Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258515 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217324 Mar 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Really? I thought RR got the better of the exchange. HFY's defense of Harris was preposterous.

As for me, I annihilated her as usual.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217325 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
English Composition 1
Using Quotations Properly
"It's all right to delete material from a quotation, as long as the deleted material is not vital to the meaning of the quotation and as long as the quoted words convey the same meaning as they do in the source. Note the example below:
Dillard says that the weasel 'bites his prey at the neck [...] and he does not let go.'
Deleting the specifics of how the weasel kills its prey, as in the example above, does not change the meaning of the quoted words."
Yeah. Note the "as long as the quoted words convey the same meaning" part. What you have been doing does not convey the same meaning.

That means you are misquoting.

BTW...If you actually read the whole quote...and made an effort to understand it...what you said about Al Qaeda shows you think the same thing as Harris does on the subject.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217326 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to every Topix Atheist! that cherry picks the Bible.
RR, YOU cherry pick the Bible. Every Christian I have ever met does.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217327 Mar 6, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>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!!
Let's see how long you can hold your breath.

Go.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#217328 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop looking at your peepee while posting.
Are you saying his peepee is cute?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217329 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

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.
BenAdam wrote:
According to you. The entire OT is for Ancient Jews only.
No, Ben. I clearly wrote "There are three types of Biblical Law".

Read, purfesir.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217330 Mar 6, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
By your own logic, you should be shot on sight.
No, that's Harris' logic.

I had a thought, an evil thought...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217331 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Obviously you either can't read or you're stoned.

The position I supported on combat with terrorists is based on their actions - which are crimes, and the action of declaring war against us.

Harris' position is that we kill them because of their thoughts.

I couldn't care less what they think unless they harm someone, and I don't even care what they think then. Their actions determine the response.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217332 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Really? I thought RR got the better of the exchange. HFY's defense of Harris was preposterous.
As for me, I annihilated her as usual.
Remember when Feltcher1 used to be funny, witty and not always up in your face?

No, neither do I.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217333 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
<quoted text>
No it doesn't.
<quoted text>
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
I know you've been to the googlers about this....
There you go, cherry picking the Bible again.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217334 Mar 6, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
No, RR, I did not say there was "no evidence". I said there was "no fossil evidence", which is different. There is evidence, particularly in the form of DNA.
But then, I guess you would think that if there was no fingerprint evidence in a trial you would conclude there was no evidence whatsoever.
Please, enlighten me. Show this evidence of your mysterious common ancestor, "LUCA".

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217335 Mar 6, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
RR, YOU cherry pick the Bible. Every Christian I have ever met does.
My cherry picking is more like cherry picking through a lumber pile to pick the best.

Topix Atheist! cherry picking is more like nit picking or painting with a broad brush.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217336 Mar 6, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Note the "as long as the quoted words convey the same meaning" part. What you have been doing does not convey the same meaning.
That means you are misquoting.
BTW...If you actually read the whole quote...and made an effort to understand it...what you said about Al Qaeda shows you think the same thing as Harris does on the subject.
You're an idiot. My quotes, and those of David Barton, conveyed the exact same meaning as the original. And they would not be "misquotes" even if they did not. They would be a fallacy of deleted context, which has a name I cannot recall at this moment.

I read Harris' whole quote, which is out of context, according to you, which makes it a "misquote", according to you. To avoid being a misquote, it would have to quote the whole book, according to you.

He suggests killing for thoughts is justifiable. I suggested killing in response to actions is justifiable.

Not the same thing. Endeavor to be less of an idiot.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217337 Mar 6, 2014
River Tam wrote:
Are you saying his peepee is cute?
No sir. I'm saying he thinks it is.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217338 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
<quoted text>
No it doesn't.
<quoted text>
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
I know you've been to the googlers about this....
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
There you go, cherry picking the Bible again.
Where was the cherry picking there, Dilbert?

And why did you not criticize Hiding for cherry picking Deuteronomy like she did?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217339 Mar 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
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.
Ok, don't lie.

I know you didn't think.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217340 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember when Feltcher1 used to be funny, witty and not always up in your face?
No, neither do I.
There is a sort of atheist fan club around Hiding, because she has some academic bonafides in biology and anthropology. She's not very bright, from a logical and rhetorical standpoint. But she's able to swing around a lot of technical jargon, which impresses them.

She and I have a long history. We went at it for weeks on Intelligent Design.

I beat her till her hide wouldn't hold corn shucks, and forced her to retract half the assertions she made about the science of ID.

She'll take the opposite of any position I take, just for spite. Fun stuff.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217341 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Killing a man for his beliefs cannot be justified.
Agree?
So you are saying God was wrong to tell people to kill an entire village if one person in it believed in a different god? Or is killing an entire village for one man's belief justified?

See Deuteronomy 13:13-19.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217342 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your analysis is 100% accurate.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#217343 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? I thought RR got the better of the exchange. HFY's defense of Harris was preposterous.
As for me, I annihilated her as usual.
Give RR a hug for me, will you?

And tell me, with Dave's departure, is the Redneck now the second smartest person on the thread?

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) 5 min VetnorsGate 1,746,296
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 25 min June VanDerMark 336,943
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 6 hr hojo 12,332
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 7 hr Chosen Traveler 35,804
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mar 28 Lonnie Peters 201,480
News Purdue and IU? On Valentine's day? Not anymore (Feb '07) Mar '18 Painter Phartse 73
News Walker IV hits 5 3s, scores 19, Miami beats Not... Feb '18 ScoresPhartse 2