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

#216328 Mar 3, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of the 537 elected and 9 appointed people in the federal government, how many are secular humanists?
My guess is none.

But yet, they are the ones protecting us from Christian jihad.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216329 Mar 3, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
i'm thinking of starting a thread titled -'atheism requires as much anal retardation as autism'
Seems a bit wordy.

I started one once "Is My Dog an Atheist?"

Several said yes, he is.

I figured that was why he ate shit and licked his genitals.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#216330 Mar 3, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
OH, my. Southern Baptists in Kentucky have discovered the perfect way to get rednecks to join their church.
From the Courier-Journal...
"In an effort its spokesman has described as “outreach to rednecks,” the Kentucky Baptist Convention is leading “Second Amendment Celebrations,” where churches around the state give away guns as door prizes to lure in nonbelievers in hopes of converting them to Christ."
Guns for Jesus.
<quoted text>
He didn't add a link for a reason, that story is false and exaggerated.
First, "churches around the state give away guns as door prizes" is an outright lie. It's one church.
Second, "outreach to rednecks" is exaggerated. People in that part of Kentucky think the term "redneck" is offensive.
How do I know? My parents attend that very church.
Small world.
More than one. The news points that out.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/kentuck...

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#216331 Mar 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you aware that the Courier-Journal is a Marxist left-wing rag that lies with impunity?
Multiple news outlets are carrying the story. If it's not legitimate, you can link to information that shows that isn't the case if you'd like.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#216332 Mar 3, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Men out in Kentucky view hunting and guns about as equal to sports, it's very important to them.
To them, offering to raffle off 25 guns is equivalent to a church raffling off Super bowl tickets.
Yeah, churches do strange things to bring in new members.

You'd think the deity alone would be sufficient.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216333 Mar 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Judging from your excerpts, Sam didn't want to debate Craig on the subject of the debate, and preferred to debate Old Testament scripture.

The subject of the debate was,“Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?/ Is Good from God?” That seems to be what Harris was talking about.

And there was no reference to any Old Testament scripture, which is part of Christianity, although there was a passing mention of witchcraft, still an issue for Christianity. Do you think that the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians? They seem to respect it as law enough to want to put parts of it up in courthouses.

[QUOTE who="Buck Crick"] I watched the debate, and it was obvious Craig had the upper hand intellectually, and destroyed Harris point by point.
That was not obvious to me or to many other people, including this random guy, who I believe cancels out your random guy, Luke Whosawhatsis.

"Sam Harris beats William Lane Craig in their debate on morality"
http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216334 Mar 3, 2014
2nd try:
Buck Crick wrote:
Judging from your excerpts, Sam didn't want to debate Craig on the subject of the debate, and preferred to debate Old Testament scripture.
The subject of the debate was,“Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?/ Is Good from God?” That seems to be what Harris was talking about.

And there was no reference to any Old Testament scripture, which is part of Christianity, although there was a passing mention of witchcraft, still an issue for Christianity. Do you think that the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians? They seem to respect it as law enough to want to put parts of it up in courthouses.
Buck Crick wrote:
I watched the debate, and it was obvious Craig had the upper hand intellectually, and destroyed Harris point by point.
That was not obvious to me or to many other people, including this random guy, who I believe cancels out your random guy, Luke Whosawhatsis.

"Sam Harris beats William Lane Craig in their debate on morality"
http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216335 Mar 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Here is a link to a good analysis, if you are interested. http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/how-wil... [/QUOTES]

Thanks. I don't agree that the analysis was a good one. For example, in the summary of Harris' argument, there was virtually no mention of any of the material I cited apart from "Morality can’t be dictated by divine commands because God is evil," which doesn't represent Harris' views at all. For example, he doesn't believe that "God" exists.

[QUOTE who="Buck Crick"] I agree with the analyst that the most annoying thing about Sam Harris is how he repeats stupid statements in such an earnest, soft-spoken tone. It literally makes me want to hit him in the face.
With all due respect, I'm not much interested in critiques in which the reviewer is willing to use phrases like thrashing naughty puppies or hitting people in the face. I begin to suspect that there might not be the philosophical detachment that I require to believe that the reviewer is being objective.
Buck Crick wrote:
You might also wish to observe Sam being made a total fool by debating Dennis Prager: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =18tUbNtzZhoXX
I listened to eight minutes of it the first time you posted the link, and recognized some of it in your post giving credit to Christians for taking Muslims more seriously than secularists. I wasn't convinced. By that argument, either. Christians see Islam as a threat in the same sense as they see humanists as a threat - not Christian. Humanists see terrorists of any stripe as a threat. We tend to not trust any violent, authoritarian ideologues.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216336 Mar 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
You nailed it. Harris' statement had nothing to do with self-defense. Self-defense is a response to an action, not to thoughts. Like I said, atheists seek authority on the basis that they are better atheists than Stalin and Lenin. Then along comes a humanist, Sam Harris, and screws the pooch.
You don't seem to be gaining much traction with this argument except with other theists. You, Riverside Redneck and nanoanomaly all seem content to have reduced Harris to one statement, and express outrage over it because it implies that a thought crime may be dangerous enough to justify execution. Do you think that sounds sincere?

Character assassination, along with expressed fantasies of violence, undermine any argument.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216337 Mar 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect, I'm not much interested in critiques in which the reviewer is willing to use phrases like thrashing naughty puppies or hitting people in the face. I begin to suspect that there might not be the philosophical detachment that I require to believe that the reviewer is being objective.
<quoted text>
I listened to eight minutes of it the first time you posted the link, and recognized some of it in your post giving credit to Christians for taking Muslims more seriously than secularists. I wasn't convinced. By that argument, either. Christians see Islam as a threat in the same sense as they see humanists as a threat - not Christian. Humanists see terrorists of any stripe as a threat. We tend to not trust any violent, authoritarian ideologues.
Maybe we can find common ground and both of us agree to hate at least one religion - Islam.

Here is a post I just authored on the Richard Dawkins pedophile thread, to my Muslim friend, whose name I mangle as "Hazel Sealshit".

I think it's some of my best work. You could honor me by your critique:
__________

Hi there, Hazel. It's me. Buck. How's the frog-sticker hangin'?

Something I always wondered about.

...

Oh, I forgot for a minute. Something I always wondered about. Did you Muslim cats write that song "Funky Cold Medina"?

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

I bet you'd love to get that babe into one of your suicide vans and pull a fatwad off in her, right?

Take care Hazel. Be cool, man. Absolute Salami.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216338 Mar 3, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> It's more than one(1) church involved, and appears there are more to come.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/201402...
BTW, its not just people in that part of Kentucky that think the term redneck is offensive.
Yeehaw!

http://ahelicoptermom.com/wp-content/uploads/...

I loved the name of the church: KBC

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#216339 Mar 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My guess is none.
But yet, they are the ones protecting us from Christian jihad.
Where has the old Buck gone?

You know, the racconteur, purveyor of humor, the pig farmer, boastful former football player (who provided YouTube videos of his on-field antics), violent Superman, PeeBob and Fountain's older brother, the fun lover we came to know and love, who was going to come out to Socal and roam the beaches with Catcher kicking sand on the California dudes?

The original Buck is gone. The replacement is an angry, bitter, humorless right-wing spewer of insults, lacking any sense of humor or even a tiny bit of humanity.

The new guy is no fun at all. I miss the real Buck.

Is he coming back, or are we stuck with a cheerless, atrabilious, ill-natured and belligerent substitute?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#216340 Mar 3, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text> You could be right, I've considered that, esp, the amalgam idea. i think there's some truth there in the final product. Rabbi Hillel comes to mind as one source. I don't have an emotional investment in the idea of this man being a singular figure so it's all abstract historical discussion to me.
That said, I would suggest again that charismatic speakers, healers, magicians, misanthropes, gadflies, rebels, the whole gamut, were a dime a baker's dozen in Palestine and environs. What else did they have for amusement? Part of Mark Twain's career is based in showing how easily the rubes can be swayed, wowed, bored, and pissed off, lather, rinse repeat ad infinitum. Doesn't get every actor a mention in Variety. How much more so in that god-blasted landscape with no Netflix?
So, this particular guy Jesus only became a big deal after the fact, after his core followers refused to "move on" to the next great thing, and revered his memory, beginning among themselves to spin yarns to liven the boredom of laying low all the time, at the same time creating that unity of shared delusions that intense persecution engenders. Reading James, it's doubtful the core disciples were totally on board with the whole resurrection gag. That's all to come. Along comes Saul/Paul, who falls off his ass, bumps his head, and shazam! For some unknown reason, he wants to horn in on the act, a great rivalry develops, Paul spins up his own mixtape of Jesus' Greatest Hits, and is far more energetic at selling it. It's only NOW this Jesus aka the Christ is worth a mention in the local gazette.
The rest is history. Kinda.
I dunno. Could be, is all I'm sayin'. >shrug< It doesn't add or take away anything in the larger discussion of authenticity, veracity, or authority of fanciful "gospels" to allow a guy very likely lived down underneath all that crusted legend.
The thing is, I do not even accept that the paul character is a real person (historically) either.

I have my doubts about the whole slate of characters in the NT-- I'd bet that they are each and every one of them, pure 100% fiction. No more real than Zeus or Imhotep.

The fact that there is **nothing** in the historical record about **any** of these people, apart from biblical bullshyt?

Is what makes me conclude that-- if these people were even 1/10 as notorious as they are portrayed in the NT stories?

We'd have something outside of bible-bullshyt.

We don't.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#216341 Mar 3, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>The man behind the curtain; Wizard of Oz
The Life Of Brian, by Monty Python.

:D

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216342 Mar 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect, I'm not much interested in critiques in which the reviewer is willing to use phrases like thrashing naughty puppies or hitting people in the face. I begin to suspect that there might not be the philosophical detachment that I require to believe that the reviewer is being objective.
<quoted text>
I listened to eight minutes of it the first time you posted the link, and recognized some of it in your post giving credit to Christians for taking Muslims more seriously than secularists. I wasn't convinced. By that argument, either. Christians see Islam as a threat in the same sense as they see humanists as a threat - not Christian. Humanists see terrorists of any stripe as a threat. We tend to not trust any violent, authoritarian ideologues.
Yes. I am just like you - philosophical detachment is paramount.

Logic is also paramount. Can we have two things both paramount? I'll have to look it up.

By logic, I mean the opposite of Sam Harris admitting to Dennis Prager that secularists are more irrational than American Christians, but the Christians are the ones who caused secularists to be irrational.

Or, Sam Harris claiming to Prager that the Old Testament records people being killed for working on the Sabbath, then when refuted, blaming the record keeping of the Jews for its absence.

But he sounded very earnest.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#216343 Mar 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The murder rates in California and Louisiana need to be given as a ratio of murders per capita (or per 100,000) to be useful to ascertain the gun murder rate, meaning that the absolute murder counts need to be divided by the state's populations.
In the 2010 census, California had 37,253,956 people and Louisiana 4,533,372. Assuming that the populations of the two states were roughly similar the next year, that means that Californians experienced murders by firearm at a rate of about 1220 / 372.5 x 100,000 = 3.28 per 100.000 population, and in Louisiana, there were about 402 / 45.33 x 100.000 = 8.87 murders by firearm per 100.000 population - somewhere between double and triple (270%) the murder rate. Any given Louisianan was almost three times as likely to be gunned down.
This is the same mistake you made using absolute numbers of American Christians instead of percentage of the total. It's the percentage that determines the church's political and social clout. When Christians are outnumbered by non-Christians, and their values will stop determining elections, laws, and policies, and will no longer define the majority. opinion wherever they are different from those of the non-Christians.
Yep.

I asked him the exact same question (which you actually answered): what is the murder rate per 1000 persons?

He could not answer-- because he **KNEW** the answer would make a liar of his post.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216344 Mar 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Yes, there is good reason to think otherwise. Among them, world history, American history, the history of philosophy, the history of world religion, the United States Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, The Magna Charta, common sense, and my eyes and ears.
The only relevant element of your list is world history, which supports my argument.
Buck Crick wrote:
The current president is a Christian. The Vice President is Catholic. Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Mormons each make up a greater percentage of the members of Congress than of all U.S. adults in general.
• 56% of the members (247 in the House, 52 in the Senate) are Protestant, with Baptist as the most represented denomination.
• 31% of the members (136 in the House, 27 in the Senate) are Catholic.
• 6.2% of the members (22 in the House, 11 in the Senate) are Jewish.
That's 94% of Congress affiliated with Abrahamic religions, and 100% of the leaders of the executive branch. The Supreme Court has 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews.
That's terrific.
Buck Crick wrote:
And you're saying a Christian government would do what???
Torture and execute people for blasphemy, heresy, impiety, adultery, fornication, sodomy, homosexuality, abortion, atheism, sorcery, astrology etc.and institute authoritarianism in place of democracy and individual freedoms. People would likely be subjects rather than citizens, slavery would be legal, wives would have few or no rights including the right not to be beaten even to death, and children would have no protection from abusive parents.We should not expect there to be animal rights or environmental protection.

America doesn't have a Christian government. It has a secular government.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216345 Mar 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to be gaining much traction with this argument except with other theists. You, Riverside Redneck and nanoanomaly all seem content to have reduced Harris to one statement, and express outrage over it because it implies that a thought crime may be dangerous enough to justify execution. Do you think that sounds sincere?
Character assassination, along with expressed fantasies of violence, undermine any argument.
You mean I have failed to convert BlueBaboon and Blob of Cum to theism?

I suppose I must live with that.

By the way, it wasn't one statement. His statement on murdering for thoughts and torturing religious people were separate statements. He also has followed them with more statements in his defense.

He also told Dennis Prager he sometimes feels "one with the universe"

Prager asked him if he felt more a part of any particular constellation.

Bwaha.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216346 Mar 3, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Christians are not present in the same places because if they aren't being killed by Muslims, they are by atheists! Right now, in countless countries.
Oh.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#216347 Mar 3, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/afri...
You need to choke on that smirk.
Sweets, just where in the NT is that practice?

Do you even understand where it comes from?

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min Yeah 1,154,309
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 42 min R C Honey 307,005
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr LonePalm 2,696
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 28,405
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 2 hr Joe fortuna 201,179
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Sat Roy the Boy 691
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Dec 16 The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web