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. Read more

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157822 Mar 2, 2013
Yet you constantly speak of it's best to believe because of what happens after you die. Your hallucination and delusion comfort you.

My knowledge of death in what way? Decomposing of the body? How brain function ceases? Autopsy?

Are you trying to claim your near death hallucination gives your some special insight to what happens after we die?

Grow up Dave.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I am almost 20 years past my first death. Went through the process. Hardly afraid of it.
Now, tell us your experience in the matter. Impart your knowledge to everyone.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157823 Mar 2, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results.
Sometimes. Sometimes not.

It depends on what mood they are in, or who is speaking.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157824 Mar 2, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Here you are arguing with Dave Nelson, and I have forgotten most of the names of the ones I think are not worth discussing things with. At least BC is memorable, however awful! You I remember as mostly sensible, but maybe a bit too sure in the way you state things - I doubt if you are such a authoritarian personality as to insist that you know. You are venturing good guesses about people's psychology - fear of death or of dying - and making reasonable suggestions for how to live more happily now. I think you are likely correct in many cases, but not absolutely correct in all cases. Still you are closer to rational than most - either "hard" believers or "hard" atheists who claim to know one thing or the other. I consider myself to be an agnostic (not making a knowledge claim) atheist (not believing in a God such as it is usually defined - and my own definition is definately not the usual one, nor do I connect with it in any way as a believer in it - it is more of an attempt at definition that is useful to trump all other definitions that I think are ridiculous). Good luck with your arguments if you enjoy them. If you ever want a converstion with me, I do not have my own computer, and only have time on Sat AM late after Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris Perry on MSNBC. From 11 to 1 central time. That is my way of both giving up on topix and yet not giving up on some persons I think are worthwhile conversing with, such as you.
I didn't take time to read your babble. I'll get back to it later.

I promise. I'll come back and read it.

Please don't think I'm skipping the crap.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157825 Mar 2, 2013
Unable to refute what I said? Check.

And Dave, unlike your delusions and hallucinations my dream has already been realized an is observable in realty. Future generations will eclipse our knowledge in natural processes and their future generations will know even more.

Your superstitious ilk desperately clinging to a comforting myth will chuckled as many do now about ancient people who thought some god dragged the sun across the sky as the day went on. Call me Nostradamus-like because that will happen.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
yawn
Lovely.
But you will go pfffssttt before those dreams are realized.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157826 Mar 2, 2013
Dave and Buck's pillow talk :)
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, thanks, Buck.
I would be even smarter if I had more info.
I am really amazed at the consistent low quality of reasoning ability of these Topix atheists. I mean it is below average.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157827 Mar 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yet you constantly speak of it's best to believe because of what happens after you die. Your hallucination and delusion comfort you.
My knowledge of death in what way? Decomposing of the body? How brain function ceases? Autopsy?
Are you trying to claim your near death hallucination gives your some special insight to what happens after we die?
Grow up Dave.
<quoted text>
Perfect illustration of the arrogance of "knowing it all".

You know nothing of the science involved in the experience, and nothing about the individual experience of it, yet you know more, allegedly, than the person experiencing it.

You are an idiot. If your brain was transplanted into a grasshopper, it would shit and hop backwards in its shit.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157828 Mar 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Then why isn't my name bat man? Clearly thinking isn't your
forte. What is absolutely amazing is how the most indoctrinated and venomously religitarded on the entire topix site, congratulate each
other on their cleverness. But cannot manage to admit anything but a constant denial of any achievement of modern science.
Thinking the whole time their inability to grasp and describe theory
explaining function is because it's false, and their only recourse is a magical skydaddy who is beyond all reasoning ability is why all humans cannot understand.

But the truth is that they like so many fundies reject science, because they are lacking the ability to understand it.
To admit their own shortcoming is blaspheme and rely on the god card to pull them out of the pool of crocodiles.
In reality they like you int the real world will academically be torn limb from limb and shredded to pieces, if they have to present anything credible.
Already in use.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157829 Mar 2, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results.
"Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.

The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywhere.

BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...

There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense."

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Sdertlje, Sweden

#157830 Mar 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
It depends on what mood they are in, or who is speaking.
umm Intelligent Design isn't science

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#157831 Mar 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
First, he never said organisms were "created" at all, and he certainly didn't state that evolution answers the beginning of life. Also he has not actually said that there is no god, just that the christian god cannot exist, and I concur with him on that. I don't much like some of his personality traits, but you must be honest when speaking about someone anyone can watch and read on.
You mean this James Watson? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson
You will have to be more specific, as in actual references where he said those things, because the way you post it makes you look dishonest. This, combined with your complete misrepresentation of Dawkins, actually makes your entire argument questionable.
Now, you have a bit to learn about scientific theories, they are not some wild guess answer, they are not just "this is how I see it" assertions, they are not assertions at all, actually. They are, in fact, an explanation of how pieces of information fit together. A theory is only accepted after a lot of testing, verification, and evidence is collected. So no, there is no alternate theory to the theory of evolution just as there is no alternate theory to relativity or chemical theory.
I know what i'm talking about, both James watson and Dawkins said those things!

HE DID SAY IT! He said evolution proves there is no creator!! Dawkins said that he would not even consider a scientific god.

I have nothing against Dawkins, i like him, but sometimes i don't like his attitude!

I see what u mean tho, i'll find the quotes for u!

I know what theories are, i never said that. I said scientists r picking and choosing which parts of evidence to take into consideration.

That's where u r wrong. Physicists are clearly ignoring consciousness and it's affect on matter. We have evidence that consciousness affects atoms, but they just ignore it, coz they want to.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#157832 Mar 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because somebody knows things that you don't, or that you don't agree with does not mean they claim to know everything.
I don't know a single atheist who claims to know everything.
I know several religious people who do make that claim.
what r u talking about, batty?

I said all STUPID atheists and religious people...! I did not say all atheists or religious people were stupid!

I'm talking about the stupid one's!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#157833 Mar 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious people who speak out about science do so because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, not because they have controverting evidence.
I'm not talking as a religious person, i'm talking as a student of science! I have the right to question both religion AND science!

Most Indian people have never been against science, we love science and we r very good at it! But what's starting to piss me off is that science is turning into a friggin' religion! Don't question the theories or we'll throw u out of our 'club' and call u thick!!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#157834 Mar 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yet you constantly speak of it's best to believe because of what happens after you die. Your hallucination and delusion comfort you.
My knowledge of death in what way? Decomposing of the body? How brain function ceases? Autopsy?
Are you trying to claim your near death hallucination gives your some special insight to what happens after we die?
Grow up Dave.
<quoted text>
Oh, you pay attention to what I write. Very good.

When you wake up and you ain't here no more, you will understand better.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157835 Mar 2, 2013
So Buck thinks he is smart and not fat.

I'll let that sink in.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If I notice a "smart person" on here, compared to myself, I'll give them your message.
You effing moron.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#157836 Mar 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
But you KNOW there's a god, right?
NO, I DO NOT KNOW THERE IS A GOD!

THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! IF U SPEAK OUT AGAINST SOME THEORIES OF SCIENCE U R CALLED A NUT! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

DO WE NOT EVEN HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHALLENGE THESE THEORIES. HAS THINKING FOR YOURSELF GONE DOWN THE DRAIN?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#157837 Mar 2, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what i'm talking about, both James watson and Dawkins said those things!
HE DID SAY IT! He said evolution proves there is no creator!! Dawkins said that he would not even consider a scientific god.
I have nothing against Dawkins, i like him, but sometimes i don't like his attitude!
I see what u mean tho, i'll find the quotes for u!
I know what theories are, i never said that. I said scientists r picking and choosing which parts of evidence to take into consideration.
That's where u r wrong. Physicists are clearly ignoring consciousness and it's affect on matter. We have evidence that consciousness affects atoms, but they just ignore it, coz they want to.
The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.
&#8213; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale.
&#8213; Richard Dawkins

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
&#8213; Richard Dawkins

It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have."
&#8213; Richard Dawkins

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#157838 Mar 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If I notice a "smart person" on here, compared to myself, I'll give them your message.
You effing moron.

Gee that's everybody including even Frankie Sue.
The argument clinic has many slightly over 1/4 watt bulbs.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157839 Mar 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, you pay attention to what I write. Very good.

When you wake up and you ain't here no more, you will understand better.
Then next he will feel a nice warm feeling all over. Very warm, and warmer one might say hot even.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157840 Mar 2, 2013
I understand the science of NDEs and the science of including green leafy vegetables in your daily diet. That one you should investigate! It will blow your mind!

Would you like me to explain the science about NDE hallucinations to you my large bellied small IQ poster?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfect illustration of the arrogance of "knowing it all".
You know nothing of the science involved in the experience, and nothing about the individual experience of it, yet you know more, allegedly, than the person experiencing it.
You are an idiot. If your brain was transplanted into a grasshopper, it would shit and hop backwards in its shit.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#157841 Mar 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit.
I'm disappointed in you.
I thought you were better than that.
WHAT?

Better than what? What have I done? Spoken out against accepted scientific theories? Oh no, burn me, I must be a witch!

U take me serious or not, but this new thinking that scientists are adopting from religious fanatics is not good, not good at all!

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Gods r Delusions ... 578,952
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Bongo 817,484
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 13 min lightbeamrider 1,965
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 15 min onemale 270,059
Johnny Spencer 16 min Terra Jones 2
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 47 min Epiphany2 609,822
News Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 55 min ACME Rock Sales 121,445
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr bad bob 176,203
More from around the web