Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258478 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.

“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.

“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?

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.

“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.

“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......

“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

“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.

“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?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217220 Mar 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
“George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.”– Sam Harris
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
One of my all-time favorite quotes. Why does the removal of the hair brush, suddenly make the religious nutter-- NOT insane?
He also said this, which is essentially the same comment creatively repackaged:

“If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you’re just a Catholic." - Sam Harris

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217221 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You've defined deities several times as being non-measurable, non-visible, out of our ability to know. I find that quite silly and childish, a very "god of the gaps" style of protecting cherished beliefs.
Sure, my statement is in the form of a definitive conclusion b/c it's what I have inferred from the available evidence. I've already agreed with you that atheism is a belief statement - no issues - and I have no issues accepting that my statement "there are no deities" is also a belief statement. And it's one based on all the evidence I can muster from the social sciences and hard sciences.
For me, that outweighs someone's encultured "I just know my religion is real because, well, I grew up in this culture. My religion, mind you, and not theirs - we all, over here, know their religion to be false" argument.
Your arguments have degraded to complete gibberish. You are admitting your conclusion is what I said it is, but simultaneously maintaining that it is not.

Again, I'm willing to take a break if you want your arguments to sustain an appearance of credibility.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217222 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
ChristineM wrote:
It teaches that genocide and murder are acceptable ways to stamp your foot.
No it doesn't.
From genesis when your very own god gets a pique and commits world genocide
To Kings that teaches trickery and murder
To mathew who tells you to burn “bad fruit”. I,e, anyone who does not agree with you.
To Mark in which your worshipful JC criticise the Hebrews for not killing disobedient children.
Is this not teaching? Instruction?
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.

I know you've been to the googlers about this....

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217223 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It was easier for you before I came back, hey? I mean, the trash you are spouting above...wow, ok.

Shall I just get you some cheap whisky in a paperbag? Would that help?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217224 Mar 6, 2014
OG Kush wrote:
OG begs to differ double r.
The position of the atheist is that the theist has not successfully met his or her burden of proof.
Proof, with regard to gods rests solely with the side claiming their existence.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan
When phrased to focus on faith, the claim typically centers on a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of atheism.
They have erroneously convinced themselves that atheism means absolute certainty that no gods exist.
They reason that to be absolutely certain without proof is a form of faith.
Atheism is not about certainty at all; it is about doubt.
It isn't the theist's position or responsibility to provide any evidence to appease the mind of the atheist.

Theism is simply the rejection of athesitic claims.

:)

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#217225 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Hold on, let me get my school girl outfit on first.
Whatever turns you on

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 RoxLo 1,510,365
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr WherePhart 32,834
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Tue Mabinogi 313,678
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... Mar 25 BuzzerPhartss 2
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite (Sep '16) Mar 16 MakePhartce 105
News North Carolina Governor Who Signed Bathroom Bil... Mar 15 Bath phart 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 14 Into The Night 11,123
More from around the web