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

#221692 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The instant science accepts that "there might be a supernatural explanation" is the instant the search for the truth ends.
An explanation unknown within nature, or "supernatural", once discovered, would cease to be supernatural.

Are you against explanations you don't know about yet?

Or are you only against finding them if they sound supernatural?

That really doesn't seem like objective investigation.

Many scientists resisted the Big Bang, as they thought it implied the "supernatural" beginning of the universe.

Are you against the Big Bang?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221693 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Everyone is an atheist....except Stalin.
And some people collect asteroids.....

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221694 Mar 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you suppose that so many people reject this claim? Are they all anti-theistic bigots that would rather reject a branch of knowledge than benefit from it because they fear religious people and have mistaken legitimate science for a religious agenda?
Yes.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221695 Mar 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you suppose that so many people reject this claim? Are they all anti-theistic bigots that would rather reject a branch of knowledge than benefit from it because they fear religious people and have mistaken legitimate science for a religious agenda?
You said it better than I would have.

Excellent work.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221696 Mar 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Those promoting a god concept are so much on the defensive these days that they feel the need to try to separate their god from the search for it until they have something.
I'm pretty sure that if the design proponents ever find that something - something that they feel is very strong evidence for their god - they'll be shouting its name out from the rooftops. Do you doubt that?
No evidence they find could prove their god, or anyone else's.

I say let the evidence come in and deal with it. Some will see it as God; some will see it as something else. Same story, different day.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221697 Mar 27, 2014
Thinking wrote:
id fails every peer review test. Simples.[sic]
<quoted text>
Are you confusing this with your pregnancy tests?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221698 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't know the guy.
Whether you know him or not, he contradicts your statements.

Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution.
In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics,[3][4] Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution. In 1979 he and Stephen Jay Gould introduced the term "spandrel" into evolutionary theory. From 1973 to 1998, he held an endowed chair in zoology and biology at Harvard University, and since 2003 has been a research professor there.
Lewontin strongly opposes genetic determinism, especially as allegedly propounded by researchers in behavioral genetics.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#221699 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>An explanation unknown within nature, or "supernatural", once discovered, would cease to be supernatural.

Are you against explanations you don't know about yet?

Or are you only against finding them if they sound supernatural?

That really doesn't seem like objective investigation.

Many scientists resisted the Big Bang, as they thought it implied the "supernatural" beginning of the universe.

Are you against the Big Bang?
You have a reading disability.

I'm not surprised.
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221701 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
An explanation unknown within nature, or "supernatural", once discovered, would cease to be supernatural.
Are you against explanations you don't know about yet?
Or are you only against finding them if they sound supernatural?
That really doesn't seem like objective investigation.
Many scientists resisted the Big Bang, as they thought it implied the "supernatural" beginning of the universe.
Are you against the Big Bang?
There are many other hypotheses other than the "Big Bang". It is not definitive.
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221702 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that other life forms have not asserted a position on this is good evidence.
“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.” &#8213; Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221703 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he does not.
Amazing Randi is a fraud. There is no prize.
He has been adjudicated in court and declared a liar and a fraud.
Provide evidence for your assertions. Randi exposes frauds, like the faith healing preachers who unload a trunkful of old wheelchairs and convince attendees to sit in them. Why old wheelchairs? New ones would be less convincing.

Anyone can file a lawsuit. No one has ever one a lawsuit against Randi. The prize is there. No one can win it because only frauds offer to sell products they never have to deliver, you know, like preachers.
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221704 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's misleading to say the RCC "embracing evolution".
They do not embrace Darwinism, which is a materialist and atheistic theory of evolution.
There is a huge difference in "evolution" and "theory of evolution".
Hahaha. Okay, Sparky. Evolutionary science is entwined with every scientific discipline. I'm still waiting for one scientific discovery of life improvement offered by ID, a concept you already admitted was non-falsifiable, and therefore, useless.
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221705 Mar 27, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, they are only separated by a few thousand practitioners...
An argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. I look forward to your conversion to Islam.
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221706 Mar 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. The FemiNazi Topix Atheist! could never learn from a Christian man. Never.
Verily, I tell you
Sure she could. She just couldn't learn from an ignorant, misogynistic, bigot like you.
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221707 Mar 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're concession is noted and accepted.
That took a lot less time than I thought I would....
"(You are) concession is noted and accepted."?

Homonyms are Christian kryptonite. Well, so is critical thinking, but that is for another post.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#221708 Mar 27, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
God made his covenant with"every living creature" and man was the only creation that screwed up so bad it needed to be saved from itself.
I think you mean that man needs to be saved from a god that can't stomach him as he was created.

It's not clear why we alone were given standards that we couldn't meet. I'm sure glad that dogs weren't told that if they disobeyed that they would be tortured forever. I like dogs, and am sure that they are doing the best they can just like you and me.
Skombolis wrote:
It says in the Bible that even when a sparrow falls, God is there
Unfortunately, when man fell, only the serpent was there-
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221709 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you confusing this with your pregnancy tests?
Funny, but you clowns usually consider women to be nothing more than incubators.
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221710 Mar 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you mean that man needs to be saved from a god that can't stomach him as he was created.
It's not clear why we alone were given standards that we couldn't meet. I'm sure glad that dogs weren't told that if they disobeyed that they would be tortured forever. I like dogs, and am sure that they are doing the best they can just like you and me.
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, when man fell, only the serpent was there-
Burn!
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221711 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether you know him or not, he contradicts your statements.
Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution.
In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics,[3][4] Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution. In 1979 he and Stephen Jay Gould introduced the term "spandrel" into evolutionary theory. From 1973 to 1998, he held an endowed chair in zoology and biology at Harvard University, and since 2003 has been a research professor there.
Lewontin strongly opposes genetic determinism, especially as allegedly propounded by researchers in behavioral genetics.
Funny, but your lover RR has declared Wikipedia suddenly unreliable and here you cut and paste from this unreliable source without attribution.

And, what are you, some kind of Commie? From your source:

"Lewontin has at times identified himself as Marxist, and admitted that his ideological views have affected his scientific work."

You're a Commie!
IPSEC

Fort Worth, TX

#221712 Mar 27, 2014
Christian Creepiness:

"During the ceremony, the fathers present their daughters with purity rings, and the duo become boyfriend and girlfriend.

"You keep this on your finger and as of this point you are married to the Lord and your father is your boyfriend," the father says as he hands his daughter the ring."


Hopefully this sentence is just terrible structure and not the real intent of the words:

"Having sex with, kissing or touching a man (other than their fathers) before marriage is strictly prohibited."

http://www.designntrend.com/articles/11954/20...

Yep, Christianity has nothing to do with mind control and women are just as equal as men. Where are the purity balls for the boys?

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 23 min Seraphima 604,838
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 29 min Pokay 774,048
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr guest 559,046
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 2 hr Neelakaran 1,243
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 2 hr bmz 37,798
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr onemale 265,020
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr bad bob 175,556
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 8 hr HipGnosis 441,755
More from around the web