Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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

#217526 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if you bothered to read Harris' entire passage, that's what he's arguing. You're just lying about it because the dishonesty you spout supports your belief system.
Yeah, I've repeatedly disagreed w/Harris' 2005 argument, in its entirety on these forums.
Have you even read the entire passages you quote from?
It really sounds like you haven't read the "propositions" passage in context. You keep garbling it.
Anyways, I still want what you're smoking.
You are hung up on "propositions". It's about belief. He is addressing propositions "believed", not just propositions.

He is advocating killing people for their beliefs before they act on them.

It is not a proposition found to be acceptable in most places. Certainly not in the west, and certainly not in the war on terrorism.

It is also not a popular position he takes when he blames Jews for the Holocaust.

Do you sense a pattern?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217527 Mar 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no grasp of how to discuss this subject.
Harris' premise relies totally on the absence of actions. He would not need to bother to convince us that actions can justify killing. He asserts the case for thought and beliefs justifying killing. That is his only point.
You do not understand the distinctions between killing for belief (Harris) and killing terrorists (my position). Maybe it would help you understand if you thought of it as our troops shooting a Nazi soldier on the battlefield in WWII when the soldier had not personally killed anyone.
I hope this helps you.
Hi, welcome. New to reading? Let's look at the quote in a slightly larger context and ignore the entire paragraph that I posted before where Harris goes into detail about beliefs and behavior.

"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."

For the slow of mind, the 5th word is "behavior."

Now turn to the last sentence, where Harris links "certain beliefs" to "acts of extraordinary violence..."

Did you do a lot of drugs in my absence? I've never seen worse reading comprehension from you. This is like explaining to an angry child how to cross the street.

What's the matter?

Don wanna!!!

Don't want to?

Don wanna!!!

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217528 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha! The "science" of Intelligent Design!
You were utterly unable to answer my argument, and unable to show that:
1) ID has a theoretical framework (their own website explains that they don't, despite you claiming over and over that they do - and you were entirely unable to provide it, regardless of your grandiose claims).
2) ID is more than a simple inference based on false deductions. You were entirely incapable of explaining why ID is preferable to natural selection as an explanatory hypothesis. Your best was "because it really looks designed!" which is a joke, a ridiculously impoverished understanding of biological science and a pathetic plea for your theistic belief system.
It's cute, your presentation of our argument.
Here we go.

1. "their own website" Intelligent Design does not have a website.

2. I provided the theoretical framework - multiple times - you just didn't like it.

3. Intelligent design accepts natural selection, and does not claim to be "preferable to natural selection".

4. I have never once, in my life, offered "because it looks designed" as a reason for anything. You are lying.

4 major errors, and 4 lies in one post. That's the Hiding I remember.

This is why one does not allow a dishonest opponent to present his argument for him. But thanks for the effort.

If I want someone to lie about me, I'll phone my ex-wife.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217529 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, welcome. New to reading? Let's look at the quote in a slightly larger context and ignore the entire paragraph that I posted before where Harris goes into detail about beliefs and behavior.
"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."
For the slow of mind, the 5th word is "behavior."
Now turn to the last sentence, where Harris links "certain beliefs" to "acts of extraordinary violence..."
Did you do a lot of drugs in my absence? I've never seen worse reading comprehension from you. This is like explaining to an angry child how to cross the street.
What's the matter?
Don wanna!!!
Don't want to?
Don wanna!!!
Let's look at the logic of your assertion - that Harris is addressing killing terrorists for their behavior, not killing people preemptively for their beliefs.

Are you ready? I know logic is foreign to you, so I'll make it simple.

If you are correct, why this: "This may seem an extraordinary claim,..."

It would not seem an extraordinary claim to suggest hunting and killing terrorists. We are already doing it. Nearly every western nation endorses it.

What is the "extraordinary claim"?

Do some peer-reviewed research on that while I eat a ham biscuit.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217530 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, welcome. New to reading? Let's look at the quote in a slightly larger context and ignore the entire paragraph that I posted before where Harris goes into detail about beliefs and behavior.
"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."
For the slow of mind, the 5th word is "behavior".

Yes. But he is not saying to accept killing for behavior. Do you see him saying that anywhere?

You talk about context, and you want to focus on one word?? You are an idiot.

I'll explain what he is saying for you. He is talking about the "link" between belief and behavior, and since we recognize the "link", and since the behavior resulting from certain beliefs is so horrendous, we need to consider killing for the belief, before the behavior occurs.

Put another way, beliefs make people do awful things, and understanding the link between believing things and doing awful things, we need to kill them first.

If you don't get it after this, you will never get it.
Eight Ball

Fargo, ND

#217531 Mar 7, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
Nope, not banned, just waiting for someone with a mind to comment on a particular post in my profile. If I make any more comments that post will disappear into Topix ether-land. I'm looking for that "one" genius that understands what it meant.
Too bad Topix has so few undamaged brains lurking.
Two things i have noticed with this site is a lot of my posts appear when i log in but if i come in unlogged they are not there. That means someone is deleting my posts here. Also i keep getting pop ups from my computer about this site attempting to install programs or whatever to my computer. Add cookies? Who knows. Red flags are going up.

I can still log in but effectively cannot post anything that will appear. If I try to find a post, like I did with this one, I cannot go by the page number but by the posting number. The pages are different based on whether I am logged in or not. That means a lot of posts are being deleted even though they appear to be there if the contributor is logged in.

These atheists are crybaby narcs. Like Quaalude Bob and perhaps IANS and they have the help of Topix moderators. The idea Topix is against censorship is a sham. You are right about one thing, your posts are worth reading. Too good for Topix.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217532 Mar 7, 2014
Eight Ball wrote:
<quoted text>
Two things i have noticed with this site is a lot of my posts appear when i log in but if i come in unlogged they are not there. That means someone is deleting my posts here. Also i keep getting pop ups from my computer about this site attempting to install programs or whatever to my computer. Add cookies? Who knows. Red flags are going up.
I can still log in but effectively cannot post anything that will appear. If I try to find a post, like I did with this one, I cannot go by the page number but by the posting number. The pages are different based on whether I am logged in or not. That means a lot of posts are being deleted even though they appear to be there if the contributor is logged in.
These atheists are crybaby narcs. Like Quaalude Bob and perhaps IANS and they have the help of Topix moderators. The idea Topix is against censorship is a sham. You are right about one thing, your posts are worth reading. Too good for Topix.
Good post, 8 Balls.
Eight Ball

Fargo, ND

#217533 Mar 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
At least three theist posters are savaging Harris based on a misrepresentation of one or two comments that I don't believe actually offends any of them.
Like you and by extension others savage the Bible.
Does anybody really believe that the viper nanoanomaly wouldn't kill half of this thread for their beliefs?
No, I don't believe it but I do believe someone like you would if they got into power. Your ad nauseam quotes from humanist sites have about a much credibility as Hitler's pro Christian quotes. Or most politicians who pander to Christians for their votes. Since you believe there is no accountability to God, there would be nothing stopping you.
Riverside Redneck worships a god that tortures for eternity for thoughts,
You would not exist, let alone have thoughts without that God. Why don't you rant against the wicked witch of the west? Once again selective in your facts, immune to any sort of explanation, and ignorant in what you are addressing. Regurgitating spoon fed bible lessons from atheist hate sites.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#217534 Mar 7, 2014
Eight Ball wrote:
<quoted text>
Two things i have noticed with this site is a lot of my posts appear when i log in but if i come in unlogged they are not there. That means someone is deleting my posts here. Also i keep getting pop ups from my computer about this site attempting to install programs or whatever to my computer. Add cookies? Who knows. Red flags are going up.
I can still log in but effectively cannot post anything that will appear. If I try to find a post, like I did with this one, I cannot go by the page number but by the posting number. The pages are different based on whether I am logged in or not. That means a lot of posts are being deleted even though they appear to be there if the contributor is logged in.
These atheists are crybaby narcs. Like Quaalude Bob and perhaps IANS and they have the help of Topix moderators. The idea Topix is against censorship is a sham. You are right about one thing, your posts are worth reading. Too good for Topix.
It's not the moderators but rather Topix's automatic moderation system. This often hides post with links it thinks might be offensive but without telling you, so if you're logged in you think everyone can see them but only you can. We've all fell foul of it.
Try reposting without the links.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217535 Mar 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
[7] "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther
OH, my.

Well, there you have it. Liars for Jesus.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217536 Mar 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Did you want to make an argument or even a bare claim to go with this? Were you defending Luther?
I did look at your link. It was pretty funny. This was part of the defense of Luther:
"Many of the passages in those volumes were transcribed by students after Luther the hot head had imbibed one too many pints of stiff German lager. Do you think that in all those pages there may be statements recorded which Luther may have later regretted? "
LOL. Whatever the source of Luther's inspiration - the holy spirit or alcoholic spirits - he has resonated with Christians throughout the centuries. He's the father of Protestantism, and just about as prominent a Christian as there is in history. How many men have a major denomination named after them? He and Calvin are all that come to mind.
Anyway, lets' look at some more of what this great and highly admired Christian had to say:
[1] "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." - Martin Luther
[2] "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason." - Martin Luther
Here he is on science:
[3] "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther
Here he is on the fairer sex:
[4] "Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for." - Martin Luther
[5] "The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes." — Martin Luther
Here he is on Jews (truncated):
[6]“What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn. Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
And here he is on honesty:
[7] "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther
Wad he drunk for all of that?
<quoted text>
I'm guessing Germany - perhaps in a barroom according to your link.
wow! Luther was a jerk, a bigot and a general scumbag!

I had no idea. Thank you :)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217537 Mar 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go.
1. "their own website" Intelligent Design does not have a website.
I believe she is referring to the Discovery Institute web site. Are you so pedantic that you can't figure this out? No wonder you have such poor reading comprehension skills.
Buck Crick wrote:
2. I provided the theoretical framework - multiple times - you just didn't like it.
No, Buck, you did not provide a theoretical framework. What you provided barely came up to the standard of, "Well, I have this idea see..."
Buck Crick wrote:
3. Intelligent design accepts natural selection, and does not claim to be "preferable to natural selection".
Well, let's look at Pandas and People, the ID high school text book...

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing. "

So, no, ID does not accept natural selection...at least not in its entirety. And it DOES make the claim of being "preferable to natural selection". It is right there in "...rather than gradually developing."
Buck Crick wrote:
4. I have never once, in my life, offered "because it looks designed" as a reason for anything. You are lying.
Well, it is possible you are right on this one. That YOU have not offered "because it looks designed".

BUT...and this is a big but (that's a joke son),,,You have constantly promoted the Discovery Institute and THEY have offered...over and over..."because it looks designed" arguments. Just consider Dembski's Design Inference. That is all about "because it looks designed".

And, IIRC, you HAVE supported Dembski's Design Inference, in which case you HAVE offered "because it looks designed"...just not in those words.

I believe you really need to rethink your position on ID. On the one hand, you think you agree with ID, but on the other hand you don't agree with ID. At least judging by what you said in this post.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217538 Mar 7, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
Thank you. You've given me more to think about. It's a pity you came at a time when I am more busy than usual.
<quoted text>
You got it. I was worried I didn't articulate that well enough.
<quoted text>
I support defending ourselves from terrorism, and acting on predictions, which must be based on evidence.
You have to ask where the root causes of terrorism come from. It's not just b/c they aren't nice people.
I don't think we should make a rule where we kill someone just for having the intent to harm.
Yes.
In most cases, I think we can stop them from carrying out their intent without killing them.
How? How are you going to do that without prescience?
While we may not be able to reason with Al Qaeda, perhaps we can stifle them enough to reduce the number of attempts they can make to harm others.
I think we can reason with people who want to join such organizations. I think we can engage with others instead of fomenting terrorism.
I don't think that warring with Al Qaeda is going to solve the problem of Al Qaeda. I think we're probably drawing a lot of young Muslim men to the cause, perhaps as many or more than the number we're taking out. I don't know if we could ever determine what the bigger part of the problem is, whether it's Islam itself, or the history of interaction between Islam and the rest of the world. Clearly we must take into account all the factors if we want to address all the problems, not just the one problem that we see as an immediate threat to us.
Hey, there you go!
Before I saw the larger context surrounding the quote, I thought he was arguing for a case of killing in self defense, when no alternative seems like it will be effective or possible. Knowing what a person believes may be the evidence that tips the balance in your ethical decision. That may be the piece of information that changes your prediction or assessment, making it an actionable factor. You may be in a situation where you don't think you need to kill someone to protect yourself, right up until the point where you learn something about what they believe. In the context of the war on terrorism, I don't think this can or should be applied as an acceptable justification. Many individuals will still act on how they assess a situation, perhaps utilizing the principle. It should not be institutionalized. It's too delicate for mass distribution.
I seriously doubt most people, looking at someone who has a weapon, are thinking "ok, so that guy is wearing these cultural clothing and...so this is what s/he wants." I suspect they're just reacting to the situation, largely from an emotional basis. That's partly why I find Harris' reasoning suspect, but mostly b/c he's using the "war" on terrorism to highlight his anti-faith argument.

He does have a point, though - certain religions are totally ok with calling their believers to kill others - Christianity did it in the middle ages, and there's a frightening resurgence of Christian messages on, say, bullets and in Republican pro-war speeches. So I think his argument needs to be refined, and moved away from the consideration that some propositions are so dangerous we might want to consider killing people for them - that argument is all too easily made violent and dangerous.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217539 Mar 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are hung up on "propositions". It's about belief. He is addressing propositions "believed", not just propositions.
He is advocating killing people for their beliefs before they act on them.
It is not a proposition found to be acceptable in most places. Certainly not in the west, and certainly not in the war on terrorism.
It is also not a popular position he takes when he blames Jews for the Holocaust.
Do you sense a pattern?
1. Harris clearly links behavior to beliefs.

2. Harris didn't blame Jews for the Holocaust.

3. It's amazing you went there - in a 'this should be beneath you' kind of way. Incidentally, it's arguments like the ones you're presenting, and the other theists when they use blatant ignorance and dishonesty, that keep me away from this site. It's so worthless to discuss things with people who do not respect honesty, rationality, scholarship, scientific investigation, history, and will use any means at their disposal to support their failure of a belief system.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217540 Mar 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go.
1. "their own website" Intelligent Design does not have a website.
1 "Scientists affiliated with Biologic Institute are working from the idea that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed. That’s a hypothesis, not a theory, and while it obviously has huge philosophical implications (made even more huge by the the fact it appears to be correct) it doesn’t do much for biology if left at that."

http://www.biologicinstitute.org/about - the ID movement's web page.

Please note "not a theory"

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217541 Mar 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
2. I provided the theoretical framework - multiple times - you just didn't like it.
Every time I asked you to present it, you wrote the above. You never presented it, not once.

I understand why - you're not capable of it. Don't feel impotent here, though, no ID person is. They don't have a working theory. They claim to have a hypothesis but, as I've demonstrated over and over, they don't even have that. At best, they have an inference.

That's all you have - a really, really, really strong desire.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217542 Mar 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
3. Intelligent design accepts natural selection, and does not claim to be "preferable to natural selection".
If the above were true, then the ID movement wouldn't exist. Natural selection is the unifying framework theory of all biological sciences.

Clearly, all ID people fail to understand Natural selection - just as you do.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217543 Mar 7, 2014
[QUOTE who="Buck Crick"
4. I have never once, in my life, offered "because it looks designed" as a reason for anything. You are lying.[/QUOTE]

You have, over and over again. And you will again, the moment you begin talking about ID. All of the mathematical models you presented were exactly "it really really looks designed, so there!" and all of them fail because they are relying on inference alone, not the testing of hypothesized relationships.

In other words, natural selection is the better explanation than every single study claimed to support ID carried out by an ID person.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217544 Mar 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's look at the logic of your assertion - that Harris is addressing killing terrorists for their behavior, not killing people preemptively for their beliefs.
Are you ready? I know logic is foreign to you, so I'll make it simple.
If you are correct, why this: "This may seem an extraordinary claim,..."
It would not seem an extraordinary claim to suggest hunting and killing terrorists. We are already doing it. Nearly every western nation endorses it.
What is the "extraordinary claim"?
Do some peer-reviewed research on that while I eat a ham biscuit.
Once again, you failed to read the entire paragraph. Not surprised.

Hi, welcome.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217545 Mar 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. But he is not saying to accept killing for behavior. Do you see him saying that anywhere?
You talk about context, and you want to focus on one word?? You are an idiot.
I'll explain what he is saying for you. He is talking about the "link" between belief and behavior, and since we recognize the "link", and since the behavior resulting from certain beliefs is so horrendous, we need to consider killing for the belief, before the behavior occurs.
Put another way, beliefs make people do awful things, and understanding the link between believing things and doing awful things, we need to kill them first.
If you don't get it after this, you will never get it.
Wow, it's difficult for you. I didn't realize just how difficult reading comprehension is for people with determined belief systems in need of supporting.

Ok, first, you have, in every single post before this one claimed that Harris was not talking about behavior - yet, clearly he is. He's talking about what causes behavior. That's not 'one word.' I had to point out the words "act' and 'behavior' because you, for whatever reason, weren't reading them.

And, yes, he's drawing a link between behavior and action. I've been writing that the whole time and you've been ignoring it the whole time. It's nice that you're finally acknowledging that, but not so nice that you're claiming I didn't write that. Once again, for the slow of mind, he's reinterpreting US action against terrorists as action against propositions to behavior. He very, very clearly points this out in this single sentence "We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas."

I know you favor dishonesty and insults to make your points, but it's shocking see you so dense. I'm guessing you've been boozing it up? Lots of pot?

Anyways, it's clear you never bothered to read what Harris wrote. You just took that one sentence and built up some misrepresentation of Harris that you want to attack. Ok, go hard.

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) 2 min Julia 1,640,375
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 11 min Eddie M 319,837
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 10 hr Trojan 34,794
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 12 hr Wisdom of Ages 11,798
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 9 Randy-From-Wooster 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web