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

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218040 Mar 10, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, wasn't that law subsequently abolished?
Pity the same can't be said for slavery in the Bible.
Jesus fulfilled the old laws.

This is a concept beyond you, I think.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218041 Mar 10, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a law written by ignorant, probably religious, and definitely far from perfect men, not by a so-claimed perfect god.
And better men rescinded that law.
When are we going to get a better god?
The Bible is not claimed to be written by God.

Where'd you get that nonsense?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#218042 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
In Matthew 5, Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them.
Do you know what it means to fulfill something?
Do you know the difference between abolish and fulfill?
If you do, you'll understand that Levitical law is not laws for Christians.
Next.
See, Wilderide?

I'm onto their game!!

Levites: Slaves ok
Christians: Not so much

Problem solved.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#218043 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>They don't claim to have that evidence so I fail to see the point of your ignorant question.

What they do theorize is that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information.

Do you disagree with their theory?
Define and give examples of complex and specified information.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#218044 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You don't get to decide it's value.
Scientific theory, four-step process:
1. Observations
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiments
4. Conclusion
Intelligent design theory uses those steps.
1. Observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information.
2. Hypothesis that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information.
3. Experimental testing on natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
4. Irreducible complexity found in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Notice no mention of any deities involved, as the Topix Atheist! claims.
The hypothesis is invalid, invalidating all that follows.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#218045 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot disqualify me for things I have not done.
I'm not a homophobe, I haven't hit any babies and I haven't hit women.
If you can, stop lying.
Sorry dude.

Those are facts.

You can't "Christian" them away like the slavery/for/Levites game.

You have hit a six-month-old baby and a woman too.

You're a coward.

Oh, forgot. Your posts show very clearly that you're a homophobe.

Unless you manufacture a Redneck/Christian definition for that, too.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218046 Mar 10, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Your reply made no sense and did not answer the question.
What objective observational evidence for an intelligent designer which created the universe is there?
Your question is erroneously drawn.

The question being pursued by scientists who investigate design is whether the universe and living things indicate design. The "designer" is an implication.

Nobody is proposing evidence for a designer.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#218047 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's try this, for the challenged people lik you that can't discern old from new, owed of paid, incomplete and complete.
Here's a law. Know where it's from?
"If any slave resists his master, correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction the master shall be free of all punishment as if such accident never happened."
It's a law. It's written. It's American. You're American.
Therefore, according to Topix Atheist! logic, you MUST follow that law and you MUST own a slave.
Sorry, but your post makes no sense to me.

Try posting it again.

This time, try English.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218048 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus fulfilled the old laws.
This is a concept beyond you, I think.
Again, what is the distinction between fulfilled and abolished in this context?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218049 Mar 10, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't explained the distinction between "abolish" and "fulfill" in this context. A law is not a debt. It is either in force or it isn't. your explanation makes no sense, because abolishing a law and fulfilling it are effectively the same, yet Jesus went out of his way to make a distinction between the two terms.
So in context of a law, please explain what the difference is between abolishing it and fulfilling it.
Also, keep in mind that Jesus also did not fulfill the Jewish prophesies of who the messiah was supposed to be or what he was supposed to do. And that is according to the very people who wrote those prophesies in the first place.
Distinction? Would it matter?

I'll try anyway....

In this context, the word 'abolish' comes from a Greek term 'kataluo', which literally translates to "to loosen down". It's used in Matthew 26:61 & Acts 6:14 to illustrate the destruction of Jewish temples.

In the context of Matthew. 5:27,'abolish' is set in direct opposition of 'fulfill'. Jesus came '...not to abolish, but to fulfill'. Jesus fulfilled the law, all of the law, His death means for sacrifices the same as every other Mosaic law.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218050 Mar 10, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Man is certainly the intelligent designer of religion.
Obviously. Just as man is the designer of atheism. Or materialism. Or humanism.

That says nothing about the existence of a god.

Religion is man's design of a method of properly dealing with their deity.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#218051 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't claim to have that evidence so I fail to see the point of your ignorant question.
What they do theorize is that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information.
Do you disagree with their theory?
They have no theory.

Intelligent Design is a hoax, perpetrated for the purpose of introducing religion into the public schools.

Please don't reply to this post.

I'm tired of your ignorance and stupidity.

Instead, google for a while, or play with your chicken.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218052 Mar 10, 2014
wilderide wrote:
PS - Mosaic law? I thought we were discussing Levirate law.
Seriously?

o.O

Levitical law IS Mosaic law. All Levitical law.

Mosaic laws were written for three main reasons, to distinguish, restrain and diagnose.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218053 Mar 10, 2014
wilderide wrote:
Well, then obviously you've just demonstrated one reason why IT is not a scientific theory. It did not meet even the first item on your list.
Yes it does. Here's what I wrote previously:

Scientific theory, four-step process:
1. Observations
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiments
4. Conclusion

Intelligent design theory uses those steps.

1. Observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information.

2. Hypothesis that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information.

3. Experimental testing on natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.

4. Irreducible complexity found in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#218054 Mar 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question is erroneously drawn.
The question being pursued by scientists who investigate design is whether the universe and living things indicate design. The "designer" is an implication.
Nobody is proposing evidence for a designer.
Come on.

So we can have intelligent design without an intelligent designer?

Or is your designer, by definition, beyond the scope of evidence?

If the answer is yes, then it's a belief held on the basis of faith.

And tell me, am I an implication? You?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#218055 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care.
Oh but you DO-- you felt it needful to **reply**....

... so you DO care.

Loser.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#218056 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Then you lose.
<quoted text>
What?
You claimed there are 100s of verses in the Bible commanding me to kill you and you refused to post even one.
You lose.
Here you go-- 100's of examples listed where you are **COMMANDED** to murder non-believers.

http://www.evilbible.com/

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#218057 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
See how the Topix Atheist! swears that ID is talking about a deity even thought the ID doesn't make that claim.
The incandescent light bulb was designed. Would you say it takes God to do that?
Maybe they'll put God in their theory, if and when God allows them to test Him.
ID doesn't specifically make a claim for a deity, because that would weaken the strategy.

It wasn't a very good strategy to begin with.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218058 Mar 10, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
Define and give examples of complex and specified information.
Your DNA.

Wanna start with that?

Do you have any theories of how it came to be?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218059 Mar 10, 2014
2. Hypothesis that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information.
Tide with Beach wrote:
The hypothesis is invalid, invalidating all that follows.
Why do you think it's invalid?

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 25 min Lumajuice 797,325
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 32 min An NFL Fan 120,798
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 48 min MUQ2 267,635
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr RoSesz 568,700
Is colin powell a traitor??? (Oct '08) 2 hr swedenforever 540
How can I talk my wife into a 3 way with anothe... (Apr '08) 2 hr myveryownjulia 160
Young teenies 3 hr jose 2
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 hr lil whispers 607,268
More from around the web