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 7,620)

Showing posts 152,381 - 152,400 of222,979
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158507
Mar 4, 2013
 
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>If death is emanate and there is no possibility of recovery then why keep yourself alive? Just to suffer? Assisted suicide should be made legal. You know why its not? Because of religion. Once more religion raises its ugly head and forces it's beliefs on the masses. For what other reason is there that a sick and dying person can't decide to end his misery?
No one is stopping you, is there?

If you really want to die you will. People do it all the time.

Assisted suicide cuts into the medical industry's profits.

Goodnight.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158508
Mar 4, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is stopping you, is there?
If you really want to die you will. People do it all the time.
Assisted suicide cuts into the medical industry's profits.
Goodnight.
It's about time ain't it? lol

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158509
Mar 4, 2013
 
When it comes to idiotic godbot statements this one of Dave's is nirvana. I mean what more can you ask out a bible thumping Christhole to admit that they are against the reading of books and prefer self injury as a learning tool?

The jokes write themselves.

Dave has plunged deeper into stupidity and ignorance than Inwould wager any other believer on this forum.

This statement of his that he made in sheer honest anger is the pinnacle of belief stupidity and shows the real problem with believers.

I think the only way he could have made it better is if he said Jesus told him that books were bad and self harm was good.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Dave Nelson the prime example of a believer in God. Books bad.. Self injury good.... Quote Dave Nelson. Never dumber.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your journey of discovery consists of reading books. Mine was breaking parts of my body in doing it. In addition to reading books.
Do you really think your blathering impresses me?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158510
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>If death is emanate and there is no possibility of recovery then why keep yourself alive? Just to suffer? Assisted suicide should be made legal. You know why its not? Because of religion. Once more religion raises its ugly head and forces it's beliefs on the masses. For what other reason is there that a sick and dying person can't decide to end his misery?
Imminent...

I don't have any religion.

Want me to come over and smother you with your pillow right now?

The world would consider it a favor.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158511
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You're kind of jumping to conclusions there - he didn't say he was an atheist or anti-god. I know lots of scientists who are also Christians. They just take a longer view than other Christians and tacitly assume God's plan involved abiogenesis and evolution. I suppose, if the universe is designed by your God (ha!- why not any of the others?), then the words should really be "apparent" abiogenesis.
RR, there are facts, yes, but our ability to understand them is not perfect. Facts, as you use the term, are phenomena left over from events in the past - the microwave background radiation from the Big Bang that we use to describe and study it, fossils, ancient rocks, etc. You know we get all of our understanding of Earth's early environment from ancient rocks?(and models based on predictions made in chemistry and physics).
So how good our science is at measuring, studying - even noticing - these "facts" is the limit of our ability to know the past.
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.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158512
Mar 4, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Imminent...
I don't have any religion.
Want me to come over and smother you with your pillow right now?
The world would consider it a favor.
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.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158513
Mar 4, 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.
Booh!

This is your conscience, the First Amendment.

And Thomas Jefferson.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158514
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
If only some individuals in a population survive and they do so because of a trait they have, and that trait is passed onto their offspring, that is evolution, Buck.
I really can't see how you're denying that natural selection is an evolutionary process. It is the mechanism by which adaptation evolves.
Genetic drift doesn't produce adaptation. Gene flow rarely does. It's natural selection, baby, all the way.
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.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158515
Mar 4, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Big talk, Bubba. You have too much to lose. Including your memories.
Killing yourself to escape is stupid. I have no religious morals about that if that is what you are saying. You haven't read what I have written about myself, have you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158516
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158518
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158521
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158523
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158525
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 152,381 - 152,400 of222,979
|
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.

8 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Texas 21,326
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr Patrick 15
Introducing The Universal Religion 7 hr NightSerf 718
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr ChristineM 802
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 16 hr Buck Crick 324
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 17 hr Mikko 1,274
The Ultimate Evidence of God Jul 7 Ben_Masada 18
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••