Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258485 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217200 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/respo...

I don't agree with him, nor think that he fully flushed that out. He needed to add "and have demonstrated the propensity for carrying out their desires through actions that have resulted in grievous injuries and deaths."

Incidentally, even with that added in, I still don't agree with the above statement.
I agree with you. I don't like the comment. I think it is wrong, and that writing it was ill-advised. I wonder if the blow back from it has given him reason to reconsider those words, and if he would still agree with them today. True, using the word "may" gives him a little wiggle room in his own defense, but it's not much of a defense.

Even so, I have read and heard so much inspired material from him that I consider him one of the best sources on the subject. His rebuttal to Craig at Notre Dame was very good. He assaulted both Divine Command theory and the double standard of saying how great the god is when the horse you bet on and pray, but that ed about wins, bu that his ways are beyond human understanding when your kid gets leukemia.

If you read Dennett on free will, your head will explode. Read Harris and its clear and easily assimilable.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217201 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's check:
<quoted text>
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.
Forgot the link:

books.google.com/books...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217202 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't misquote him. This link you provided is basically Harris apologetics, his "Response To Controversy", as the header says.
His actual quote, which he has since tried to rebuke, was:
"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”
Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.
From the same book:
"I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss."
What a guy. He'd like to institute some sort of thought crimes, and kill people for having them. To me, he's the typical Freethinker! He has to freethink the same freethoughts that every other freethinker freethinks.
You're misquoting him again. Why are you lying here? He wrote "propositions" not "beliefs."

That your belief system needs to based on misquoting people, taking their writing out of context and lying about it demonstrates how useless, demeaning and damaging your religion is.

Thanks.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217203 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
A proposition necessarily include beliefs, certainly, but also can contain plans for actions. Harris specifically used this word and not beliefs b/c he's discussing how US military attacks on Muslim terrorists can be seen as the acceptance of killing b/c a person's beliefs and behavior, together and not separate.
Changing the word to indicate "beliefs" produces an inflammatory sentence. Taking it out of context leads to the kind of paranoid proclamations of Christians on this thread, claiming that Harris is calling for their deaths b/c of their religious beliefs. Clearly, it was done purposefully by whomever RR is quoting from - and, in the doing, misrepresenting Harris.
Bull shit.

The "proposition" in Harris' statement IS a belief, as he goes on to say that killing the person for "believing" it might be ethical. Plans are not something "believed".

You are trying to make a distinction between "believing a belief" and "believing a proposition". There is no distinction.

And it is Harris who put this quotation in the context of religious belief, not Christians who are criticizing him. Also, you are wrong again on the military killing terrorists for their beliefs.

The military does not accept that, and Harris did not say that, at least not in the passage provided.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#217204 Mar 6, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. didn't these 'enemy combatants' kill based on a belief that they were doing God's will ??..
.. what happens if a charismatic Christian leader emerges and tells his/her followers to do the will of Jesus and kill Muslims? What happens ??..
Like anyone else , they get charged with murder. But if they were clandestine and hiding like
Al Qaeda, They would likely make the FBI list and be up for bounty.
Remember Koresh? He wasn't even wanted for murder.
But most importantly the law makes no distinction of what the cause of a crime is, only that the crime is committed. We see this everyday in life, when we see people murdered.
The killer or killers are found , put to trial ...convicted ...sentenced. But most the time we still have no answer as to why they did what they did. With religious extremists we get to know why, or at least a reason that suffices. But it doesn't really answer the question then either,

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217205 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Forgot the link:
books.google.com/books...
You are lying again. That's not the link you used.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217206 Mar 6, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
By giving her nothing, she just thought you were cheap.
To have sent the proper message-- you should have left a penny or a nickle.
Obviously, you've never worked as a waiter.
I don't care if she thought I was cheap, handsome, ugly, fat, depressed or hung like a horse. I wasn't there to impress a waitress, I was there to enjoy a dinner. She was a shitty, uncaring waitress and EARNED no tip, not even a penny.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217207 Mar 6, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you **really** want to hammer home a lousy waiter?
Leave your penny/nickle/quarter with her manager-- say, "here's the tip for XXX, it's a wee big generous, I know, but I didn't have anything smaller..."
Nope. A penny could be the monthly interest earned on a dollar. Why waste it on a crappy server?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217208 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
A proposition necessarily include beliefs, certainly, but also can contain plans for actions. Harris specifically used this word and not beliefs b/c he's discussing how US military attacks on Muslim terrorists can be seen as the acceptance of killing b/c a person's beliefs and behavior, together and not separate.
Changing the word to indicate "beliefs" produces an inflammatory sentence. Taking it out of context leads to the kind of paranoid proclamations of Christians on this thread, claiming that Harris is calling for their deaths b/c of their religious beliefs. Clearly, it was done purposefully by whomever RR is quoting from - and, in the doing, misrepresenting Harris.
If you would like, I could take a short vacation from Topix so that you could argue and not be hopelessly out of your league, intellectually.

I'm a nice guy that way. Let me know.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217209 Mar 6, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your bible (which you believe), it **is** ethical to kill **me** for what I do not believe....
... how is this any different, hypocrite?
Please Topix Atheist! quote mine the Bible where it say it's ethical for ***ME*** to kill ***YOU***.

Go.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217210 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Bin Laden wasn't killed for his beliefs, he was killed for his actions you dumb ass retard.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Nope-- he was killed because he **acted** on his **beliefs**.
Yes, because I said something completely different......

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217211 Mar 6, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiccians are ** NOT ** hell-bent on forcing their idiot beliefs onto everyone else.
Sorry about that, Wiccians.
WTF is a "Wiccian"?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#217212 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It's incredible how ignorant you are. And stupid.
An intelligent and ignorant man would know the limitations of his knowledge, yet you consistently fail in this regard.
Thanks for the example.
He is the perfect example for demonstrating the dunning kruger effect

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217213 Mar 6, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Prepare to be schooled...
Hold on, let me get my school girl outfit on first.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217214 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
Just as none of your posts are evidence of anything except your extreme bigotry, egoism, hatred and overabundance of free time.
What a sad mix.
Bigotry for whom? The Christian church? Onegh I think they cannot be a bigot against an idea, institution, or other abstraction.

Egoism? I think you have the wrong word. You wanted egotism. And yes, I have an abundance of self-confidence and tend toward arrogance, but I'm working on it.

Hatred? I like, love, admire or respect most things, although Christianity is not one of them. My worldview is very constructive and life affirming. You, however, are a dismal, bitter person whose every post oozes bile. Psychologists call that phenomenon - attributing your own faults to others - projection

The free time thing I'll give you. My time is all free. And with my sleep habits, I get more hours a day than most. Yet there still isn't enough time in the day.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217215 Mar 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you. I don't like the comment. I think it is wrong, and that writing it was ill-advised. I wonder if the blow back from it has given him reason to reconsider those words, and if he would still agree with them today. True, using the word "may" gives him a little wiggle room in his own defense, but it's not much of a defense.
His argument had nothing to do with killing religious people, but killing people with the religious fervor and past actions of attacking those, especially innocents, who do not share those beliefs.

He never took it back, but rather explained that the criticism he faced was entirely missing the point - and it is. People like RR are too stupid to understand what Harris was saying, but b/c Harris wrote an atheist book, and b/c Harris attacked faith based religions, RR's leaders quote mined the book, searching for ways to vilify Harris.

It worked: look how thoughtlessly RR is a good little sheep.

I kind of see why Harris addressed such idiocy with trying to explain what he actually meant. However, I disagree with the entire premise. In his argument here, I see him as a supporter of the American status quo of attacking those who do not defer to your power. He entirely fails to understand how the exercise of American power is what is causing people to respond with force.

The irony is that the stupid religious actually support Harris' premise here. Buck quite clearly explained that bombing terrorists was ok, b/c the USA is engaged in "war." Harris speaks to this - his entire premise for the sentence in question is about that - yet people like Buck fail to realize this.

What could be more ironic than the religious attacking Harris for supporting their aggression?
Even so, I have read and heard so much inspired material from him that I consider him one of the best sources on the subject. His rebuttal to Craig at Notre Dame was very good. He assaulted both Divine Command theory and the double standard of saying how great the god is when the horse you bet on and pray, but that ed about wins, bu that his ways are beyond human understanding when your kid gets leukemia.
If you read Dennett on free will, your head will explode. Read Harris and its clear and easily assimilable.
In matters theistic and atheistic, Harris is brilliant, absolutely. His conceptions of morality aren't. They're simplistic. Yes, we need a moral discussion that strongly criticizes religious belief - no doubt! We're failing that in Anthropology - and we have no excuse. But Harris, coming from psychology, should be able to produce a better position. He can't b/c he's in neuroscience - I totally get that. But it's a truism that scientists who overstep their disciplines embarrass themselves. He needs to either learn the foundation of the scholarly disciplines he's engaging with or step back a bit and build up some theory with which to support his position.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217216 Mar 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
He is the perfect example for demonstrating the dunning kruger effect
hahaha!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217217 Mar 6, 2014
"Onegh I think they cannot be a bigot against an idea, institution, or other abstraction. "

should read

"One cannot be a bigot against an idea, institution, or other abstraction."

My computer has that little demon that makes your cursor jump around as if it had a mind of its own. The above is a typical result.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217218 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I thought of perhaps a better scenario for Harris' point. It goes like this:
Some guy comes into your house, with a gun, and tells you his is going to shoot your children. He hasn't done it yet and you don't know whether he has killed someone, but you have a gun that he cannot see. Is it acceptable for you to kill him for that proposition?
That's the clearest case that I can come up with supporting Harris' argument.
Tide with Beach wrote:
You'd added a lot to this discussion and moved it forward.
ns. It's so messy. We need to acknowledge how far from ideal our responses to threats are.
She's wrong, though. Harris is advocating killing for having a thought. Her hypothetical with the home invader is an action, not a thought. Harris' ideology would have a person killed just for thinking about the home invasion but not actually doing it.

That's sort of illegal, you know...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217219 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would like, I could take a short vacation from Topix so that you could argue and not be hopelessly out of your league, intellectually.
I'm a nice guy that way. Let me know.
It's funny. I came back yesterday and have utterly and totally destroyed your weak positions on every topic I've seen you post. I just came back to malinger b/c I had to craft a new syllabus and I'm finding you ... too easy.

I'm a bit sad. While I enjoy your humor, I'm wondering what's left of your intellect. Was it truly always this poor? Did some accident befall you while I was away?

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 Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr True X 317,481
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr Fuggleton 11,560
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr VetnorsGate 1,601,244
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr ROFLMAO 34,201
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep 14 Hellepsoaio 12
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep 12 Love 292
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 11 Rose of Tralee 201,880
More from around the web