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

“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?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218060 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.
What "scientists" are pursuing this question?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218061 Mar 10, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
From wiki:
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology.[1][2][3] Specified complexity is one of the two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being irreducible complexity.
Your wiki entry is wrong.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218062 Mar 10, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Sorry dude. Those are facts.
No they aren't. I'm not a homophobe, I haven't hit any babies and I haven't hit women.

Apology accepted.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218063 Mar 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How does man deal with a deity that cannot be detected?

Religion is simply infantile ego projection upon the universe.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#218064 Mar 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't have an answer.
Numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have said Atheism is a religion, or can be considered a religion.
Materialist theories and dogma, as in Darwinism, is atheistic and obviously breaches the requirement that government schools be neutral toward religion.
Do you deny the courts have insisted on this neutrality?
So evolution has to go. You should be standing up for civil liberties! Where's the ACLU?
So what if atheism **WAS** a religion?(it's not-- but so what if it was)?

It doesn't have **ANY** bearing on EVOLUTION-- which is SCIENCE.

Are you seriously this STUPID, or did you take too many getting-hit-on-your-head lessons again?

You are dumber than a box of rocks.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218065 Mar 10, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Sorry, but your post makes no sense to me. Try posting it again. This time, try English.
Vamos a probar esto, para la gente con problemas lik que no saben discernir edad, de nuevo, adeudados de pagado, incompletas y completas.

Aquí hay una ley. Saber de dónde viene?

"Si algún esclavo resiste a su amo, corregir tal esclavo, y deberá pasar a ser asesinados en dicha corrección el capitán deberá estar libre de todo tipo de castigo, como si tal accidente nunca hubiera ocurrido."

Es una ley. Está escrito. Es estadounidense.
Usted es americano.

Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con Topix Ateo! lógica, debe seguir esa ley y debe poseer un esclavo.

Apology accepted.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218066 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And then you said that ID did not even pass #1, since there is no objective observational evidence of an intelligent designer.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218067 Mar 10, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
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?
You can't read very well. He wrote:

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

Hope that helps.

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) 3 min Dally Mama 776,116
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 min lil whispers 605,123
21 Dead Babies Found on Riverbank in China (Mar '10) 13 min AERT 669
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 20 min WildWeirdWillie 175,720
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 23 min June VanDerMark 559,798
Moses never existed 34 min KiMare 775
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 42 min cheer the f up 119,667
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Charlie Sheen 265,251
More from around the web