Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258480 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217056 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. "Extraordinary" information is not ALL information. To rule out the existence of deities requires all information, or omniscience, which is not a human faculty. The "extraordinary" information, by definition, leaves possible information unknown. The deity could not be ruled out of the unknown portion of information not included in the "extraordinary" information.
The silly unicorn example is a fallacy of logic based on category error. A unicorn is a physical being, whereas a deity cannot be "reified", or turned into a mere "thing" with physical characteristics for observation and verification.
So substitute "ghost" for "unicorn". Then you are talking non-physical and non-physical. The argument is the same.

And...BTW...how do you KNOW a unicorn is a physical being? Kinda hard to be a physical being when you don't exist. And maybe unicorns can be seen but don't have a physical existence. Kinda hard to categorize unicorns, or gods, when you don't have a hard and fast definition.

Or maybe you think unicorns are real?(The Bible says they exist.)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217057 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote was exactly accurate, and you called the quote "misquoting" because it did not include the additional context you supplied.
I suggest you read up on what constitutes misquoting.
Your criticism should have been "quoted out of context", not "misquoting". These are two very different phenomena with very different ramifications.
Further, your supplied context does not change the meaning of the quotation when supplied lone-standing.
Yes, Buck, just as with Barton, providing part of a quote out of context IS misquoting.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217058 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. "Extraordinary" information is not ALL information. To rule out the existence of deities requires all information, or omniscience, which is not a human faculty. The "extraordinary" information, by definition, leaves possible information unknown. The deity could not be ruled out of the unknown portion of information not included in the "extraordinary" information.
The silly unicorn example is a fallacy of logic based on category error. A unicorn is a physical being, whereas a deity cannot be "reified", or turned into a mere "thing" with physical characteristics for observation and verification.
Your argument is twofold:

1. we cannot know anything, b/c absolute knowledge is not possible.

That's a silly and useless foundation for producing information about reality.

2. You're defining deities such that they cannot be measured, so that they cannot be "known," especially according to your absolute requirements.

So what? We can imagine any number of unknowable things and call them deities - your pretense here is make-believe and, as such, is not a compelling argument.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217059 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote was exactly accurate, and you called the quote "misquoting" because it did not include the additional context you supplied.
I suggest you read up on what constitutes misquoting.
Your criticism should have been "quoted out of context", not "misquoting". These are two very different phenomena with very different ramifications.
Further, your supplied context does not change the meaning of the quotation when supplied lone-standing.
BTW...I saw the most horrific monster the other day. It had the head of a horse and the body of a unicorn.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217060 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote was exactly accurate, and you called the quote "misquoting" because it did not include the additional context you supplied.
I suggest you read up on what constitutes misquoting.
Your criticism should have been "quoted out of context", not "misquoting". These are two very different phenomena with very different ramifications.
Further, your supplied context does not change the meaning of the quotation when supplied lone-standing.
Once again, RR's quote changed the word "proposition" to "belief," thereby rendering the quote inaccurate.

Furthermore, it's intellectually dishonest for both you and RR to subsequently misrepresent what Harris' entire argument.

For the record, you misquoted RR but properly presented Harris' one sentence. RR got the sentence wrong.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217061 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote reads "“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”
-Sam Harris"
That's quite different than the one I placed, in context.
The failure that you, and RR, continue is to remove all context from the sentence, change words in it, and interpret in a fashion that wasn't stated in the initial writing.
That's intellectually dishonest on your behalf. You're misrepresenting the author so you can demonize him. It's also intellectually weak since you're refusing to engage in the author's actual argument. I find this especially funny because, in this instance, it exactly mirrors your argument about Al Queda.
Show where RR changed words in the line he quoted.

He didn't. You're lying.

You quoted the line same as RR, but added the context, which did not change the meaning.

The strongest charge you can rightly make is "quoting out of context".

The more serious charge, which you offer, "misquoting", is false.

You are also wrong about my argument against Al Queda. My justification for killing was due to actions - Harris' justification was due to thoughts and beliefs.

To miss that you really have to be dumb. I saw where Dagwood missed it too. Dumb and Dumber.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217062 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote was exactly accurate, and you called the quote "misquoting" because it did not include the additional context you supplied.
Let's check:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You forgot one:
“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”
-Sam Harris
And, what did Harris write? Let's check:

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/respo...

So, Buck, why do you continue to read "propositions" as "beliefs"?

So, no, RR misquoted. Your tirade here is incorrect and I accept your apology.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217063 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is twofold:
1. we cannot know anything, b/c absolute knowledge is not possible.
That's a silly and useless foundation for producing information about reality.
2. You're defining deities such that they cannot be measured, so that they cannot be "known," especially according to your absolute requirements.
So what? We can imagine any number of unknowable things and call them deities - your pretense here is make-believe and, as such, is not a compelling argument.
Wrong. Some categories of knowledge are possible to know absolutely. For many subjects, "X exists" is knowable, because we observe it. The particular category under discussion is not one to be definitively determined by human observation.

Second, I didn't define deities. A deity, by nature, is a categorically different matter to prove than other phenomena.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217064 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Some categories of knowledge are possible to know absolutely. For many subjects, "X exists" is knowable, because we observe it. The particular category under discussion is not one to be definitively determined by human observation.
Second, I didn't define deities. A deity, by nature, is a categorically different matter to prove than other phenomena.
Sorry, Descartes already demonstrated that it's not possible to know anything absolutely, and that's where your argument takes you if you insist that knowledge must be known absolutely.

Yes, you're defining deities to be "categorically different...than other phenomena." That's silly make-believe.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217065 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Show where RR changed words in the line he quoted.
He didn't. You're lying.
You quoted the line same as RR, but added the context, which did not change the meaning.
The strongest charge you can rightly make is "quoting out of context".
The more serious charge, which you offer, "misquoting", is false.
You are also wrong about my argument against Al Queda. My justification for killing was due to actions - Harris' justification was due to thoughts and beliefs.
To miss that you really have to be dumb. I saw where Dagwood missed it too. Dumb and Dumber.
So...for you "beliefs" is exactly the same word as "propositions"?

And you're calling me a liar for claiming that "beliefs" is, in fact, if you look very closely and read English, a different word than "propositions."

Do you always read this poorly and come to angry, accusative conclusions?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#217066 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote was exactly accurate, and you called the quote "misquoting" because it did not include the additional context you supplied.
I suggest you read up on what constitutes misquoting.
Your criticism should have been "quoted out of context", not "misquoting". These are two very different phenomena with very different ramifications.
Further, your supplied context does not change the meaning of the quotation when supplied lone-standing.
You're being a pedant, Buck.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217067 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Descartes already demonstrated that it's not possible to know anything absolutely, and that's where your argument takes you if you insist that knowledge must be known absolutely.
Yes, you're defining deities to be "categorically different...than other phenomena." That's silly make-believe.
You lose either way. Your definitive statement that the deity does not exist is wrong if:

1. If it is not possible to know anything absolutely, and

2. If it is possible to know some things absolutely.

Either way, you cannot know. Obviously, if you cannot know anything absolutely, you cannot know absolutely the deity does not exist. If you can know some things absolutely, you still cannot know the deity does not exist because you do not possess all knowledge, and the deity could possibly exist unknown, since some things are unknown.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#217068 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
So...for you "beliefs" is exactly the same word as "propositions"?
And you're calling me a liar for claiming that "beliefs" is, in fact, if you look very closely and read English, a different word than "propositions."
Do you always read this poorly and come to angry, accusative conclusions?
Thanks for the visit, Hiding.

Fare thee well; make your reach exceed your grasp.

And come back soon.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217069 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
So...for you "beliefs" is exactly the same word as "propositions"?
And you're calling me a liar for claiming that "beliefs" is, in fact, if you look very closely and read English, a different word than "propositions."
Do you always read this poorly and come to angry, accusative conclusions?
Riverside Redneck, post #216779

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing in them."

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217070 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You lose either way. Your definitive statement that the deity does not exist is wrong if:
1. If it is not possible to know anything absolutely, and
2. If it is possible to know some things absolutely.
Either way, you cannot know. Obviously, if you cannot know anything absolutely, you cannot know absolutely the deity does not exist. If you can know some things absolutely, you still cannot know the deity does not exist because you do not possess all knowledge, and the deity could possibly exist unknown, since some things are unknown.
Nope. You're disregarding how evidence based knowledge works.

You're also continuing to define deities in an unknowable way. That's cute and everything, but not very useful except if you want to prop up faith based belief systems.

(my post is shorter)

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#217071 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You lose either way. Your definitive statement that the deity does not exist is wrong if:
1. If it is not possible to know anything absolutely, and
2. If it is possible to know some things absolutely.
Either way, you cannot know. Obviously, if you cannot know anything absolutely, you cannot know absolutely the deity does not exist. If you can know some things absolutely, you still cannot know the deity does not exist because you do not possess all knowledge, and the deity could possibly exist unknown, since some things are unknown.
Got it.

You win, Buck.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217072 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Descartes already demonstrated that it's not possible to know anything absolutely, and that's where your argument takes you if you insist that knowledge must be known absolutely.
Yes, you're defining deities to be "categorically different...than other phenomena." That's silly make-believe.
I didn't insist that anything be known absolutely.

Your statement implies absolutely that the deity does not exist.

You may apply any philosophical standard to the property of knowledge you wish, and you will still be trapped with a result that does not support your claim.

What you can rightly claim is the you personally conclude the deity does not exist. You can rightly claim that you believe the deity does not exist.

When you advance to claiming, as you did, that the deity factually does not exist, you have entered into an assertion that is falsely made.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217073 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Riverside Redneck, post #216779
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing in them."
The careful observer will note that I quoted directly from RR's post where he substituted the word "beliefs" for "propositions."

I accept your apology in finally realizing that RR has produced 2 separate quotes, one inaccurate and one accurate, and that you mistakenly thought I was referring to the accurate one.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217074 Mar 5, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the visit, Hiding.
Fare thee well; make your reach exceed your grasp.
And come back soon.
I just can't quit you Catcher!

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217075 Mar 5, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're being a pedant, Buck.
A lawyer knows the key to truth is in the fine details.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min VetnorsGate 1,683,122
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 27 min Chosen Traveler 35,356
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 58 min Liberal Bulldozer 326,399
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Wed Sweet 293
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Jan 16 hojo 12,044
News Horsechief commits to Pacific (Mar '06) Jan 4 NicePhartts 8
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Dec 24 Randy from Wooster 201,884
More from around the web