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 8,893)

Showing posts 177,841 - 177,860 of223,255
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185328
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You know how much we all treasure your opinions, which of course is all that empty, unevidenced claims like these are. Yours are the words of a man thoroughly defeated in debate with no other recourse than to spin fiction in the hope of salvaging a piece of his battered pride.
"Our Topix atheists," as you call them, are not the morons you take them for, and will not be manipulated by drivel like this.
Nor have they told you that I was convincing or that I sounded authoritative, so those are your own conclusions, and you would be correct to think so.
The reason I sound convincing is because I am. I back up my claims. If I were to write a post accusing you of things like this, it would not be just a laundry list of unsupported opinions as you have provided here but claims supported by cogent argument and specific examples - examples of your words with links to them. In this case, I offer your post above as the supporting evidence. One can see clearly that it is nothing but the sour grapes of a defeated man backed by nothing. Not a single piece of supportive evidence has been provided.
See the difference?
Sure. Your idea of convincing evidence is doctoring quotes from Michael Behe to support what you claim, cutting out the part that says the opposite of what you claim.

You probably thought that was "cogent".

In your defense, it was a widespread scam.

And you are badly mistaken - most of these Topix atheists are, sadly but truly, morons.

That's my supported opinion.

Your approach is not moronic; just corrupt.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185329
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
I liked Kazantzakis' "The Saviors of God: Spiritual Exercises" much better.
The Title could be translated from the Greek as "Holding Your Breath: Breathing Exercises".
I've not seen that one. I may look for it, now.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185330
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
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 just edited my post and offered that as evidence that I am lying by editing. Congratulations.

What I provided was all six comments between prosecutor Rothschild and Behe that were provided in the NOVA documentary, the transcript of which served as my source as I indicated. See for yourself, beginning at 8:06 in this ten minute excerpt from the documentary at http://www.youtube.com/watch... , which features a reenactment of prosecutor Rothschild's questioning of Behe in court. For your edification and that of others, here is what I provided you - every relevant word from my cited resource:

PROSECUTOR ERIC ROTHSCHILD: Under the same definition, astrology is a scientific theory, using your definition, correct?

EXPERT WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE MICHAEL BEHE: Using my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to observable physical data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect, which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is, in fact, one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other, many other theories as well.

ROTHSCHILD: The ether theory of light has been discarded?

BEHE: That is correct.

ROTHSCHILD : But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory?

BEHE: Yes, that's correct.

If you have issues with that, I suggest that you write a letter to NOVA calling them all liars.

Incidentally, this is what you reduced it to in order to call me a liar:

ROTHSCHILD : But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory?
BEHE: Yes, that's correct.

If editing is lying, you are the liar.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185331
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
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.
I presented the testimony. Nobody thinks or asserted that Behe considers astrology a valid scientific theory, or claims that he said he does. What Behe did was to massage his definition of a scientific theory in the support of his work so much that he had to admit that astrology met his definition.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
You're refuting your straw man claims for what NOVA and I said about Behe. Neither of us claim that Behe accepts astrology as valid science.

There is nothing in this additional testimony that you called the me a liar for not including that mitigates the claims we actually do make, which is namely that Behe's tendentious and pseudoscientific characterization of scientific theory led to him having to make an embarrassing admission on the stand.

I am content to let all of this speak for itself. It speaks very clearly about Behe, the ID movement, me, and you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185332
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have anything to offer besides innuendo and character/motive attacks? None of this is relevant even if true.
I notice once again, incidentally, that you simply expect to be believed, and feel no need to support your claims. Maybe we'd like to see the material upon which you are basing your judgments such as "giddiness." You'll forgive me if I reject your unsupported claims about the Judge given your obvious disapproval of his findings and your willingness to rebut his findings with material like this.
<quoted text>
It seems that the essence of your rebuttal has been to impugn the Judge's motives, and quibble over my use of the words "unexpected" and "heroic," as if that mattered. What matters is the ruling - not if it was expected, not if it was heroic, not if large swatches of it were cut and pasted from material supplied by the prosecution, and not if you liked it or agreed with it. The trial was what it was - a fascinating, humorous and instructive drama that culminated in a landmark decision of great significance, one with which I and many others found sound, unexpected, and heroic.
You don't have to agree. Most theists don't.
You indicate that it doesn't matter if the ruling was "unexpected and heroic", but continually assert that it was "unexpected and heroic".

That is of the same vein as the obfuscation you employed by claiming evidence was irrelevant, then researching it.

Those [unexpected and heroic] are subjective conclusions, and I provided sufficient evidence that a reasonable person could reach the subjective conclusion that the ruling was "expected and unheroic".

Further, in particular, OBJECTIVE evidence shows lack of the "heroic" conclusion, which is, the ruling itself being copied word for word from the ACLU, without Jones bothering to correct the typos in the ACLU brief.

I could have allowed that it was something nearer to heroic if he had at least used spell check or a competent proofreader. Not to mention the ACLU brief pre-dating the trial, where the official record compiled in court contradicted statements in the ACLU brief, and hence, contradicted Judge Jones' ruling.

Those are factual rebuttals to your alleged heroism, and they are freely available in public record.

Incidentally, your suggestion of a "landmark" nature to the decision is also objectively refuted.

But I believe you on one thing - ethics and fair play are irrelevant - all that matters to you is the ruling.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185333
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It looks like I did omit two lines from the NOVA transcript of the testimony in question after all - the first two. That was inadvertent, and irrelevant to either of our arguments. These are those lines:

ERIC ROTHSCHILD: Dr. Behe, using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

MICHAEL BEHE: Yes.

What you can see here is that nothing relevant from the mouth of Behe was deleted,and there was no attempt to misrepresent as you claimed repeated.

Incidentally, for those that don't have 150 minutes for this, but find it interesting, watching just the 9:50 excerpt will be worth the effort. It the tenth of twelve YouTubes covering the whole show. Several of the other pieces are right beside it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185334
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No, it's not.
Also, do you realize that these desperate attempts at equivocation boil down to "your belief is just as silly and unfounded as my belief?"
Dumb strategy.
Wrong. I didn't say either belief was silly or unfounded.

Just that both are beliefs.

And I am correct.

And it is not my opinion; it is the meaning of the term.

"Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia)"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185335
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe there is no god to speak to me at all.
"Maybe"

You should have said that first, instead of pretending you know something about it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185336
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of talking-points. Little in the way of links to fact-based websites.
I agree that the DemoWimps are almost as bad as the ReThuglicans.
The key here? Is the little word "almost".
If the stupid and nearly as idiot-bound DemoWimps ever grew a backbone? They **might** add up to something.
In contrast to the ReThugs, who never will-- for they have been taken over by the GreedParty, otherwise known as TeaBaggers.
And those people? Are nuck-futz-- they **only** care about feathering their own nests.
Proof?
Look at the total things that either party has tried to pass over the last few years.
I have been watching both parties-- and the demowimps **barely** have it over the ReThugs-- who's main claim to fame seems to be they want to investigate **all** woman of whom are suspected of having a v3gina.
Where are the Jobs bills? Where is the campaign finance reform?
Jobs bills???

Obamajab and dems gave us a jobs bill that cost us a trillion dollars.

And we have fewer jobs than before its passage.

You should pray we don't get another.

Moron.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185337
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
What a joke-- you **still** cannot muster up a counter-argument.
I understand perfectly,you want a government that will coddle you and see to your needs not matter what you do or do not contribute Feel free to repeat your mantra as much as you like but unfortunately for you it does not make it any more relevant except as a distraction.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185338
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of talking-points. Little in the way of links to fact-based websites.
I agree that the DemoWimps are almost as bad as the ReThuglicans.
The key here? Is the little word "almost".
If the stupid and nearly as idiot-bound DemoWimps ever grew a backbone? They **might** add up to something.
In contrast to the ReThugs, who never will-- for they have been taken over by the GreedParty, otherwise known as TeaBaggers.
And those people? Are nuck-futz-- they **only** care about feathering their own nests.
Proof?
Look at the total things that either party has tried to pass over the last few years.
I have been watching both parties-- and the demowimps **barely** have it over the ReThugs-- who's main claim to fame seems to be they want to investigate **all** woman of whom are suspected of having a v3gina.
Where are the Jobs bills? Where is the campaign finance reform?
The same Obamajab blocked the jobs bill that doesn't cost taxpayers a penny - Keystone pipeline.

Moron. Hope and Change. Yes We Can!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185339
Nov 18, 2013
 
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> poor blob of mess on face, someone at work put a "baby on board" sticker on his yugo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185340
Nov 18, 2013
 
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
'The Last Temptation of Christ'.
Best Biblical Movie ever!
Shame nobody saw it.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185341
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
I'm not so much either. But, years back, I did the lights for a play that was based on JCSS.
It was an interesting experience-- back then, I was more of a believer than I am now.
I liked the music-- and I thought the story superior in every way to the bible's version.
I agree it was closer to a "real Jesus".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185342
Nov 18, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your kind words. I am very fond of Mexico, my new home, and wish it the best. Most Amercans discuss it with disrespect.
But at least we sell them all our 1961 Volkswagons.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185343
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely.
However, we can assume certain things, based on what *is* preserved.
Whether they resemble what the fictional character supposedly said to equally fictional "disciples" is not really all that important, is it?
:D
We moderns must deal with the ugly aftermath, unfortunately.
And it's been corrupted so badly, it's now used to "justify" great evil.
Sad, really.
Agreed. That is why I read all the ancient Christian texts and "come to believe" based on a rational assessment of them all, not just the one's Constantine approved.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185344
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting idea, that: "faster, cheaper, better".
Two out of three ain't bad, though?
And, in spite of it's failures, it appears to have collected an incredible volume of usable data.
It'll take years to analyze it all.
There is an argument that no science is a failure, Even the crashed beagle2 mission to mars provided huge amounts of data.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185345
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Some of us do not want a handout.
Nothing wrong with that. I understand.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185346
Nov 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
No, you do not agree with him. He says he prefers not to call himself an atheist, but an agnostic. You call yourself an atheist, and just say it doesn't matter, because words mean whatever a person wants them to mean. He thinks it matters.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What won't you nitpick over? What point is too trivial for you not to make an issue of?
Buck Crick wrote:
You're the one who said you and Richard Dawkins agree. But you do not. I don't see how one point is more trivial than the other. Is your point more important because you made it, even though it's not true?
What did I say that we agree about? Not what you are claiming. My words were,

"I agree with him, and am just as much of an atheist as Dawkins is."

These were in response to Riverside Redneck's quote of Dawkins followed by his own comment:

RR wrote:I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,- Dick Dawkins. NOT an atheist.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Isn't it abundantly clear that what I meant when I said that Dawkins and I agree is that we agree that there is probably no god, and that I was challenging RR's claim that makes Dawkins "NOT an atheist".

You have no basis for your claim that I was said that Dawkins and I were in agreement in our choice of our words. I wasn't aware of how Dawkins characterizes himself, or if he prefers to use the words atheist and agnostic as mutually exclusive terms.

My point was that I agreed with him about the comment that was above my words when I said that I agreed. My next point was that you nitpick about trivial matters and attempt to make issues where there is none.

My point now is that you have gone on a screed about nothing once again, chasing after another straw man just as you did with the Behe matter.

And, as usual, you provide zero evidence to support your claims, causing me to fish it out in the service of two purposes: revealing how wrong you are, and reinforcing my assertion that your claims are unevidenced opinions - usually wrong - and that there has been ample evidence presented recently to justify saying that your unsupported claims should be rejected out of hand.

Furthermore, I will add to my point that there is a huge difference between us, and I think that it is typical of the difference between faith based thought, which is opinion based, and rational skepticism. which is evidence based. I provide not just claims, but well reasoned and well supported arguments. You just deposit your opinions, now shown to be wrong twice in the last hour, and expect them to be believed on faith.

And these two manners of thinking have led us to opposite conclusions about gods. I will let the reader judge for himself what the relative merits of the two approaches to reality are.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185347
Nov 18, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I don't, although I could easily find out - but I won't because I don't care enough to. That's your job.
In any event, since you were vague and not only didn't supply evidence, but didn't even explicitly make your point, I will graciously take this opportunity to thank you yet again for sharing your unevidenced opinion.
Why be so lazy? Post your claim explicitly and support it with available evidence. One wonders why you didn't. I would have gladly addressed whatever it is, but not if I have to figure it out.
I posted my claim explicitly, and you dodged it.

No, it is not "my job" to repeat your statements after I have responded to them directly with your full statement in italics above my response.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 177,841 - 177,860 of223,255
|
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
•••
•••