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 8,884)

Showing posts 177,661 - 177,680 of217,143
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185098
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No he doesn't.
Dawkins disagrees with you about himself.
Dawkins prefers to call himself an agnostic, as he says on this public forum.
He shies away from "atheist", since he is not sure God does not exist.
So Dawkins agrees with my definition, not yours.
You blithering goof.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102...
"My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."

--Richard Dawkins

Guess you are just lying about Dawkins like you lie about so many other things.

“Today we pray”

Since: Jul 12

"tomorrow we win"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185099
Nov 17, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
I agree with all of your points, above.
He [RR] did claim to be an atheist previously. I have my doubts about that--
I've never claimed to be an atheist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185100
Nov 17, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree, as do many others.
The intelligent designer that those Christians had in mind is a mythological creature. Jehovah presently has no more evidentiary support than the Kraken.
And the creation story in their bible that informs their agenda is mythology debunked by the science that they object to and are happy to undermine, whatever the damage to the nation that causes.
You needn't bother objecting that ID is not Creationaism, or that the intelligent designer isn't Jehovah. I already know how you feel about that, so I'll save you the trouble and do it for you, and then rebut with "Cdesign proponentsists," the smoking gun proof that ID is repackaged Creationism created and intelligently designed to get around Edwards v. Aguillard.
If you like, I can also provide you with some quotes establishing who the most prominent Cdesign proponentsists consider to be the intelligent designer:
William Dembski: "I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution."
"Phillip Johnson converted to fundamentalist Christianity after a mid-life crisis and made "Defeating Darwinism" (part of the title of one of his books) his new mission.
"Jonathan Wells candidly admitted that "Father's [Rev. Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism..."
I won the argument about Aguillard last year. But I could never get you to admit that 1975 was prior to 1987.

Has your mind changed on that? Because I think I'm on the more solid ground that 1975 was prior to 1987.

And scientists who do science can have all kinds of religious beliefs.

Their science stands or falls on the science.

It's easier to attack something other than their science.

That's called a "tell".

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185101
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of belief is not atheism, DogPecker.
I know you are a great believer in the dictionary and here is Dictionary.com ...

atheism

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Or are you going to be stupid enough to claim that "disbelief" and "lack of belief" have different meanings?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185102
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
There is no way our moon was formed from a chunk of us. We hold it in orbit. It had to have that speed to keep it from coming down. You would have loosened material, not one big contiguous chunk of rock that would have to gravitate around a core all at that same speed for it to form like that. The larger earth gravity would have pulled those smaller chunks down. Plus as those chunks came together you would have a continuous change in mass that would affect the earth/moon barycenter, thus orbital speed.

You seem to be assuming that the earth was hit squarely sending debris straight up and then down, but computer modeling demonstrates that a sidelong impact would generate an orbiting moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

This is why you need more contact with external resources. Your failure to do that leaves you far out of the loop and going down dead end paths. Science is a cooperative effort, not one underinformed and misinformed guy's idle speculations. Creativity is essential, but must be applied to known facts to be useful. If not, it's just comic book science.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185103
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Distraction.
Good rebuttal.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185104
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been away from the atheist forum for nearly a year myself. I was posting on Why Should Jesus Love Me for most of 2013.
<quoted text>
Thanks. I may take a look. I'm already pretty convinced that the conservative politicians and their backers are a disease, but I've also become pretty apolitical.
<quoted text>
Buck and I haven't interacted in a year, so I find him easy to tolerate now. But I know that that is very much subject to change. He is already becoming more hostile and openly disrespectful, which is boring and unacceptable.
We'll see how long we can converse. I'll tolerate his idiosyncracies - even celebrate them with him - but not his abusive side. Unfortunately, we seem to be headed there.
I am enjoying Buck in my short foray here. His claims are so idiotic as to be hilarious. At least, when taken in small doses.

Take care. I may hang around for a little while...or I may not.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185105
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I won the argument about Aguillard last year. But I could never get you to admit that 1975 was prior to 1987.
Has your mind changed on that? Because I think I'm on the more solid ground that 1975 was prior to 1987.
And scientists who do science can have all kinds of religious beliefs.
Their science stands or falls on the science.
It's easier to attack something other than their science.
That's called a "tell".
"And scientists who do science can have all kinds of religious beliefs."

True, but they do not bring beliefs into the lab. Can you imagine if they did?

These two scientists are going to work on ways of removing Hydrogen from water.

Scientist #1: Goes to collect items that he needs to start work.

Scientist #2: Falls to his knees and prays.

After several hours, Scientist #1 has a measurable amount of Hydrogen and Scientist #2 is complaining about his sore knees.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185106
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't call you a liar for presenting facts.
I call you a liar for what you just did, which was edit a response from Behe to prevaricate.
You are presenting the claim that Behe believes astrology should be accepted as science on the same grounds as ID.
He does not, and he does not say he does. You are attempting the same lie the attorney Rothschild was trying to spin with his questions.
Here is Behe's actual response, not YOUR EDITED VERSION:
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.[Here is where Ianus' fraudulent citation ends] And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Behe continues:
A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.
Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.
And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.
__________
Behe was 100% correct.
And Behe calls astrology, in sworn testimony, "foolish".
And ever since then, people like IAnus have lied about what Behe claims and believes to be true.
They demonstrate he is using a unscientific definition of the word "theory"
and is in fact scientifically he is using the word theory instead of the correct term "hypothesis".

“Today we pray”

Since: Jul 12

"tomorrow we win"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185107
Nov 17, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
@ Riverside Redneck:
This is another proof of the nonexistence of your god. You may recall an earlier post where I told Dave Nelson that his featureless, amorphous god could not be refuted. If it has no qualities, its description can't be self-contradictory, and its existence cannot be ruled out. But your god is said to possess or have done many mutually conflicting qualities, which is the sure sign that it doesn't exist. You might argue that all that means is that men have mischaracterized it, but if the bible was written by this perfect god, it cannot contain errors.
Please explain how a being that has "conflicting qualities" is a sure sign that it doesn't exist. I think somehow you want to make a contradiction claim about God, but do far you haven't.
There are dozens more proofs just like this one,
That was not a proof, that was your (as yet) unexplained opinion.
such as the proof that an omnipotent, omniscienct, omnibenevolent god cannot possibly be loving and protecting us given how life proceeds - the theodicy problem.
I think you mean an anti-theodicy problem. You want to blame all evil on God because evil happens and you think God is powerless to stop it or that God just doesn't exist, and of course something that doesn't exist can't do anything.

Theodicy is really more of a social problem, people always want someone or something to blame when bad things happen.

I'm sure that (in a debate) would even blame God for hurricanes and tornadoes...
I'm guessing these proofs are bouncing off your antiprocess shields like bullets off of Superman.
Still no proofs, just opinion. And that website you linked to is chocked full of different opinion, from pro-God to anti-God and everything in-between.

Stop being intentionally vague. You want me to go find your supposed proof, what aren't you just posting it?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185108
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Buck Crick wrote:
Nobody believes in created gods.
Maybe you should. Surely something as complex as a god could not exist uncreated. If it could, anything could.

========

@ Riverside Redneck - this is not a disproof of your god, but it is a sound rebuttal to the argument from complexity for its existence, which is the basis of the intelligent design / irreducible complexity argument.

“Today we pray”

Since: Jul 12

"tomorrow we win"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185109
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> So tough are you? To threaten a teenaged crippled girl.
So very cavalier .
The same teenage girl that claims she can take down any person of any size?

Ya...

It's like Papa taught: If a woman's man enough to hit, she's man enough to get hit.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185110
Nov 17, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.denverpost.com/brea kingnews/ci_24542271/an-ancien t-underground-sea-lies-beneath -chesapeake-bay
Ancient seawater was twice as salty?
Don't these sort of things get in the way of theories about the development of life based upon present conditions?
Actually the composition of water was very different 3.5 billion years ago.
The ocean had a high iron content until after 2.4 billion years ago when the Great Oxygenation Event took place turning the ocean red ,causing the extinction of Precambrian life. When this rust settled it allowed the development of complex cells eukaryotes, and life as we know it began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenatio...

“Today we pray”

Since: Jul 12

"tomorrow we win"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185111
Nov 17, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should. Surely something as complex as a god could not exist uncreated. If it could, anything could.
========
@ Riverside Redneck - this is not a disproof of your god, but it is a sound rebuttal to the argument from complexity for its existence, which is the basis of the intelligent design / irreducible complexity argument.
Uh-huh...

You don't understand the absolute complexity that is God so you consider your ignorance a "sound rebuttal".

How's that working for ya?

“Today we pray”

Since: Jul 12

"tomorrow we win"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185112
Nov 17, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually the composition of water was very different 3.5 billion years ago.
The ocean had a high iron content until after 2.4 billion years ago when the Great Oxygenation Event took place turning the ocean red ,causing the extinction of Precambrian life. When this rust settled it allowed the development of complex cells eukaryotes, and life as we know it began.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenatio...
Cool!

How'd they know what happened 3.5 billion years ago?

Is this scientific "knowledge" the same scientific guess that insects are borne of rotting meat?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185113
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Cool!
How'd they know what happened 3.5 billion years ago?
Is this scientific "knowledge" the same scientific guess that insects are borne of rotting meat?
Get off your knees; you are blowing the debate!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185114
Nov 17, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement didn't sound the least bit profound, Tiny Tim.
Not for a second.
So Sigmund has you beat.
In fact, you sound stupid as a sac of dog shit.
Are you skeptical about that?
It wasn't supposed to sound profound.

“Today we pray”

Since: Jul 12

"tomorrow we win"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185115
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Get off your knees; you are blowing the debate!
But I just bought these super cool gel-filled knee pads...

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185116
Nov 17, 2013
 
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. shame on you ..
Sorry. <Catcher hides face>

I couldn't help myself.

Since: Nov 13

Winchester, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185117
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It doesn't require any religion. Atheism is having no religion believing that there is no god or Satan. I sort of agree and disagree but that's beside the point why criticize the atheist religion. because most of the time it is a religious person who is criticizing someone else religion "Thall shall not judge unless ye be judged." Thats one of the ten commandments and a lot of the Christians seize too follow that.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 177,661 - 177,680 of217,143
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••