Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256560 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208930 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue offering vague descriptions of Darwinism to try and rescue your position.
You can't do it.
The Pope and the Catholic church are not atheist.
Maybe you should retract the claim? You aren't honest enough for that, huh?
BTW, Buck...

You are just doing your usual diversion routine. This has nothing to do with whether the theory of evolution is true.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#208931 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your quibbling is preventing us from being friends.
You could learn so much from me. Opportunity missed.
Perhaps you will reconsider. First, you must drop your insistence that the Catholic church is Atheist.
How 'bout it, Sis?
I have already learnt all there is to know about you that could possibly interest me. The main and most pleasing point is that you live at least 3000 miles away and there is a great big ocean between us. However I have learnt much more about you that actually sickens me. Your penchant for paedophilia for example and you love of genital mutilation so the chances of any friendship are particularly slim.

Honey, I do not insist the catholic church is atheist, that is you own misrepresentation of the word ‘Darwinism’, nothing more, nothing less and yet another reason we could not be friends. I have no tolerance for liars and deliberate ignorance.

You really never learn do you buck? The old stereotypes of godbots lying and going round and round in circles hoping for a different answer next time are all reality in you. And you put the cherry on the cake with the good old buck bullying technique that lost it’s flavour the first time you got locked away for it

So no, you have gone way too far to kiss and make up

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208932 Jan 29, 2014
scaritual wrote:
If we apply the classic Christian explanation concerning prayer, then it's working.
Christianity is in decline.
On a worldwide scale, Christianity is rising.

25 million new adherents per year.

Prayer works.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#208933 Jan 29, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, it's sad that he has to lie to discuss anything.
Ah well.
He is christian, so lying is excused by his god

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#208934 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwinism says variation and natural selection is a purposeless, materialistic force which is responsible for all life forms.
Ask any Darwinist - that's what it is.
The Pope and the Catholic church do not believe that.
When you say they do believe that, you are saying they are atheists.
Sorry, Sis. That is your position. I gave you plenty of chances to recant.
Back to the discovery institute ideas?

I though you were washing your hands of that cr/\p. Seems to my like you still have some brown smears between your fingers.

Honey I am not interested in you interpretation and bastardisation of Darwinism

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208935 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
Was it known as DNA in the 1860s?
If you can provide evidence for said claim then I will stand corrected, however the chances are 100% in my favour that called it nuclein.
Yes, he called DNA nuclein.

But it was still DNA.

"DNA was discovered in 1868, when twenty-four-year-old Swiss physician Friedrich Miescher isolated a compound from the nuclei of white blood cells. This compound was neither a protein nor a lipid nor a carbohydrate, so it was therefore a novel type of biological molecule. Miescher named his discovery "nuclein," because he had isolated it from the nuclei of cells. Today, this molecule is called DNA."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/deo...

Please try to learn.

And please try to learn how to admit when you've made a mistake.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208936 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
BTW, Buck...
You are just doing your usual diversion routine. This has nothing to do with whether the theory of evolution is true.
Which part of the theory do you find true?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208937 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>

A dictionary definition is NOT a vague description
Yes, it often is, when it concerns scientific theories.

If you were smart, you would know that.

Just more indication of your need to learn at my feet.

But you won't swallow your girlish pride.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208938 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, Buck...
You are just doing your usual diversion routine. This has nothing to do with whether the theory of evolution is true.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove the theory of evolution, Stepped-in-Shit.

I'm simply proving Sister Christine doesn't know what she's talking about.

I already finished doing that with you.

Unless you want to say something else stupid.

Go ahead.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208939 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, he called DNA nuclein.
But it was still DNA.
"DNA was discovered in 1868, when twenty-four-year-old Swiss physician Friedrich Miescher isolated a compound from the nuclei of white blood cells. This compound was neither a protein nor a lipid nor a carbohydrate, so it was therefore a novel type of biological molecule. Miescher named his discovery "nuclein," because he had isolated it from the nuclei of cells. Today, this molecule is called DNA."
http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/deo...
Please try to learn.
And please try to learn how to admit when you've made a mistake.
Christinemc^2 will counter you with a reference from The Huffington Post.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208940 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
I did not change my story, I refined it with FACT and we know you always get confounded by fact so it’s understandable.
Watson, Crick and Franklin discovered the structure of DNA. What RR is claiming was not known as DNA but as nuclein.
You most certainly have changed your story. Here's what you wrote, just 2 hours ago:

"Funny thing really that for the most part scientist did not even consider DNA it at all, certainty not prior to about 75 years ago when perhaps some few theorised DNA. It was not until Watson and Crick made their astounding discovery that it was known."

You said that Watson and Crick discovered DNA.

That's absolutely false.

You went to the googlers, discovered you were wrong and promptly changed your story.

Watson and Crick did not discover DNA, they simply furthered the research of DNA and described the molecular shape of DNA as a "double helix".
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#208941 Jan 29, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it's a risk
Belief is not fact. If it was then it would not require much in the way of faith
Maybe I am wrong
But I don't think so.
Besides Im banking on my legendary charm to get me in whatever afterlife there is. Or I'll just debate whatever god it turns our to be until he gets fed up and just keys me in do he doesn't have to deal with me. I figure I'm good either way
:)
I find it amazing that people can believe anything without sufficient evidence, and for no good reason. I'm very comfortable in having scientific observable evidence for everything I believe in, and I'm sure your comfortable in your delusions, not sure why, but hey it works for you, unfortunately.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208942 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it known as DNA in the 1860s?
If you can provide evidence for said claim then I will stand corrected, however the chances are 100% in my favour that called it nuclein.
Changing a name is not "discovering".

You said Crick and Watson "discovered" it.

Here's some homework for you, Sis. Look up two definitions, preferably in English:

"rename", and "discover"

I think this will help you out of this particular state of confusion you are in.

Then you can get back to your previous state of confusion on Darwinism and the Pope being Atheist.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#208943 Jan 29, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Forgot to answer the first part
Belief is the difference between creation and children
You might want to clarify this, it makes little or no sense whatsoever.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#208944 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, he called DNA nuclein.
But it was still DNA.
"DNA was discovered in 1868, when twenty-four-year-old Swiss physician Friedrich Miescher isolated a compound from the nuclei of white blood cells. This compound was neither a protein nor a lipid nor a carbohydrate, so it was therefore a novel type of biological molecule. Miescher named his discovery "nuclein," because he had isolated it from the nuclei of cells. Today, this molecule is called DNA."
http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/deo...
Please try to learn.
And please try to learn how to admit when you've made a mistake.
It later became known as DNA. At the time it was not known as DNA as I have said all along

What mistake? You keep saying I have made a mistake but never seem able to show where. I have provided a pretty concise history of the discovery of DNA and then you try and top that by providing, yes your guessed it, a history of the discovery of DNA.

I will admit that I was wrong in not being pedantic enough for you. Other than that???

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#208945 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it often is, when it concerns scientific theories.
If you were smart, you would know that.
Just more indication of your need to learn at my feet.
But you won't swallow your girlish pride.
Say what?

Can you sat that again without your a$$ twitching?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#208946 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Christinemc^2 will counter you with a reference from The Huffington Post.
No she won’t you ignorant and lying moron

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#208947 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You most certainly have changed your story. Here's what you wrote, just 2 hours ago:
"Funny thing really that for the most part scientist did not even consider DNA it at all, certainty not prior to about 75 years ago when perhaps some few theorised DNA. It was not until Watson and Crick made their astounding discovery that it was known."
You said that Watson and Crick discovered DNA.
That's absolutely false.
You went to the googlers, discovered you were wrong and promptly changed your story.
Watson and Crick did not discover DNA, they simply furthered the research of DNA and described the molecular shape of DNA as a "double helix".
Nope, I have reinforced it with FACT
Jim

London, UK

#208948 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You most certainly have changed your story. Here's what you wrote, just 2 hours ago:
"Funny thing really that for the most part scientist did not even consider DNA it at all, certainty not prior to about 75 years ago when perhaps some few theorised DNA. It was not until Watson and Crick made their astounding discovery that it was known."
You said that Watson and Crick discovered DNA.
That's absolutely false.
You went to the googlers, discovered you were wrong and promptly changed your story.
Watson and Crick did not discover DNA, they simply furthered the research of DNA and described the molecular shape of DNA as a "double helix".
No evidence of god and no evidence against evolution a usual.

Creationist Cult members are so predictable.
Jim

London, UK

#208949 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Changing a name is not "discovering".
You said Crick and Watson "discovered" it.
Here's some homework for you, Sis. Look up two definitions, preferably in English:
"rename", and "discover"
I think this will help you out of this particular state of confusion you are in.
Then you can get back to your previous state of confusion on Darwinism and the Pope being Atheist.
Buck still clinging in hope that Atheists will all become dumb and reject science, replacing it with the mental illness of Creationism.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 min Classic 3,817
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min here 64,109
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 6 min crucifiedguy 281,884
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 25 min gundee123 824
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 26 min entezariabbass 106,544
girls, when is the first time u saw a penis (Feb '14) 27 min Leslie 13
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 29 min marge 654,115
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Lumatrix 973,845
More from around the web