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 8,687)

Showing posts 173,721 - 173,740 of223,173
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
LCNLin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181075
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's amusement, not jealousy.
Trust me.
Bob Posts a lot
and is very much into
"BoB"
end of story
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181076
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Of course he's a MYTH, he fits the definition perfectly......MYTH.."A traditional stroy concerning early history of a people or explaining some natural of social phenomenon and typically involving a SUPERNATURAL BEING of event. A perfect example of God.
A real engineer and designer you say?......I'd more likely call him a hack. He gave the bird of prey the superior eyes sight, the canines the superior sense of smell, the felines excellent night vision, turtles a hard shell for protection, we slip and fall we can be killed, great design eh? He gave the whales and dolphins one hole to breath from and one to eat, he gave us one, so thousands of us can choke to death eating, great design eh?
Of course there is NO grand designer, all the animals I mention got those advantages through evolution.
My goodness Doctor, you are all worked up in a frothing fuming response. Itís ok Doctor, donít take it so personal. I canít help it thereís hardly any transitional fossils for mankind. But you have something to be really proud about.
Evolution has some of the best artist in the world.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181077
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>It seems as every time you open your mouth, blatant ignorance spews forth. "Creation of life from a *sterile* environment." What? Where did you ever hear such a thing, that the Early earth had a *sterile* environment, a creationists web site? Here's your *sterile* environment.(A-I) the primordial atmosphere made up of ammonia, methane, water vapor, and even some quantities of hydrogen. Add some energy from the heat of numerous volcanos, the heat and ionizing power of lightning, the intense radiation of radioactive atoms, and the steady radiation of the sun. Add to that the very energetic component of sunlight, ultraviolet radiation. Indeed experiments have specifically SHOWN that ultraviolet light is energetic enough to INTERACT with chemicals of the primordial atmosphere and set the off on their march toward life. Sterile atmosphere..........I told you before, quit reading shit from creationists, it will rot your brain!!!!!!
Itís so easy science has not been able to reproduce genesis. Oh as far as ammonia, nothing can live in ammonia. Ever notice where a dog urinates? It kills the grass. Have you ever had a fish tank?

Guess what happens when the water is not replenished with fresh water? The ammonia kills the tank. By the way where did these elements come from? They just appeared?

You believe in self creation Doctor. It has not been reproduced in a lab anywhere in the world. Can you please explain.

Where did the elements come from?

How do you account ammonia NH3 kills biological growth?

DNA or RNA is necessary for cell growth & division. How did the strands self construct this complicated information arrangement all on itís own

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181078
Oct 23, 2013
 
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
My goodness Doctor, you are all worked up in a frothing fuming response. Itís ok Doctor, donít take it so personal. I canít help it thereís hardly any transitional fossils for mankind. But you have something to be really proud about.
Evolution has some of the best artist in the world.
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has some of the best artist in the world.
Yes. You hardly ever see them paint a blue eyed, blond haired middle eastern man holding a lamb, do you?
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181079
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Well according to some godbots, it all took place in six days and nothing has changed since.
No religion has ever failed by underestimating the intelligence and gullibility of humans.
The six days are actually the six stages in creation. And each day could have been billions of years. Gods work day is not equal to mans day. The thought that creation was performed in six human days is the old 1950's thinking. You are about 63 years behind in what modern day Christians believe.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181080
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yes. You hardly ever see them paint a blue eyed, blond haired middle eastern man holding a lamb, do you?
If you paid them they would. Ever heard the term, "starving artist?"
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181081
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how godbots always forget about one tiny aspects of the whole process Ė time.
Perhaps true of the 1950's Christian perception. But a lot has changed since then. Time

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181083
Oct 23, 2013
 
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The six days are actually the six stages in creation. And each day could have been billions of years. Gods work day is not equal to mans day. The thought that creation was performed in six human days is the old 1950's thinking. You are about 63 years behind in what modern day Christians believe.
Why do the Christians change their views like that?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181085
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle 12 wrote:
Even in this very modern and advanced scientific age. Scientist donít have anything but hunches
That's simply incorrect.
Eagle 12 wrote:
they call it theories.
If you don't know what a scientific theory is, then you don't have the background to make a meaningful contribution to a serious discussion about science.

There are two kinds of people that I don't take minority scientific opinions from:

[1] People that aren't acknowledged by as experts in good standing in the relevant scientific field by their peers.

[2] People with a pro-faith, anti-science agenda. Their purpose is not the same as mine, and their values conflict with mine.
Eagle 12 wrote:
Which points to the blind faith Atheist have. They donít know how it happened but just accept it happened.
It boggles the mind to see faith based thinkers offering such arguments.

ďI always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out,ďAtheism is just another kind of faith,Ē because itís a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When youíve succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, itís time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes.Ē- Amanda Marcotte

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181086
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle 12 wrote:
No scientific experiment has been able to create life from a sterile lifeless environment.
Why is that relevant? Have you concluded that it cannot happen because it hasn't yet? If so, that obvious error would be further evidence that you really aren't trying to do what the scientists are trying to do, which is to discover what actually happened and how.

You have already chosen a faith based answer, which I'm sure meets your psychological needs, but that would only be meaningful for you and of little interest or value to rational skeptics.

Besides, what do you care about evidence? You don't require it to support your beliefs, nor can evidence modify them. For example, if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that if they synthesized a cell de novo from organic chemicals that it wouldn't phase you or diminish the intensity of your faith based beliefs a whit. So why are you pretending that such things matter to you, or that your decisions might be affected by that evidence were it ready to offer you in 2013?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181087
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle 12 wrote:
Now if you are talking about the evolution of mankind. No one can deny that knowledge has been an evolutionary process for man.
There you go again - confusing and conflating basic concepts. We're talking about the biological evolution of species, not cultural evolution.

These are reasonable mistakes for most people to make, but not for somebody arguing against the experts in the fields. The scientists disagree with you, and nobody else gets a vote - not you, and not me.

Although it doesn't, the entire Christian church could reject the pronouncements of the scientific community in support of their faith based choices, but it wouldn't change a thing in the scientific community, nor among those of us who trust their methods and motives more than those of faith based thinkers.

Just look at the track record of the scientists and that of the priests. Which are capable of explaining, predicting and in some cases controlling nature?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181088
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle 12 wrote:
But evolution of mankind as saying we mutated from apes. It takes a wild imagination, artist conceptions, and a hell of a lot of speculation.
Nope. It takes an open mind and an education. Human chromosome 2 is the smoking gun for that issue. The issue is considered settled everywhere except churches.

If man didn't evolve from a common ancestral ape that spawned all the extant great apes, then he was created by a trickster god or alien race that wanted to make it look like he did. How does that sit with your theology? Is Jehovah-Jesus a deceptive god that wants to deceive men into believing that he doesn't exist? Did he seed the earth with fossils during the week of creation? Did he insert the endogenous retrovirus into our genome just so that in a few millennia we would find them, be deceived, disbelieve, and go to hell?

Does that sound like your god? If it does, then I'll concede that such a god remains a logical possibility however unlikely. If you say that your god would never do that - well, then it doesn't exist.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181089
Oct 23, 2013
 
More backfilling creationist bullshit.

You lot don't half tie yourselves in knots trying to salvage *anything* from the bible.
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The six days are actually the six stages in creation. And each day could have been billions of years. Gods work day is not equal to mans day. The thought that creation was performed in six human days is the old 1950's thinking. You are about 63 years behind in what modern day Christians believe.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181090
Oct 23, 2013
 
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
My goodness Doctor, you are all worked up in a frothing fuming response. Itís ok Doctor, donít take it so personal. I canít help it thereís hardly any transitional fossils for mankind. But you have something to be really proud about.
Evolution has some of the best artist in the world.
Who ever told you that is simply lying to you, as do most creationists. Thats all they have are lies since evidence is not part of their beliefs. The transitional fossils exist but apparently you are to lazy to get off your sorry ass and discover them. You are content to remain a lazy ass and listen to creationist bullshit. I do feel sorry for your loss. Rejecting scientific facts is one of the most pitiful examples of religious mind poisoning. Once again, I am sorry for your loss, the loss of your possibly once intelligent mind.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181091
Oct 23, 2013
 
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís so easy science has not been able to reproduce genesis. Oh as far as ammonia, nothing can live in ammonia. Ever notice where a dog urinates? It kills the grass. Have you ever had a fish tank?
Guess what happens when the water is not replenished with fresh water? The ammonia kills the tank. By the way where did these elements come from? They just appeared?
You believe in self creation Doctor. It has not been reproduced in a lab anywhere in the world. Can you please explain.
Where did the elements come from?
How do you account ammonia NH3 kills biological growth?
DNA or RNA is necessary for cell growth & division. How did the strands self construct this complicated information arrangement all on itís own
I really can't help you with you ignorance, the best I can do is post factual information in hopes that you will begin to understand your ignorance.

To your misinformation about ammonia and that nothing can live in it. Nitrifying bacteria are classified as obligate chemolithotrophs, and must use inorganic salts as an energy source. They cannot use organic materials so they must oxidize AMMONIA and nitrate for their energy needs. They have become extremely efficient at converting AMMONIA and nitrate. In order for them to oxidize AMMONIA for their energy, they HAVE TO BE IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH AMMONIA. So your wrong about your ammonia killing life, these bacteria FRIGGIN EAT IT!!!

Further proof of your ignorance, farmer use AMMONIA in the fertilizer they use Ammonia help the crops grow not kill them You lose again pops.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181092
Oct 23, 2013
 
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís so easy science has not been able to reproduce genesis. Oh as far as ammonia, nothing can live in ammonia. Ever notice where a dog urinates? It kills the grass. Have you ever had a fish tank?
Guess what happens when the water is not replenished with fresh water? The ammonia kills the tank. By the way where did these elements come from? They just appeared?
You believe in self creation Doctor. It has not been reproduced in a lab anywhere in the world. Can you please explain.
Where did the elements come from?
How do you account ammonia NH3 kills biological growth?
DNA or RNA is necessary for cell growth & division. How did the strands self construct this complicated information arrangement all on itís own
Holy shit sherlock, we are not talking about a friggin aquarium, we're talking about an ocean that covers most of our planet, and the ammonia is MIXRD with other elements.

Where did these elements come from? You mean the exact same elements that make up the majority of YOU. They are what stars are made of, they come from the universe. You and stars are made up of the same "stuff." Now where did all this "stuff" come from? Quite possible it has always existed, as in the Hartle-Hawking State, that is a NO boundary proposal that the universe is infinitely finite. There was NO time before the big Bang because time did not exist before the formation of
spacetime associated with the BB, The universe has no beginning, it has no initial boundaries on time nor space.

Now pay real close attention, if that is at all possible........Beginnings are entities that have to do with TIME: because TIME did not exists before the BB, the concept of a BEGINNING of the universe is totally meaningless........Or a magical sky pixie snapped his fingers and everything popped into view. Unfortunately I know which one you pick, sad ass, really sad.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181093
Oct 23, 2013
 
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís so easy science has not been able to reproduce genesis. Oh as far as ammonia, nothing can live in ammonia. Ever notice where a dog urinates? It kills the grass. Have you ever had a fish tank?
Guess what happens when the water is not replenished with fresh water? The ammonia kills the tank. By the way where did these elements come from? They just appeared?
You believe in self creation Doctor. It has not been reproduced in a lab anywhere in the world. Can you please explain.
Where did the elements come from?
How do you account ammonia NH3 kills biological growth?
DNA or RNA is necessary for cell growth & division. How did the strands self construct this complicated information arrangement all on itís own
There are all kinds of organisms that could have survived and flourished in the early (A-I) atmosphere. Extremophiles are a good example, these single cell organisms can live in 266 degrees F, and down to -17 degree below zero. They can life in acidities as hight as ph 11.5 and pressures as high as 1,000 atm, and down to 0 atm the vacuum of space.

Do you mean how did these early organisms develop DNA and RNA? Evolution is your answer, you know the process that is factual for most intelligent people, but the one you reject because it conflicts with your sky fairy belief.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181094
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LCNLin wrote:
Science is silent on atheism
True. Atheism doesn't depend on science at all.

Nevertheless, science implies atheism several ways even without confirming it:

[1] First, science, like secular humanism, lends support to the principle of rational skepticism, which is the mother of atheism, science and humanism. Those three are each the result of the application of rational skepticism to matters of the supernatural, the natural, and human life respectively. Since they are all fruit of the same tree, the stunning successes of science, such as the polio vaccine and space travel, and of secular humanism, such as the US Constitution and individual political freedoms, suggest that atheism is just as valid. It certainly rests on a solid philosophical foundation.

[2] Second, science shows us that every creation myth including the Christian version is a fabrication, meaning that extraordinary religious proclamations that can be disconfirmed have uniformly been found to be wrong. Once we understand where religious thought comes from, and what its standards of scholarship are - making things up and saying that a god told you - we understand where the concept of a god comes from: man's imagination.

[3] Third, science has shown that we don't need a god. There was never was a reason to even consider the possibility of a god except to explain the otherwise inexplicable, and science has done that better repeatedly with no victories yet for religion. With each of its pronouncement, every god shrinks into a smaller gap. Religion is dying wherever science is thriving.

[4] Fourth, scientists have been studying our reality at every scale from the Higgs boson (CERN) to the cosmological scale (WMAP) since the invention of the microscope and telescope, and have never found a scintilla of evidence for a designer. Nothing. Scientists have shown repeatedly in controlled trials that prayer fails.

So yes, this does not rule out gods. But is it potent evidence that there may be none. Despite what is commonly said to the contrary, the absence of (expected) evidence is evidence of absence.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181095
Oct 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Holy shit sherlock, we are not talking about a friggin aquarium, we're talking about an ocean that covers most of our planet, and the ammonia is MIXRD with other elements.
Where did these elements come from? You mean the exact same elements that make up the majority of YOU. They are what stars are made of, they come from the universe. You and stars are made up of the same "stuff." Now where did all this "stuff" come from? Quite possible it has always existed, as in the Hartle-Hawking State, that is a NO boundary proposal that the universe is infinitely finite. There was NO time before the big Bang because time did not exist before the formation of
spacetime associated with the BB, The universe has no beginning, it has no initial boundaries on time nor space.
Now pay real close attention, if that is at all possible........Beginnings are entities that have to do with TIME: because TIME did not exists before the BB, the concept of a BEGINNING of the universe is totally meaningless........Or a magical sky pixie snapped his fingers and everything popped into view. Unfortunately I know which one you pick, sad ass, really sad.
You are a bit incoherent on that time thing.

Theory of relativity. Time started for this universe when the first motion occurred within it. Time was existing for whatever initiated that motion as it takes motion, if only has heat, to to start any motion. There was no time for us until we started. Once the time did start then it became part of the larger time frame, but ran at it own speed and starting point. Sort of like starting a stopwatch. It might read one second, but the clock on the wall of the initiator's domain may read 8:32 AM. The stopwatch, us, can advance to 3 minutes, but the clock on the wall will still read 8:32 AM absent a display for shorter measured time increments. But there will be much larger discrepancies when you get into counting days and years.

Our time is daughter to where our singularity sprang from, and runs according to its speed.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181096
Oct 23, 2013
 
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The six days are actually the six stages in creation. And each day could have been billions of years. Gods work day is not equal to mans day. The thought that creation was performed in six human days is the old 1950's thinking. You are about 63 years behind in what modern day Christians believe.
Where did you get this equation from? Be honest, exactly and I mean EXACTLY how do you know that Gods work day is NOT equal to man's day? You're making some very precise claims here. Although you said each day "COULD HAVE BEEN billions of years. Does that mean each day could have been 30 hours, just slightly longer than an Earth day? Or perhaps each of Gods work days equals two of man's work days? Since you seem to NOT know the exact equation, then how do you know God's work day is NOT the same as man's work day?

It seems you must be constantly reminded that you just can't make shit up and expect it to fly. So how do you came by this knowledge?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 173,721 - 173,740 of223,173
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••