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.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#217300 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
<quoted text>
Nice red herring, really.
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
<quoted text>
Nice Jewish law. Ancient Jewish law to be exact.
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
I'm a Christian, Hiding. Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct ***ME*** to kill.
Then you have to agree that the ten commandments and all the OT laws (including those against homosexuals) are NOT for anyone except Ancient Jews.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#217301 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. Harris subsequently argues that we (may) have to find and kill them to protect our safety. I disagree, morally, with his suggestion. The whole point of having a civil society is that our gov't cannot simply decide who to kill - it cannot have that power and remain a civil society.
When the person is wanted dead or alive for crimes and have a bounty on them because they are fugitives from justice. It doesn't matter what Sam said. I agree with you to a certain extent, but when a person is issued a warrant from court they have to answer to it, and if they don't then they can be apprehended. If these people are armed and dangerous and cannot be taken alive then all bets are off.
But that's the whole point of having a civil society and a government to enforce those laws isn't it? Otherwise Japan would be in chaos and so would everywhere else.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#217302 Mar 6, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =amQRx7cAk3MXX
Wow.

Never saw that one.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#217303 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. Harris subsequently argues that we (may) have to find and kill them to protect our safety. I disagree, morally, with his suggestion. The whole point of having a civil society is that our gov't cannot simply decide who to kill - it cannot have that power and remain a civil society.
There is a critique here that does apply though, like the use of drones to outright kill a suspect is circumventing the justice system. This is not morally defensible, even if the person has made it clear they will not submit to justice. The attempt should be made to bring them to trial.
the indiscriminate killing of people with drones fit's Sam's description of find and kill them to protect our safety, rather than find them and bring them to justice.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217304 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand it thoroughly. So thoroughly, I can synopsize it better and with more efficient use of words than Harris, who is a poor writer, does himself.
"We should accept morally the killing of people who hold beliefs we deem dangerous, and and that is what the U.S. military is doing now to combat terrorism".
There's his suggestion and his rationale - in one sentence.
The first half is morally repugnant, and the second half is a lie.
Thanks. I'll be here if you need me again.
So you're finally agreeing with me on how to read Harris' argument. Yes, it's repugnant, but I find it odd that you think so, considering you supported exactly this position a few pages back.

Your claim was that the US could fight terrorists b/c the US is at war with them. It could kill any who fall under that banner - whether or not they killed - b/c they were combatants. That's what you wrote.

There's no difference between your position and Harris'. He merely outlines it through the rubric of behavior (attacking US interests) and the belief that motivates such behaviors (proposition, if you recall). You do so through the rubric of war. You're focusing on action and ignoring belief - that's the whole point of Harris's writing, to remind you that what you're really fighting is a religious belief system that implores its believers to carry out religious war on its enemies.

I'm not sure why you're uncomfortable with that, Harris' position is what yours ultimately becomes - he's just analyzing it one step further than you.

And I'm glad you're uncomfortable with it - it's repugnant. We need to start from this position, realize just what a "war on terrorism" means, and take steps to resolve it through non-violent actions.

The thing is, you're angry b/c Harris is exposing what the war on terrorism is at its roots. You don't want the veil lifted, you want the war to be a righteous one, where you can simply vilify and kill the other for attacking your nation. Don't question deeper causes. Don't look for reasons, just kill the baddies.

So what's blinding you to this? Your hatred of Harris as an atheist or your tacit, unflinching support of the status quo?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#217305 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's ridiculous. RR is not falling for that double-talk, and I have already refuted it.
Awww.

How cute.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217306 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's ridiculous. RR is not falling for that double-talk, and I have already refuted it.
Harris wants to justify killing people for holding certain beliefs. So he lies about the reasons U.S. military is fighting terrorism to aid his thesis. They are not killing for "ideas" or "belief". Can you not see the weasel's sleight of hand here?
I don't agree with anything Harris says in this passage. It's a phony, bull shit argument. You will find no knowledgeable person that makes this linkage, except for maybe the Islamic terrorists.
"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."
War of ideas my ass. The goat humpers can have any idea they want. That's not why we fight them. The man is supposed to be smart. He's a lying piece of shit. He hates religion, so he cobbles up a fake rationale for fighting it. Despicable.
Hey! Harris said ideas. In no way does that mean ideas, it means propositions.

Er, beliefs.

Wait....

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217307 Mar 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww.
How cute.
It's been fun :)

Thank you Catch!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217308 Mar 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Awww.
How cute.
Stop looking at your peepee while posting.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217309 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok,
1. All of our social actions are dictated by beliefs (I might be overstating this). A terrorist 'mastermind' develops plans based on their belief system. It's not possible to do so otherwise, so I fail to see why you're disassociating action and belief above.
2. If you had actually read Harris in the paragraph and link that I supplied to you, you would see that all of his discussion about the sentence you and Buck and I have been discussing is about whether it is acceptable to direct US power at people of the Muslim religion who are terrorists but who yet have not killed anyone. i.e. planners.
You, and Buck, and all of the religious quotes I've read thus far for the misquote I was presented with here, ignore what Harris is engaging in. You mistakenly believe he's attacking religion. He is, but he's doing so through Muslim terrorism - because that's where religion is at its worst. So you cannot divorce the violence of terrorism from his argument. When you do, as the Christian websites you seem to have taken your information from have done, you are misrepresenting what he is arguing and not fully grasping the position he takes.
Nevertheless, I disagree with him. It's funny, Buck keeps arguing with me, but Buck has already stated that he agrees that US military power can and should be directed at terrorists, despite whether they've killed - so Buck sides with Harris on this point.
1. Beliefs are not actions. Actions are not beliefs. While it's true that our actions can be based on our beliefs and vice versa, the two are totally different things.
Killing a man for actions can be justified.
Killing a man for his beliefs cannot be justified.

Agree?

2. Harris is talking about his opinion that beliefs, propositions, can be so dangerous to others, a preemptive murder is justifiable to save others. As I said, that's tantamount to insanity. I can see no justifiable reason to kill someone for their thoughts, beliefs, ideas, propositions, plans, etc.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217310 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not what Harris is advocating. That's what the religious websites you have turned to, that have quote-mined Harris and, worse, changed his wording, have told you.
Why don't you try reading what he actually wrote? Are you afraid to think for yourself?
A small snippet is found here:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/respo...
Will you please stop posting the same Harris apologetics?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217311 Mar 6, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you have to agree that the ten commandments and all the OT laws (including those against homosexuals) are NOT for anyone except Ancient Jews.
Wrong. There are three types of Biblical Law.

Ceremonial Law: Law that relates to Israel's worship.

Civil Law: Law that dictates Israel's daily living.

Moral Law: Direct commands of God.

You'd think a University perfesir would know that.

Now, be a good Ben and delete everything after the word 'wrong' as if I didn't reply.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217312 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>That's probably because I didn't read it. I don't have time to read ALL of everybody's comments.
Maybe you would like to show it to me and provide an original source like a book excerpt that proves he misquoted?
Gee, Nano, could you be any more egocentric? That was a comment to Buck, not you.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#217313 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Will you please stop posting the same Harris apologetics?
At ease, Redneck.

I think Hiding is gone.

Now pick yourself up, dust yourself off, clean the blood off your face, take a deep breath, and try to pull yourself together.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217314 Mar 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a critique here that does apply though, like the use of drones to outright kill a suspect is circumventing the justice system. This is not morally defensible, even if the person has made it clear they will not submit to justice. The attempt should be made to bring them to trial.
the indiscriminate killing of people with drones fit's Sam's description of find and kill them to protect our safety, rather than find them and bring them to justice.
What better justice for killing a known terrorist is killing him?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217315 Mar 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
When the person is wanted dead or alive for crimes and have a bounty on them because they are fugitives from justice. It doesn't matter what Sam said. I agree with you to a certain extent, but when a person is issued a warrant from court they have to answer to it, and if they don't then they can be apprehended. If these people are armed and dangerous and cannot be taken alive then all bets are off.
But that's the whole point of having a civil society and a government to enforce those laws isn't it? Otherwise Japan would be in chaos and so would everywhere else.
Killing an armed fugitive while attempting to apprehend is one thing.

A policy of killing them for what you think they are thinking is quite another.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217316 Mar 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
All you should have done is verified.
Verification of the actual number wasn't required to show that RR's statements were silly, that his numbers had to be way off, and that the numbers he was giving did not support his contention.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217317 Mar 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no sources?
Who is labeled 'Christian'?
It is the difference between someone who says so, and someone who lives so, or, a parent who says they are a good parent, and a parent who is a good parent.
Try again.
Smile.
This from the guy that was saying I could have just verified the number?

Hypocritical?

As for who was considered Christian? Those that self-identified themselves Christian. Do you feel you are qualified to tell someone that thinks they are a Christian that they aren't?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#217318 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure as far as you're concerned, female orgasms don't exist, either.
As far as science is concerned, DNA has existed for a very long time.
Ignorance of DNA does not preclude it's existence.
You should know this.
Hey, what about oxygen? Did it exist before it was discovered?
Wrong cockbreath, not until 1869 did science know DNA existed, at that point, they knew it had existed for a very long time.

Ignorance of DNA precludes it's KNOWN existence.

keep saying this over and over to yourself, AS FAR A SCIENCE WAS CONCERNED..........Now once again like a good little boy.AS FAR AS SCIENCE WAS CONCERNED..........Once again now.........at some point it may begin to make sense to you, but with such a small brain, and almost no capacity for comprehension, I would hold my breath!!

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217319 Mar 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew the figure was off for whatever reason simply from common sense and moral discretion.
You didn't.
Really? Even though I had said I DID think it was wrong?

Wow.

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) 3 min Trevet 1,684,330
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 43 min June VanDerMark 326,595
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 12,058
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Like your package 35,359
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Jan 17 Sweet 293
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