Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
You are one of the biggest religitards I've ever met.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Learn to read.
"People in science perpetuated the mistake"
"Science would not have screwed it up"
Where do you see "science screwed it up"??
Look hard.
Read it out loud if you must.
Found it yet?

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text> I do not follow your argument. Why couldn't an eternal and unchanging God make things that are temporary and changing? I certainly think that all scriptures are the works of man and not a deity - and probably works of men far more than women, for thousands of years.
I personally think that religion can be made lots less evil than it is, at least, and that this would be a good thing - especially since it takes so long to get rid of religion entirely, for various reasons - such as that children get brainwashed young, and the most superstitious people seem to breed more and indoctrinate their children younger and more completely.

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text> If we are going to be critical of folks for using the term tard, then I suggest that we not use it either - not even to BC. It is a nasty term.
be careful of accepting wiki definitions. I do not like it when idiotic believers try to define atheism or agnosticism, and so I am also reluctant to endorse a particular definition of what religion is, from any source. I would rather have words used that have very clear cut and simple greek origins, such as atheism and agnosticism do. it is difficult enough to get folks to agree on definitions that spring from simple roots with clear and limited meaning. oh by the way, I am mostly on your side and friendly to you - I prefer to quibble a bit with the folks I like, and dislike even acknowledging the existence of bc types.

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text> If we are going to be critical of folks for using the term tard, then I suggest that we not use it either - not even to BC. It is a nasty term.
be careful of accepting wiki definitions. I do not like it when idiotic believers try to define atheism or agnosticism, and so I am also reluctant to endorse a particular definition of what religion is, from any source. I would rather have words used that have very clear cut and simple greek origins, such as atheism and agnosticism do. it is difficult enough to get folks to agree on definitions that spring from simple roots with clear and limited meaning. oh by the way, I am mostly on your side and friendly to you - I prefer to quibble a bit with the folks I like, and dislike even acknowledging the existence of bc types.

havent forgotten wrote:

....
I personally think that religion can be made lots less evil than it is, at least, and that this would be a good thing - especially since it takes so long to get rid of religion entirely, for various reasons - such as that children get brainwashed young, and the most superstitious people seem to breed more and indoctrinate their children younger and more completely.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
It implies no such thing.
You are an idiot.

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Significant layers form over time, due to a multitude of factors. Erosion and depositions are the most common explantion. However, for every ounce that is eroded, it moves to the ocean floor, and pushes up earth's 'scale'. The term is isostacy.
Isostacy can be observed - Everest is getting taller every year, for instance. It is a energy intensive process driven by the planetary engine.
So here is what happens - over time, wind and water erodes a mountain.*Some* eroded material is deposited on the landscape, creating the layer.
Now, the planetary engine pushes the mountain to become higher, meaning that it can take millions of years of erosion, without being eroded into the ground. Thus, through the ages, a lot of material gets deposited.
Meaning that the earth stays the same size, just the planetary engine creating the layers :)

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct and brilliant, Dave.
On the same note, Topix hacks insult and belittle actual biological scientists who do the hard work on theories like ID.
But the Topix hacks then prove they cannot even formulate a consistent position for 2 posts in a row.
If being a drooling fanatic becomes a science, we will see Nobel awards on these pages.
I place into nomination SuperSuck and Blob-Of-Shit-On-Face.

Judged:

1

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason your evidence is personal is because nobody believes you. It's hard to confront the fact that you are lying to yourself.
Just leave atheists out of your religious neurosis...

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
But the physics they used is based upon gravity, the weakest force in the universe, to determine how life and animation came about. And they have been unsuccessful in doing so.
Take a meatball made of iron molecules and hang it in space. Broadcast an EM wavelength toward it and they will tend to pull toward each other as they get magnetized. However, there is a lot of motion involved as they try to get in line following the waves affect on the individual molecules. You can get it to quiver at the right frequency. There will be a slight biasing due to gravitational fields it may be within.
Make a meatball of water molecules and zap it with the same EM. It will go flying in all directions because of its diamagnetic properties. Would take a very long time for gravity to pull it back together again, if ever.
Throw a little hamburger in with water and those iron filings and you get some interesting actions and reactions within the meatball. You added paths for the transfers of energy. Made it a more "stable" collection of mass that has feedback.
That is based upon the simplest of physical properties. It is the basis of our technologies, even.
There are holes in our so called higher physics and thus cosmology and thus religion.

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
An eternal and unchanging God would not change his mind. If he did, he wouldn't be eternal and unchanging. Get it? Bet not!

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally, I think religion is inherently evil. Nearly universally, a religion posits that another human or group of humans know more about god and what he/she/it wants than anyone else. The evil begins at that point.

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
You failed to offer any definition better than wiki's and Wikipedia did cite their original source for the definition.
While religion is difficult to define, one standard model of religion, used in religious studies courses, was proposed by Clifford Geertz, who simply called it a "cultural system" (Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System, 1973). A critique of Geertz's model by Talal Asad categorized religion as "an anthropological category." (Talal Asad, The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category, 1982.)
are you done whining yet?

bossdrop wrote:

<quoted text>I also forgot about this little gem of analysis. Subjective Experiences are quite scientific. This is an interesting study done by Neuroscientist Alexander Fingelkurts.
"According to this research, subjective mental experience (subjective virtual world) has definitive spatial and temporal properties similar to many physical phenomena".
Here is the total paragraph:
"Concepts of space and time are widely developed in physics. However, there is a considerable lack of biologically plausible theoretical frameworks that can demonstrate how space and time dimensions are implemented in the activity of the most complex life-system – the brain with a mind. Brain activity is organized both temporally and spatially, thus representing space-time in the brain. Critical analysis of recent research on the space-time organization of the brain’s activity pointed to the existence of so-called operational space-time in the brain. This space-time is limited to the execution of brain operations of differing complexity. During each such brain operation a particular short-term spatio-temporal pattern of integrated activity of different brain areas emerges within related operational space-time. At the same time, to have a fully functional human brain one needs to have a subjective mental experience. Current research on the subjective mental experience offers detailed analysis of space-time organization of the mind. According to this research, subjective mental experience (subjective virtual world) has definitive spatial and temporal properties similar to many physical phenomena. Based on systematic review of the propositions and tenets of brain and mind space-time descriptions, our aim in this review essay is to explore the relations between the two.
----
So subjective experiences are a Scientific fact.
So how then can you deny that a person has had a real subjective experience with Jesus Christ as God?
The fact that a Christian can have a subjective experience with an Entity or an Omnipotent Being recognized as the God of Christianity Jesus Christ...scares the living crap out of you doesn't it? it should.

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text> you are assuming a he. a she god might not change her mind, but want variety anyhow. I do not think that logical thinking is a substitute for knowing what Reality is. I do not believe we can know what Reality is.

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text> are you implying that you do not think one version is worse than another?

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text> you seem to think that wiki and geertz know best. sort of like religious folks who know best.
one does not have to offer an alternate definition to be wary of simplistic ones, or arrogant ones that claim to be correct. it takes negotiating to agree on a definition, and you want to be arbitrary. will everyone agree with you and your professor? I doubt it.

Judged:

1

havent forgotten wrote:

here is someone else who thinks that a little quote from one professor establishes something as a fact. <quoted text>