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

#201884 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Oh...and here is a good one...
David Barton claims to have spoken to 600 groups in one year...while working 14 hour days on his ranch for a significant portion of the year.
Actually, in this case I believe him. "How could he do this?", you ask. For him it is easy. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.[/sarcasm]
And again, here is the video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =OBkkxpuz_REXX&
It's possible to speak to 600 groups in one year, or one month, and work elsewhere 14 hours a day.

That's it? That's the best you have?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201885 Jan 12, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
How many iterations before you reach the wall, Buck ?
Afraid to answer or just clueless as usual ?
Yes, BeenAssFucked. You figured it out.

I am afraid of your intellect. You caught me.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201886 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lexus, the car company, originally wanted to be Lexis.
But Lexis was already trademarked, by an online legal research service.
So the car company had to change to Lexus. And even that wasn't open and shut for a while.
Everybody eventually agreed that Lexus could be Lexus. But Lexus had to also agree it would never engage in online legal research services.
I participated in the negotiations. Fun.
Apple computer had a similar agreement with Apple records. They later breached the agreement and the owners of Apple Recording were asleep. Had they pursed it, Apple recording would be producing I-Pads.

Of course Apple Computer missed the opportunity to own the wordwideweb as HTML was an infringement (AKA theft) of Apple's Hypercard program.

"You can have all the rights in the world but if you don;t defend them, you might as well not have them." - ME 4:35

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201887 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
The above is an example of the Sharpshooter fallacy. The "sharpshooter" takes a wild shot, then paints a bulls eye around the bullet hole.
In this case, the DI is assuming that the end result (the life we see today) had to be the end product. This, however, is not the case...and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that. The life we see today didn't have to be the end result. It just happens to be the end result that we got.
An analogy (and yes I know this is going to go right over your head since abstract thinking makes your head hurt)...Take a deck of card. Shuffle. Deal. The hand you got is what happened. But there are a vast number of other hands that could have happened. For a single (5 card) poker hand (5 card), the number of possibilities is 52!/(5!47!), or roughly 2.6 million different hands...all equally likely. The number of ways life could have turned out is vastly larger than that.
The DI's claptrap is also a case of the Naturalistic Fallacy, the assumption that the way things are is the way things had to be. A case of Is-Ought.
And, I will point out, you are listening to the critics and not going to the source. Why do you not follow your own advice?
He didn't assume the sharpshooter result of life as we know it.

The result he described was an information-bearing protein sequence.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201888 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason the 2014 Corvette has 4 wheels is because the 1960 Corvette had 4 wheels.
The reason the 1960 Corvette had 4 wheels is because it was designed to have 4 wheels.
If the 1960 Corvette had 3 wheels, the 2014 Corvette would have 3 wheels.
...and you thought you had proof of something.
WTF ?

It is a bit early in the morning to be taking LSD, Buck.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201889 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I won't tell "the whole story" because this is a forum that only allows 4000 characters. Plus the time it would take to write my autobiography would be far, far more than the time I have available.
I have already given you the essentials of the story. And you don't believe that. Why should I expect you to believe if I elaborate on it? You've rejected everything I say, all true, and you even have rejected the parts that are facts which can be demonstrated.
It seems to seems to be a common MO with godbots.
You are right. Nobody would believe any story you write.

Especially the part saying you are a mathematician.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201890 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What does this have to do with my personal inability to grasp the concept of the supernatural?
I'm not talking about burden of proof.
I just think the entire concept of the supernatural is not an adult concept. It's like the six-year-old who doesn't want yo to sit next to him on the bus, because his invisible friend is sitting there.
For a six-year-old, it's cute. But in my view, adults should grow out of it.
I respect your beliefs, whatever they may be. But I reserve the right to consider your beliefs to be infantile.
As you characterize the supernatural, it is certainly not an adult concept.

The lack of adult-ness is in your characterization.

Something that exists, if it does exist, is not supernatural. That would include god, spirits, etc. Existence entails being part of "natural" existence.

The term "supernatural" is a stipulative term, as it applies to things that APPEAR to be beyond nature. If an entity in question exists, it is part of nature, not supernatural.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201891 Jan 12, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>

Word Salad.
Start with word hors d'oeuvres, and work your way up.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201892 Jan 12, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>

I never saw a mystery in dead people. In the morgue, they never moved unless I moved them. When I left them in a certain place they were always there waiting when I checked.
Did they move when you had intercourse with them?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201893 Jan 12, 2014
Atomic_G wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why you dedicate your life to being a keyboard warrior. Be "superior" at babbling in forums as that is what you devote your life too... Go strong noble one, intimated them with your typing skills.
Of course, it is obvious typing into this forum is something you abhor.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201894 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they move when you had intercourse with them?
You are a sick bastard.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#201895 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>As you characterize the supernatural, it is certainly not an adult concept.

The lack of adult-ness is in your characterization.

Something that exists, if it does exist, is not supernatural. That would include god, spirits, etc. Existence entails being part of "natural" existence.

The term "supernatural" is a stipulative term, as it applies to things that APPEAR to be beyond nature. If an entity in question exists, it is part of nature, not supernatural.
Wait a sec, are you saying that nothing exists outside of the natural universe?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201896 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Then none of these could have debated evolution.
520 BC - Anaximander
The Greek philosopher, Anaximander of Miletus, wrote a text called "On Nature" in which he introduced an idea of evolution, stating that life started as slime in the oceans and eventually moved to drier places. He also brought up the idea that species evolved over time.
Around 500 BC - Xenophanes
Xenophanes studied fossils and put forth various theories on the evolution of life.
Around 350 BC - Aristotle
The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, studied marine animals and developed an epigenetic model of evolution. He also developed a classification system for all animals.
1686 - John Ray
John Ray's book, "Historia Plantarum" catalogued and described 18,600 kinds of plants and gave the first definition of species based upon common descent.
1735 - Carolus Linnaeus
Carolus Linnaeus, a Swedish born naturalist, published his book, "Systema Naturae" in which he outlined a method for classifying all organisms. This method is still in use today (generas, orders, classes and kingdoms). His views on evolution were rather tame.
1749 - Comte de Buffon
Comte de Buffon, a French naturalist, developed the modern definition of a species; a group of organisms which can breed and produce fertile offspring. He thought that all organisms were created by god and arranged in a hierarchy with mankind at the top of creation. Buffon did believe in evolution, but thought that the environment was the direct agent of change,...
1751 - Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis
Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis in his book, "Systeme de la Nature" theorized on the nature of heredity and how new species come into being. He thought that speciation took place by chance events in nature,..
1770 - Charles Bonnet
Charles Bonnet, a Swiss naturalist, wrote in his book, "Philosophical Palingesis" that the females of each organism contain the next generation in miniature form. He believed that natural catastrophes sparked evolutionary changes in organisms. His idea of evolution was analogous to organisms climbing a ladder of life,...
1790's to 1830's - Georges Cuvier
Georges Cuvier, a French naturalist, made numerous contributions to the biological sciences. He was the founder of vertebrate paleontology, confirmed that species can become extinct, and developed a classification system for animals that is still in use today (vertebrates, articulates, molluscs and radiates). Cuvier believed that animals were functional wholes. In other words, if any part of an animal were to become modified the animal would die because all of its parts are interdependent. It follows from this that Cuvier did not believe in evolution of any kind.
1794 - Erasmus Darwin
Erasmus Darwin, English physician, poet and naturalist, developed one of the first theories of evolution in his book, "Zoonomia."
Agreed. Your point?

Barton said that the Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine in particular, HAD debated creationism v. evolution...decades before Darwin's theory was published. Without the knowledge and data that was later gathered, one can hardly come to a definitive conclusion on evolution. But Barton says they had.

That is, Barton lied...or else was so ignorant on the subject he hadn't a clue what he was talking about. In either case, he failed to demonstrate the expertise in history that you claim he has.

Oops.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201897 Jan 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

None of those is correct.My atheism is nothing but a statement that I am a rational skeptic that has seen no evidence in support of any god claim.

You are not describing atheism. You are also not describing yourself.

Atheism is a belief - that no god exists.

Your posts prove you believe no god exists.

You carry the fig leaf of rational skepticism to avoid the very obvious fact that you have reached a conclusion on the matter via insufficient evidence.

The belief you have adopted is self-evident in your acceptance/rejection of various items of evidence. You utilize the belief filter for selection of the most disparaging light possible in which to characterize the Discovery Institute, or David Barton, while bestowing amnesty on Bill Maher, Eugenie Scott, and various other fake intellectual warriors.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201898 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's it? That's the best you have?
__________
520 BC - Anaximander
The Greek philosopher, Anaximander of Miletus, wrote a text called "On Nature" in which he introduced an idea of evolution, stating that life started as slime in the oceans and eventually moved to drier places. He also brought up the idea that species evolved over time.
Around 500 BC - Xenophanes
Xenophanes studied fossils and put forth various theories on the evolution of life.
Around 350 BC - Aristotle
The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, studied marine animals and developed an epigenetic model of evolution. He also developed a classification system for all animals.
1686 - John Ray
John Ray's book, "Historia Plantarum" catalogued and described 18,600 kinds of plants and gave the first definition of species based upon common descent.
1735 - Carolus Linnaeus
Carolus Linnaeus, a Swedish born naturalist, published his book, "Systema Naturae" in which he outlined a method for classifying all organisms. This method is still in use today (generas, orders, classes and kingdoms). His views on evolution were rather tame.
1749 - Comte de Buffon
Comte de Buffon, a French naturalist, developed the modern definition of a species; a group of organisms which can breed and produce fertile offspring. He thought that all organisms were created by god and arranged in a hierarchy with mankind at the top of creation. Buffon did believe in evolution, but thought that the environment was the direct agent of change,...
1751 - Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis
Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis in his book, "Systeme de la Nature" theorized on the nature of heredity and how new species come into being. He thought that speciation took place by chance events in nature,..
1770 - Charles Bonnet
Charles Bonnet, a Swiss naturalist, wrote in his book, "Philosophical Palingesis" that the females of each organism contain the next generation in miniature form. He believed that natural catastrophes sparked evolutionary changes in organisms. His idea of evolution was analogous to organisms climbing a ladder of life,...
1790's to 1830's - Georges Cuvier
Georges Cuvier, a French naturalist, made numerous contributions to the biological sciences. He was the founder of vertebrate paleontology, confirmed that species can become extinct, and developed a classification system for animals that is still in use today (vertebrates, articulates, molluscs and radiates). Cuvier believed that animals were functional wholes. In other words, if any part of an animal were to become modified the animal would die because all of its parts are interdependent. It follows from this that Cuvier did not believe in evolution of any kind.
1794 - Erasmus Darwin
Erasmus Darwin, English physician, poet and naturalist, developed one of the first theories of evolution in his book, "Zoonomia."
Gee Buck. You are showing your OCD again. Posting almost exactly the same thing two post in a row. "Obsessive" barely begins to describe you.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201899 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's possible to speak to 600 groups in one year, or one month, and work elsewhere 14 hours a day.
That's it? That's the best you have?
Really. While traveling...a lot. Which Barton said he did.

What did he do? Use the teleporter on the Enterprise?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201900 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. Nobody would believe any story you write.
Especially the part saying you are a mathematician.
Buck, do you still believe in the infinite centers of pennies?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201901 Jan 12, 2014
Atomic_G wrote:
Hi Dave... GO f@ck yourself :) Ciao!
Dave prefers smoking to sex. He says it lasts longer:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201902 Jan 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your legitimate objection to that?
<quoted text>
I only need proof to be certain. I believe many things with less than certitude.
<quoted text>
I disagree.
What is your objection to my taking pride in being an evidence based thinker?
<quoted text>
Which god is "God" to you? Jesus? It would help if you would identify your god. I don't agree that Jesus is a god. Nor Yahweh, nor YHWH, nor Jehovah. Did you mean one of those? If so,what can you offer an evidence based thinker in support of any of those?
And are you offended that I don't share your values? Is that what you mean by "slams shut"? I think that I shut the door on that quite gently.
Lightbeamrider will not catch the trick you just pulled.

For rhetorical purposes, you shifted the argument from god as a conceptual term to one of historical storytelling by asking for a name - Jesus, Yahweh, etc. Once you achieve that shift, you can then go about attacking the inerrancy of scriptural descriptions and mythologies. It's the old "which god" trick.

You execute the ruse much more skillfully than most Topix atheists.

Your evidence-based pose is thus preserved, nonetheless, by trickery.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201903 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, do you still believe in the infinite centers of pennies?
He has yet to walk onto the wall. LOL

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
Heaven 53 min Reason Personified 44
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Reason Personified 1,107
Man center of the universe. 1 hr Reason Personified 159
Evidence for God! 2 hr Uncle Sam 51
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 14 hr fadu singh 23,043
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 21 hr Hooogle It 77
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Thu Ooogah Boogah 14,391

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE