Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247612 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221301 Mar 25, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. again, science never claims mutations are unguided ..
Mutations + proven natural selection = diverse species.
.. why do believers try to refute science? It seems like a losing proposition since science never excludes a possible guiding mechanism. What's being threatened ??.
Yes, they claim mutations are unguided - random accidental coding.

Why do you call exploring alternative scientific explanations "refuting science"?

Science refutes science all the time, if done properly.



“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221302 Mar 25, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't change tunes and I didn't make that assertion. Your dishonesty is legion.
You ignored my question.
IPSEC

Euless, TX

#221303 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Chrissy, we both know you want me. Thus your redneck stiffy comments.
I know what you're thinkin'.
Yeah, just what I thought. No one jot, one tittle, one iota of an example where ID has led to scientific discovery or improved our lives. And, you already admitted it wasn't falsifiable. Fail.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221304 Mar 25, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you IC is an argument out of stupidity didn't I?
It is either a statement with little meaning , or a process that is not understood yet.
Time and time again it is demonstrated with every claim why this is so.
The whole movement is nothing but religious fanatics who try to leech into science any way they can. You would be one of them. It's the watchmaker fallacy reworded and rehashed same old bullshit. Just like you , the same old tired ass rehashed leftover dried up bullshit on a new stick.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...
Nice string of assertions.

Come back when you have some facts.
IPSEC

Euless, TX

#221305 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I would evolve wings?
I'll feel free to question any umproven theory. But thanks anyway.
You might also look up the logical fallacy you just employed - "excluded middle".
Way before that in the pantheon of logical fallacies is your ridiculousness of ID, an argumentum ad ignoratium. But, you're soaking in it, Madge.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221306 Mar 25, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>No, from everything you have written, this far. There is a record of your miscellaneous ramblings that strangely form the pattern as I described it. Your inherent insanity precludes you from understanding even the nonsense you proffer. You can get help for your condition. Therapy and medication can help you find your way out of your immoral, ideological morass and back to reality.
By the way, you don't just "(note) the possibility of an outside(,)(sic) intelligent source", it is the only play in your ridiculous, non-evidential, defrocked wheelhouse. You can try to deflect your inanity in any manner you wish, but you can't even buy an ally among the anonymous, fellow-deluded you co-mingle with here. Even they find you unpalatable.

At this point, I've posted at least four articles about the Big Bang. All of them noted an intelligent force as a possibility, if not likely.

You, on the other hand, have ignored that and dumbed down on troll responses and personal attacks.

It seems you are anxious to argue faith, but unprepared to reason...

Smile.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221307 Mar 25, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. again, science never claims mutations are unguided ..
Mutations + proven natural selection = diverse species.
.. why do believers try to refute science? It seems like a losing proposition since science never excludes a possible guiding mechanism. What's being threatened ??.
One of the problems with "species" is that the definition of "species" is ambiguous throughout the sciences.

My preferred definition is 'two organisms that can naturally produces fertile offspring" yet that exclude asexual, parthenogenic and hermaphroditic species.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221308 Mar 25, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, just what I thought. No one jot, one tittle, one iota of an example where ID has led to scientific discovery or improved our lives. And, you already admitted it wasn't falsifiable. Fail.
You are raving Moron.

But don't let it spoil your day!

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221309 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I would evolve wings?
I'll feel free to question any umproven theory. But thanks anyway.
You might also look up the logical fallacy you just employed - "excluded middle".
You should google "sarcastically insulting a moron" which is what everyone does to you.
ROCCO

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#221310 Mar 25, 2014
3 minutes of laughter. It gets better as it continues.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221311 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they claim mutations are unguided - random accidental coding.
Why do you call exploring alternative scientific explanations "refuting science"?
Science refutes science all the time, if done properly.
They call it refuting science because you have to believe it the way they believe it.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221312 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they claim mutations are unguided - random accidental coding.....
It is not a claim, it is a proven fact. We can observe it and have for decades.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#221313 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such an idiot. Why do you think an atheist cannot allow churches?
Stalin: "There is no god".
When did Stalin reverse that position? Can you point to him saying "There is a god"?
Didn't think so.
Why are you so deliberately blind to facts? Did they use too much electricity when they zapped you brain?

Stalin – opened 25000 churches

Stalin on Russian Channel 1 - Christ existed in the past

Journalist- It is interesting that from all the Kremlin residents, maybe, just Stalin believed in god

Stalins Daughter – When I said to my father “But Christ didn’t exist” Stalin replied “Oh No, Christ surely existed”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221314 Mar 25, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you IC is an argument out of stupidity didn't I?
It is either a statement with little meaning , or a process that is not understood yet.
Time and time again it is demonstrated with every claim why this is so.
The whole movement is nothing but religious fanatics who try to leech into science any way they can. You would be one of them. It's the watchmaker fallacy reworded and rehashed same old bullshit. Just like you , the same old tired ass rehashed leftover dried up bullshit on a new stick.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...
You need to report to "Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences" that they are printing scientific studies about religious fanaticism.

If you can't find their address, I can look it up for you.

The researchers are Georgi Muskhelishvili, Andrew Travers. They don't seem that religious, based on the research paper. But you can inform them they are religious fanatics.

Let me know what their response is, OK?
IPSEC

Euless, TX

#221315 Mar 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They call it refuting science because you have to believe it the way they believe it.
Broken irony meters, worldwide.

Evolutionary science is not a belief, like water boiling at 100 degrees Celcius at sea level is not a belief. Is playing the jobless, drunken fool on the Internet a vocation of yours or just a fetish?
ROCCO

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#221316 Mar 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
(irrelevant portion snipped)



"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
- Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger
Excellent summarization of yourself, Repugnant Riverside Redneck.

But it's highly doubtful you will recognize it.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#221317 Mar 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they claim mutations are unguided - random accidental coding.
.. science cannot confirm whether mutations are guided or unguided ..

.. it's not my goal to defend science or religion, but to point out that science cannot rule out a guided mechanism. Words like 'random' or 'accidental' may sway but they do not convince ..
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you call exploring alternative scientific explanations "refuting science"?
.. ID is not an alternative scientific explanation, it's a philosophy ..

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#221318 Mar 25, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
What on Earth makes you think skeptics are only skeptical of religion?
The most famous skeptic of all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#221319 Mar 25, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the problems with "species" is that the definition of "species" is ambiguous throughout the sciences.
My preferred definition is 'two organisms that can naturally produces fertile offspring" yet that exclude asexual, parthenogenic and hermaphroditic species.
.. I'm convinced men and women are different species ..

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221320 Mar 25, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. I'm convinced men and women are different species ..
I am becoming convinced that Topix theists are a different species.

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) 2 min Stilgar Fifrawi 881,074
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min phooey 603,576
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 42 min abct 583
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 43 min oompaloompa4 514
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 44 min Ann Bonney 53,496
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Epiphany2 613,087
Has anyone ever heard of the Coudenhoven-Kalerg... 2 hr One Planet One Pe... 6
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 7 hr dollarsbill 8,359
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 7 hr sangili karuppan 7,656
The Christian Atheist debate 7 hr Critical Eye 4,082
More from around the web