities and religious meaning behind the rituals.
Do they try to stop any and all Buddhist or Shinto rituals? Especially those in public? Atheists do that in America a lot. They claim to be tolerant, but most of them only seem to be tolerant of people that agrees with their opinions.

We have a big white cross here, on Mt Rubidoux. An atheist complained about it because it sits on city property. The FFRC filed a lawsuit against Riverside to have it removed, even though the majority of Riversidians wanted the cross to stay - even one atheist friend of mine. He said the cross is meaningless to him except for bring a city landmark (it's been there since 1907). The city is selling the property to a private owner to shut up the FFRC.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158221
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok.
I kind of disagree with you on the concept of "right and wrong" being embedded in our heads.
I have a piece of glass from a beer bottle embedded in my head.

Also, a link out of a motorcycle chain.

I would get them removed, but it's a hoot to peck on them with a spoon in time with the music in clubs.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158222
Mar 3, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi hiding!
You going to be back for a while, or just taking a break from reality?
Always good to see you.
Still glowing?
Glowing more, I'm afraid. Small vermin sometimes perish in the beams!

I don't think I live in reality anymore :)

I always miss you, though, Aero.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158223
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Most atheists don't. All of my atheist friends think I'm stupid for wasting my time on these sites.
Also, the atheists you know are mostly from Christian culture - they've left that part of their life behind, but are sensitive to just how Christian their culture is now, how much it runs deep in so many parts of American society, etc. So they talk about it - many might still be working out what it means to have given up the dominant religion in your country.
Trust me, atheists in Japan are totally different. They still perform Buddhist and Shinto rituals for the social meaning - they just don't care or think about the deities and religious meaning behind the rituals.
Sounds like being married.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158224
Mar 3, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions.
There is no evidence for spontaneous life.
Scientists can't find a starting point for their theoretical evolutionary chain.
But you buy it hook, line & sinker.
Now you're confusing an outdated idea with contemporary science. That's cute.

Do you know what evidence is? Do you know what constitutes evidence for abiogenesis?

Why do you think science predicts abiogenesis? How do you think it's being investigated?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158225
Mar 3, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn you and your logic!
Sorry, man.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158226
Mar 3, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Eh?
"Life started from nothing out of the mind of a god."
...then...
"Still the same nothing out of nothing."
O_o
God isn't nothing...
He's your imagined being.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158227
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's assume I take your word for that.
Do you know if the universe, at its inception, contained properties designed with the propensity to produce life?
This would require, of course, some intelligence independent of the universe in space and time.
And if the elements and properties present in the exploding birth of our universe had this built-in propensity for life, how would the present picture differ, scientifically, from what we observe today?
I submit it would not necessarily differ at all. The possible exception might be the signs indicative of intelligent design.
But wait! Is that even an exception? Some conclude it is there.
Hmm.

You're introducing something of your own here - this "propensity to produce life".

What's that, and is there any need to assume one?

“Dont kill innocent people just”

Since: Jul 12

"because they're inconvenient"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158228
Mar 3, 2013
 
Darwin's theory doesn't apply to everyone....
http://thechive.com/2012/08/31/darwins-theory...

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158229
Mar 3, 2013
 
Lmfao! Nope.

Anyways even if it was true which it's not, that was many moons ago fatboy. Now you are a butt ugly chump who has spent more time in mental wards screaming at hallucinations and sh1tting yourself than your imaginary football player ever spent on the field.

You aren't impressing anyone with your lies fatboy. Now get to the treadmill.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, thanks for the physical fitness advice.
I was a 3-year starting lineman on an SEC ranked team, and made the Cincinnati Bengals starting offensive line. I out-lifted everyone on the team, including the great Anthony Munoz.
Coach Bill Curry, who coached at Alabama, Kentucky, and played in the NFL commented to Sports Illustrated that I had, at 6'7, 315, "the most impressive football body he had ever seen - college or pro."
But I'll try your advice. To be in the position to advise me, you must be one hell of a specimen.
I tip my hat. Please don't hurt me.

“Dont kill innocent people just”

Since: Jul 12

"because they're inconvenient"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158230
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, man.
ARRRGH!

“Dont kill innocent people just”

Since: Jul 12

"because they're inconvenient"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158231
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're confusing an outdated idea with contemporary science. That's cute.
Do you know what evidence is? Do you know what constitutes evidence for abiogenesis?
Why do you think science predicts abiogenesis? How do you think it's being investigated?
No, no, no and another no.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158232
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
To say "evolution has not been disproven" has exactly zero meaning. None at all. It is white noise.
It has the same meaninglessness as saying "evolution is fact". No meaning at all. Nothing is said there.
The reason for this is that "evolution" lacks a specific meaning. It can be employed as one of a flowchart of differing concepts, depending on which most benefits the proponent of the theory at the time.
Evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature:
"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it."
Evolution is true. Evolution is false.- Both statements have the exact same meaning. Which is none.
False. To say that a theory has not been disproved carries meaning in science.

Evolution the observation is fact. Evolution the theory is theory.

Ehrlich wrote that in 1967. He's kind of right. To disprove the entirety of evolutionary theory, you'd need to observe some deity creating species, show a species or genes popping into existence for no discernible reason (or a magical one), show that resources are unlimited, etc.

But the details of the theory can be disproved and are tested for that. Hence, the theory changes as we understand more. The ToE now and 100 years ago is quite different.

The thing is, there are no competing theories in science. No competing ideas offer a framework with which to generate testable hypotheses - none.

I know you claim that ID is capable of that, but it can never answer the ultimate questsions of "why" except with "some designer did it." At that point, you're no longer doing science but speculative fiction.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158233
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
"proof" really is hard for you, isn't it?
No, that's not what I said to Buck. I discussed the situation with him from the point of view of his "IF" - if we can never demonstrate abiogenesis. That was where his discussion started from.
However, as I wrote, all our sciences predict abiogenesis. Further, biochemistry and molecular biology demonstrate it's the only likely explanation - did you read Aero's excellent news piece? Moreover, the biochemists are testing possibilities.
Abiogenesis can only be proved as a way the chemical building blocks can be combined. Just another technological/chemical/physics thingy of assembling matter. Just a link in the chain back to the big bang. It can never be anything more than a possibility until you can absolutely prove there was no design going back to the big bang.

I've been emphasizing how much the big bang is like a seed sprouting. Physicist don't have a clue as to what that hot dense whatever it was was originally arranged.

I posted a link a day or so ago about seed imbibition and a youtube demo of seeds expanding. There is an energy burst required when the seed fires up. That is your heat. The expansion is that imbibition, but instead of water, it is space, or some other aspect of the universe or beyond. There was a pre-set matrix in the big bang seed.

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

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158234
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The current whale evolutionary paradigm is still not only wrong, but impossible.
Darwin may have been closer. At least he admitted he was speculating.
Nope. But please, explain how it is wrong and false with evidence.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158235
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The total of evidence for abiogenesis is currently..."0".
If we wish to be more precise, it is "0.0000".
That doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. It just means if it did, nothing in known history has provided any recognizable evidence.
That's not actually true. You're discounting all the information we have about how organic molecules form from inorganic molecules and how they self-organize. Hence variations hypotheses regarding abiogenesis can be tested.

Your biggest problem here is that your argument rests on abiogenesis not being demonstrated - it either can or cannot. But that's not how the research on it is being carried out. Rather, biochemists and molecular biologists are testing how organic molecules form, how they combine, under what circumstances, etc., to build a picture of what the pre-life environment of the earth looks like. And the knowledge of how these chemicals interact is growing.

So your position relies on the ignorance of the field and reducing it to a binary position. While the answer to the question "did live arise from non-life" can be a binary question, the research into that question is not. It's complex, multi-faceted and ongoing.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158236
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. But please, explain how it is wrong and false with evidence.
Don't hold your breath.

BTW Hi, how's it going?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 152,121 - 152,140 of217,806
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••