Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217164 Mar 6, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Prior to 1869 no none on the face of the planet knew that DNA existed, as far as science was concerned DNA did not exist until it was discovered in 1869 by Johann Friedrich-Mieschur.
There was also a time when no one on the face of the planet knew that microorganisms existed, as far as science was concerned microorganisms did not exist until they were discovered.
So you claim that I said dinosaurs "didn't" have DNA is a complete lie. Not uncommon for you to lie your ass off.
I now challenge you to cut and paste the portion of my post where I "claimed Dinosaurs didn't have DNA."
I dar ya assclown, I double dare ya to post it. It MUST contain these exact words "Dinosaurs didn't have DNA."
Peer pressure has nil effect on RR.

It's nice knowing that microorganisms didn't exist until they were discovered, too.

Another helping hand from you.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217165 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You can do whatever you want. The damaging parts of your religion needs to be attacked and removed - especially the gross ignorance you personally continue to spread.
ooo lala

I've never been attacked by a Japan chickie.

Let's rock-n-roll.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217166 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
It's been tested over and over. The information is available for anyone who can read - and there's no excuse for the kind of stupidity and ignorance you, and other religious people, continue to espouse.
The common ancestor remains a scientific guess, a myth to those that revere science.

You cannot prove me wrong on this.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217167 Mar 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I mean about your pedantry, Buck.
OK. Forget the distinction between quoting out of context and misquoting.
Either way, it's misleading.
And the misleading is the dishonesty.
No, you're wrong, Counselor.

Misquoting is misleading.

Quoting out of context can be misleading or not, depending on the implication made.

And that's not pedantry. It's fundamental scholarship.

In the case of Sam Harris' quotation, it is not misleading, because the portion of his discourse that is quoted means exactly the same thing it means when the surrounding verbiage is supplied.

It seems I'm the only scholarly writer on this thread.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#217168 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, that's exactly how his hypocrisy works. He hasn't even considered a coup where the technology ended up being used on the one who encouraged it in the first place.
I suspect he's best buds with Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, the psychopath who suggested forced, mandatory abortions for the poor and sneaking drugs into the public water supply. the low-life pieces of shyt.
I forgot about Holdren. He should be the face of the ever so full of compassion left. The mask they hide under is slowly being removed.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217169 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Your mythological text orders genocides and murders all throughout the older parts of it.
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
OG Kush

Winter Garden, FL

#217170 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
MURDERING FOR BELIEF
The total body count killed for atheism for only ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead, which is several times the number killed by all religions in 3,000 years, and several thousand times higher on an annual basis than all the killing done by Al Qaeda.
Wrong again as usual

According to your belief the world's greatest mass murderer is the object of your devotion! Mr. Flood himself.

By the way - Buddy's last name was not Epsom and he didn't discover salt.

Try Buddy Ebsen who danced with Shirley Temple it was Davy Crockett sidekick in the Disney series.

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

BUH BYE

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217171 Mar 6, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
This is, actually, incorrect. ToE only points to the diversification of life and how that happens. The existence of a LUCA is a likely conclusion given the similarities we see in existing life. It is not an axiom as you are saying.
And, no, "that pesky common ancestor thingymabob remains undetected and likely is undetectable. That's one big giant fuckingguess" is not a guess. It just so happens that we have very very little geology that dates back farther than 3 billion years. And microbes don't fossilize well at all. Put these two facts together and it is likely we will never have fossil evidence of the earliest life. Is this so hard to grasp?
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
RR has been told this over and over. He doesn't care anything about science or learning how science actually works, he just wants to put his ignorance on display.
He said it, too. There's no evidence of the so-called common ancestor.

"it is likely we will never have fossil evidence of the earliest life"

Although you claim it's been proven over and over again.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217172 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! This is like the most sensible post I've read from you.
Harris doesn't argue that we should kill people for having beliefs. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. He did make a immoral, ridiculous argument advocating torture in the face of certain terrorism. But he never said "kill people for their beliefs."
His message is "we need to spread education and get people to question their beliefs. Faith based religion is not sacred, we can and must question it."
Harris said it may be ethical to do so.

"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”
Sam Harris

There is no belief that merits death. There are some actions that do, however.

Actions and beliefs are very different.

Sam Harris is a lunatic, so is anyone that follows him.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217173 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you:
1) not a good waiter
2) in a restaurant w/bad food
3) in a relatively poorer city
4) in a low class joint?
When I worked as a waiter, I'd pull 5$ on 20$ tables consistently. If you're not making double your hourly wage in tips, you're doing it wrong.
Where were you? In Japan or America?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217174 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sam Harris and I go way back. I despise the man. I regard him as a dishonorable and deplorable person. He is arrogant, belittling, dishonest, and vastly over-represents his grasp of numerous subjects. As I mentioned, one of the most annoying things is how he seems to get away with ridiculous and dishonest statements by couching them in an earnest, inoffensive, soft-spoken tone. He doesn't hold up well when facing off with a formidable antagonist, but his hypnotic confidence causes all his fans to declare him victorious.
Harris is clever enough to appear often with Michael Shermer. This may be the only one of the New Atheists who makes Harris appear comparatively smart, Shermer being an idiot.
Harris likes to smear people on issues for which he lacks facts. Eben Alexander is a recent case in point. Way back when, he smeared Ayn Rand's philosophy and called her writing "terrible". Then he admitted he hadn't read the work he was referring to.
The Topix Atheist! Saint Harris says there's no such thing as atheist.

-In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist."-

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#217175 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
It teaches that genocide and murder are acceptable ways to stamp your foot.

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?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217177 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misquoting Harris. That's quite appalling.
You and I have already had many discussions about intellectual dishonesty - yet here you are, continuing in that vein.
Here is the correct quote, in context by the author himself:
"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 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.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#217178 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, Counselor.
Misquoting is misleading.
Quoting out of context can be misleading or not, depending on the implication made.
And that's not pedantry. It's fundamental scholarship.
In the case of Sam Harris' quotation, it is not misleading, because the portion of his discourse that is quoted means exactly the same thing it means when the surrounding verbiage is supplied.
It seems I'm the only scholarly writer on this thread.
I call a mislead in this case.

But I won't belabor it.

Off to the gym.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217179 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Churches across America are as different and unique as the people across America.

What church? Or are you suggesting we check an independent financial audit of an ideology?
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
You answer a question with a question?
You first. Since I asked first.
You did not ask a question, IANS did. Are you he?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#217180 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>BS, it's the nature of all dogs to be predators and a dog that's bred to be even more aggressive should be against the law. Dogs are unpredictable and many that were previously docile acting have ended up turning on their owners, usually the members of the family that they think they can "take down", the very young and the elderly or crippled.
Dog bites are the second most common injury to children, second to playground accidents, 77% of all dog bites are to the face, which shows intent to kill! No kid deserves to experience that kind of terror or injury.
fu, flametard.
Most breeds have had any aggression bred out of them. Dogs attack when provoked. A small child kicking and punching will bring out a self-preservation action, usually a bite. Most dogs end up being wonderful companions for the elderly, and many are used as therapy for cases of depression and serious illnesses. Dogs have served man for thousands of years, and most are only to willing to serve.

You're cherry picking rare instances to make your weak point, kind of a sad ass tactic, do better!!

BTW where is that evidence I asked for that supports the existence of your God thingy?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217181 Mar 6, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Prepare to be schooled...
From Google
Misquote: quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.
"the foreign secretary had misquoted Qian"
synonyms: misreport, misrepresent, misstate, take/quote out of context, distort, twist, slant, bias, put a spin on, falsify
Note the synonym "take/quote out of context", which is exactly what your "exact quotes" do. So, yes, your "exact quotes" are misquotes.
Also note the synonym "misrepresent", which your out of context Harris quote also does. So, again, a misquote.
I would think the synonyms "misstate", "distort", "twist", "slant", "bias", and "put a spin on" also apply to many of your "exact quotes".
You misquote a lot.
Every quotation is an out of context quotation. By your assertion, evey quotation is "misquoting". That's why we have rules for using quotations properly - to educate idiots like you.

"....while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement."
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#217182 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>Bathroom mirrors everywhere applaud your decision.
Too many cracks muck the view.
Worthless post, do try and do better. But maybe this is all you're capable of......yeah I think thats it..........how pathetic!!!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217183 Mar 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
And you misrepresented him there. His comment included the word "may," which none of Harris' critics here including you seems to have noticed.
EXPERT wrote:
Slow down...or is it just me? To murder an innocent person... Or, Appropriate to kill somebody for a belief... Wouldn't that be two different arguments?
What? Read it again.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Do any of us know what he would answer if asked about that today? It could be something like, "I used to be unsure whether there could be a circumstance wherein it would be appropriate to kill somebody for a belief, but after years of further consideration, I have decided that there is none." That would not be inconsistent with his earlier comment. Would that change anything for you if it were his opinion?
< sound of a pin dropping in the next room >
OG Kush

Winter Garden, FL

#217184 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The Topix Atheist! Saint Harris says there's no such thing as atheist.
-In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist."-
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.

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
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 30 min Bruin For Life 27,924
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 31 min John Galt 1,126,129
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr Friv4games 306,257
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 4 hr black man1 1,521
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 4 hr Roy the Boy 454
Old UK WildCat Picture Signed by Adolph F.Rupp+... (Apr '07) 7 hr Local man 40
Do you hate UK Wildcats, we DO :-) (Apr '11) 15 hr Geoscientist 50

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE