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

#158516 Mar 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is the change of a population due to genetic mutations and selected by natural selection. Learn you relationships in science or just give up, we know you're good at giving up.
Genetic mutation is not necessary for natural selection.

Would you like another try, KittenOdor?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#158517 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You added another component to natural selection to get what you claim is evolution. That's my point - natural selection is not evolution.
I agree natural selection is the proposed mechanism of evolution.
But it is not evolution.
Passing the trait that allowed survival is in no way a different process than if the trait had not aided survival. That is simple reproduction.
Nothing in the example offered yet is evolution.
Natural selection is not evolution. If it were, we would have no use for the term "evolution". We would simply say the process of natural selection gives us our biologic diversity.
If you divorce science from logic, it ends up being mush - which is what attempts to describe evolution has become.

Natural selection leads to speciation , and that IS evolution.
This has also been observed, so your scientist that denies evolution is willfully ignorant.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158518 Mar 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Because their religion elevates stupid, making it seem like a good thing, so they latch onto the religion because they know they are stupid and couldn't find acceptance in anything else because of that.
At least they know what they believe.

You believe wholeheartedly in evolution, but you can't even say what it is.

Dr. David Berlinski:

"Dawkins himself has maintained that those who do not believe a complex biological structure may be constructed in small steps are expressing merely their own sense of "personal incredulity." But in countering their animadversions he appeals to his own ability to believe almost anything. Commenting on the (very plausible) claim that spiders could not have acquired their web-spinning behavior by a Darwinian mechanism, Dawkins writes:'It is not impossible at all. That is what I firmly believe and I have some experience of spiders and their webs.' It is painful to see this advanced as an argument."

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#158519 Mar 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural selection leads to speciation , and that IS evolution.
This has also been observed, so your scientist that denies evolution is willfully ignorant.
Aura is correct, Buck.

If you deny the science, your only recourse is superstition.

Religious conjecture.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#158520 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic mutation is not necessary for natural selection.
Would you like another try, KittenOdor?

Genetic mutation is a fact, an inescapable one in the production of offspring. So they are mutually inclusive.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158521 Mar 4, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the point you seem to be missing is that just because science is not omniscient doesn't mean it's wrong about what it does know. And religion doesn't "know" anything, it's all made-up mythology. I'll take science any day over superstition. If you want the latter, you are welcome to it.
You will take whatever you're told.

David Berlinski:

'Darwin,' Richard Dawkins has remarked with evident gratitude,'made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.' This is an exaggeration, of course, but one containing a portion of the truth. That Darwin's theory of evolution and biblical accounts of creation play similar roles in the human economy of belief is an irony appreciated by altogether too few biologists."
Dizzy

United States

#158522 Mar 4, 2013
I'm not sure why everyone care so much about religion... Who cares what someone else believes in? So atheist don't believe in deity's it's not that big of a deal! And so Christians and other religions have God(s)... People care to much. If everyone would stop judging others for what they do/believe the world would be a much nicer place... If you believe that's fine! If you don't that's fine too!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158523 Mar 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aura is correct, Buck.
If you deny the science, your only recourse is superstition.
Religious conjecture.
You and Aura are wrong. Again.

If you go back and read my comment, you will see that it refers to the theory of evolution "as stated".

I accept evolution, and so do the scientists I referred to. I believe it occurred and continues to occur.

Maybe you need to read it 3 times.

Do you and Aura have some criticism to offer that is not wildly ignorant?

I'll let you in on something - it is not only possible to dissent from portions of a popular theory, while not rejecting it entirely, but it is also healthy.

I do, however, apologize to exposing you and Aura to the painful and alien concept of free thought.

Mea culpa.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#158524 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic mutation is not necessary for natural selection.
Would you like another try, KittenOdor?
Or, in your case, genetic mutation was not necessarily from natural selection.

It's an anomaly.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158525 Mar 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic mutation is a fact, an inescapable one in the production of offspring. So they are mutually inclusive.
Yes. Genetic mutation is a fact.

It is not always a necessity, however, for natural selection.

So KittenOdor defined evolution wrong.

So far, nobody has defined it correctly - but they all believe in it.

I can define it correctly, but I'm not going to help.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#158526 Mar 4, 2013
Dizzy wrote:
I'm not sure why everyone care so much about religion... Who cares what someone else believes in? So atheist don't believe in deity's it's not that big of a deal! And so Christians and other religions have God(s)... People care to much. If everyone would stop judging others for what they do/believe the world would be a much nicer place... If you believe that's fine! If you don't that's fine too!!
Then what would they have to argue over? lol

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158527 Mar 4, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Embarrassed because you don't understand how evolution works? Have no idea what the word component means and how it factors in with the process of evolution? Yeah, I'd be mightily embarrassed if I were you.
The claim was not that the component factors into the theory.

The claim was that the component IS THE THEORY.

You are dumber than a stack of doorstops.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158528 Mar 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural selection leads to speciation , and that IS evolution.
This has also been observed, so your scientist that denies evolution is willfully ignorant.
I mentioned nobody denying evolution.

I also agreed that natural selection is a component of evolution.

The claim was that natural selection IS evolution.

It is not.

Do you have a disagreement that is not wildly ignorant?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158529 Mar 4, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Or, in your case, genetic mutation was not necessarily from natural selection.
It's an anomaly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =CkOfeSNsWpMXX
Spoken like the little punk you are.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#158530 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You and Aura are wrong. Again.
If you go back and read my comment, you will see that it refers to the theory of evolution "as stated".
I accept evolution, and so do the scientists I referred to. I believe it occurred and continues to occur.
Maybe you need to read it 3 times.
Do you and Aura have some criticism to offer that is not wildly ignorant?
I'll let you in on something - it is not only possible to dissent from portions of a popular theory, while not rejecting it entirely, but it is also healthy.
I do, however, apologize to exposing you and Aura to the painful and alien concept of free thought.
Mea culpa.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#158531 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like the little punk you are.
Yep

:-)

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#158532 Mar 4, 2013
Well you could play the blob with zero special effects needed.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like the little punk you are.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#158533 Mar 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There are also atheists and agnostics in science who do not accept the theory of evolution as stated, nor abiogenesis. They object on scientific and logical grounds.
Yeah. What, 4? 10?

I've read the links you've posted to the ID stuff, gone through the court transcripts - none of their statements were compelling. Few of them seemed to understand what natural selection was and how it worked - very similar to how you incorrectly describe it, actually.

To be honest, Buck, there's a lot of scientists in my field who don't actually get how evolution works. So I'm not surprised that some scientists might object to it - it's a matter of not comprehending it, not being satisfied with how the theory is incorrectly and illogically implemented sometimes.

I was at an evolutionary anth seminar and one women's presentation, I just wanted to stand up and say "clearly you don't know what you're talking about and the rest of us are embarrassed for you. Could you stop?"

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#158534 Mar 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You added another component to natural selection to get what you claim is evolution. That's my point - natural selection is not evolution.
I agree natural selection is the proposed mechanism of evolution.
But it is not evolution.
Passing the trait that allowed survival is in no way a different process than if the trait had not aided survival. That is simple reproduction.
Nothing in the example offered yet is evolution.
Natural selection is not evolution. If it were, we would have no use for the term "evolution". We would simply say the process of natural selection gives us our biologic diversity.
If you divorce science from logic, it ends up being mush - which is what attempts to describe evolution has become.
I'm not sure why you're not understanding my words. I never wrote that natural selection was THE mechanism of evolution. I wrote:

natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. It is the mechanism which produces adaptation.

I'm assuming you're confused b/c some other poster is telling you that natural selection IS evolution. It's not. It's just one mechanism of many. I would never write that it is the only mechanism.

If we might get a bit more advanced in this conversation? What we call "mechanisms of evolution" aren't really as separate as the categories that we constructed here - those "mechanisms" are merely for our benefit, so that we can parse nature into recognizable and therefore understandable pieces. But nature is messy; it's not so neatly organized.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#158535 Mar 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You will take whatever you're told.
David Berlinski:
'Darwin,' Richard Dawkins has remarked with evident gratitude,'made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.' This is an exaggeration, of course, but one containing a portion of the truth. That Darwin's theory of evolution and biblical accounts of creation play similar roles in the human economy of belief is an irony appreciated by altogether too few biologists."
The same can easily be said about what Berlinski believes - which isn't actually capable of being tested scientifically.

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... 1 hr Richardfs 2,183
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 7 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 8 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 8 hr Geezerjock 1
Australia: black magic pervert retard 9 hr Thinking 4
Evidence for God! 11 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web