Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Second, atheism does not define anybody who is not a theist. That would eliminate agnosticism.
Atheism is a belief. The belief of atheism is that no gods exist.
on.

still BULLshyting Bucky boy,
xians do that a lot

from wiki

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

The term atheism originated from the Greek &#7940;&#952;&#949 ;&#959;&#962; (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century.[11]

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>He really doesn't like rapists. Go figure, how could anyone take offense to rape? Or slavery, damn is no one sane, it's only owning someone, taking away their freedom, it's not like there is anything wrong with it, after all the god who would make you eat your children is Ok, with both rape and slavery. GTFU!
I said you were not qualified to diagnose him, your opinion though is pure shit, and you are welcome to it

Who does like rapist?

Go figure?

Who likes atheist who claim the bible condones rape?

You and him both have a nice twisted view that fit’s the mind of a sadist. Your bitterness and perversion of the truth is you personified. Here again you like the perverted and mangled interpretation because it fits your ideology.

As our nation approaches the forth of July. Celebrating our nations freedom and independence. Thankfully we still have our personal freedoms. Freaks and social misfits like yourself haven’t the power base to strip our freedoms away. My opinion is not any less than yours and or anyone else for that matter. If you don’t like it, too bad. Nothing you can do about it now or ever. Finally the words of Walter Cronkite,“And that’s the way it is.”

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd like to add to this scenario that he has a decent understanding of nature and science, so the Christians won't be able to just fill his head with absurdities.

Yes, and a healthy dose of scepticism!

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>
Crap, I'm not old enough to watch it.

Better grab a parent or someone to help you click "yes, I am old enough."

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct.
It reminds me of a mantra used in Germany sometime ago - oh,...I believe it was mid-20th century:
"No god higher than the Fuhrer".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18645370

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you are wrong again, Darling.
"The Law" decided nothing.
"A Judge" decided a narrow ruling in one case.
"The Law" once decided a black man is not a person.
Were black men not persons until that was corrected?
Or were they persons all along?
Now resume telling ME how dumb I am.

Did they legally suspend the rights of black people such they were not treated like humans?

Do you not understand how legal definitions work?

It wasn't a narrow case, even remotely. ID isn't science. Scientists demonstrated that in a court of law. Moreover, science institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, explain that ID isn't science - for the numerous reasons I've provided you that you've not been able to argue against.

Get back to me when you learn rationality and logic.

Buck Crick wrote:

The empirical evidence for design, while evident, does not allow a deduction to the source or nature of the designing cause, and cannot determine it to be a supernatural deity.

ROFL

There is no "empirical evidence for design". It is a pipe dream. Nothing but wishful thinking. If your buddies at the Disco'tute actually had a case they would be able to do more that grasp at straws like the bacterial flagellum.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Your stupidity is baffling.
No, they say empirical evidence suggests design by intelligence.
It says empirical evidence DOES NOT deduce the nature of the intelligence, as in, whether it is supernatural or within nature.
That is a simple, straightforward, and modest position. It is not hard for a person of average or higher intelligence to understand.
You may argue against the proposition. But your stupid insistence that there are two contradictory positions contained therein is ample evidence that you will never be able to make a good argument against the position, because you have thus far been incapable of even understanding what it is!
Can you not read English?
Would it help if it were translated to Swahili for you?
Now resume telling ME how dumb I am.

Your stupidity is overwhelming. Better?

The above does not constitute argument, Buck. Don't you know that? You see, to argue your case, you actually have to take issues with what I've laid out. So far you've been so scared to actually engage, the very best your tiny, uneducated mind can come up with is insults.

But we all expect that of you now. Your arguments always go like this:

1. Buck makes an uneducated claim.
2. Intelligent poster refutes it.
3. Buck gets mad, insults. Claims he wins.
4. Intelligent poster points out that Buck hasn't said anything.
5. Buck pastes a multiplicity of quotes from the Discovery Institute.
6. Poster laughs and easily rips apart Buck's pastes.

The funny thing is you don't seem to have read the sources for those quotes. You just seem to know the quotes. I guess you've read a book on ID and then mined the DI for writing about it, maybe watched some youtube.

You should try reading real science, Buck. You'd realize the position of ID is as worthless now as it was 160 years ago.

Did you even notice you were making the correlation/causation error again? "Gosh this apparent design looks designed!"

Chess Jurist wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean this post after being schooled?
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
Or did you have another retraction in mind, fool?

Wow, he did a fantastic job dissembling in that post. Well done, Buck!

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
What empirical evidence for design?

Well, gosh, it really looks designed! And we've got this religion telling us it is, so it must be. Of course, we'll not directly use the religion in our claims. That would be too obvious and we've seen what happens to obvious religious claims in science and how silly they work. So we'll hide our claims behind a wall of pedantry.

weeeeeeeeee!

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Did they legally suspend the rights of black people such they were not treated like humans?
Do you not understand how legal definitions work?
It wasn't a narrow case, even remotely. ID isn't science. Scientists demonstrated that in a court of law. Moreover, science institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, explain that ID isn't science - for the numerous reasons I've provided you that you've not been able to argue against.
Get back to me when you learn rationality and logic.

Judge Jones on the subject of ID..."Breathtaking inanity."

That's our Buck, breathtakingly inane.

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
Who does like rapist?
Go figure?
Who likes atheist who claim the bible condones rape?

I generally get along with atheists.

You and him both have a nice twisted view that fit’s the mind of a sadist. Your bitterness and perversion of the truth is you personified. Here again you like the perverted and mangled interpretation because it fits your ideology.

Uhm...the Bible instructs people to marry their rapists and told the Jews to steal all the Malachite women after killing all the men - what do you think was implicit in those instructions?

As our nation approaches the forth of July. Celebrating our nations freedom and independence. Thankfully we still have our personal freedoms. Freaks and social misfits like yourself haven’t the power base to strip our freedoms away. My opinion is not any less than yours and or anyone else for that matter. If you don’t like it, too bad. Nothing you can do about it now or ever. Finally the words of Walter Cronkite,“And that’s the way it is.”

Uhm...atheists don't want to strip your freedoms away. We're quite happy those freedoms are in place!

I hung out with a bunch of religious studies people two days ago - interesting stuff!

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Judge Jones on the subject of ID..."Breathtaking inanity."
That's our Buck, breathtakingly inane.

I guess those words are translated into "gee, this was a close case."

Buck enjoys a good lie - hell, he believes in a whole bunch of them!

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
ROFL
There is no "empirical evidence for design". It is a pipe dream. Nothing but wishful thinking. If your buddies at the Disco'tute actually had a case they would be able to do more that grasp at straws like the bacterial flagellum.

DS, what's that argument again where you try to find the most obscure possible knowledge and say "ah-ha! You don't know about this, therefore I am correct!"

Of course, when we investigate that little piece of unknown, it turns out to demonstrate evolution. Unsurprisingly.

I wonder if you could make the case that ID has been beneficial to the study of certain parts of biology - like, exploring the flagellum in greater detail.

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
I generally get along with atheists.
<quoted text>
Uhm...the Bible instructs people to marry their rapists and told the Jews to steal all the Malachite women after killing all the men - what do you think was implicit in those instructions?
<quoted text>
Uhm...atheists don't want to strip your freedoms away. We're quite happy those freedoms are in place!
I hung out with a bunch of religious studies people two days ago - interesting stuff!

Where does the Bible say marry rapier?

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>

Atheism is a belief.

Atheism is just a made up word. Right?

Rapist. Sorry I'm using a kindle

Indeed and very well said! My shepherd line meant more along the lines that I didn't want to be a sheep as he said he wanted to be.

Humanism predates Jesus by a lot. Now in the barbaric region Jesus was said to live it wasn't prevalent but in other parts of the world it was the norm centuries before Jesus.

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
6th-century BCE pre-Socratic Greek philosophers Thales of Miletus and Xenophanes of Colophon were the first to attempt to explain the world in terms of human reason rather than myth and tradition.
Human-centered philosophy that rejected the supernatural can be found as early as 1000 BCE in India. In the 6th-century BCE, Gautama Buddha, Laozi (taoism) and Confucius all were non-theistic (humanistic) world views.
<quoted text>
Straw man fallacy. You're making stuff up out of fear to justify your hatred of things you don't understand. Pitiful.
<quoted text>
Atheism is nothing more than a category to define anybody who does not fit into the category of "theism." Apparently that's too hard for you to understand. Again pitiful.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>

Now resume telling ME how dumb I am.

Really? I was trying to be nice.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html...

Question: "What does the Bible say about rape?"

Answer: The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentioned the punishment the Mosaic Law commanded for a man who raped a woman. The man was to be killed by stoning while the woman was considered innocent. Though the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel during the time of Moses, the principle is clear that rape was sinful in the eyes of God and led to the most extreme punishment possible—death for the rapist.

There are some difficult passages in the Old Testament, however, in relation to this issue. Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

In the New Testament, rape is not mentioned directly, but within the Jewish culture of its writers, rape would have been considered as sexual immorality. As such, both Jesus and His followers (including the apostle Paul) spoke against sexual immorality, even offering it as justifiable grounds for divorce when a person actively committed sexual acts outside of the bond of marriage (Matthew 5:32). This would not, however, apply to the victim of rape, only the one who committed the act.

Further, the New Testament is clear that Christians are to obey the laws of their governing authorities (Romans 13). Not only is rape morally wrong; it is also wrong according to the laws of our governing authorities. As such, anyone who would commit this crime should expect dire consequences, including arrest and imprisonment.

To the victims of rape, much care and compassion must be offered. God’s Word often speaks about helping those in need and in vulnerable situations. Christians would do well to practice these teachings and model the love and compassion of Christ by assisting victims of rape in any way possible.

To those who have committed rape, we must remember two things. First, people are responsible for the sins they commit. Second, however, no one is beyond the grace of God. Even in the lives of those who have committed the vilest of sins, God can extend forgiveness to any who will repent and turn from their evil ways (1 John 1:9). This does not remove the need for punishment according to the law, but it can offer hope, even to those whose sins have made them outcasts in the eyes of others.

Recommended