Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256610 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.

“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.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217546 Mar 7, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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..."
<quoted text>
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."
<quoted text>
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.
Nice post.

Nah, many of the paper's Buck presented - the mathematical models purporting to measure a given structure for its "design" and then comparing that to man made designs are exactly "wow, it really, really, really looks designed! Therefore there must be a designer!"

Such studies are poor on so many fronts, it's hard to know where to begin. Anyways, Buck couldn't answer a single critique that I posed of those poor studies and just ignored all my comments on them.

Natural selection produces apparent design. So that's all the ID people are measuring - they're confusing apparent design with design and no measurement they can make can rectify that.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217547 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.
Hi, welcome.

Atheists aren't burning your posts, you paranoid theist. But I love that you think so.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217548 Mar 7, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>It happens. I've tipped more than my dentist who was buying the same meal for twice the number of people that I was. It ticked me off that we had the same waitress yet she buzzed around his table constantly asking him if he wanted refills on his drinks but never came back to my table once asking that. It served her right that she didn't get the big tip she was sucking up for. I never leave less than $4 dollars even for crummy service, and I round up to the next dollar amount instead of counting change like a miser. There's only one waitress I never tipped and she's lucky I didn't smack her in lieu of the tip.
Tips are supposed to be earned. This notion we've got today of "tip no matter what" is bullshit.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#217549 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.
"Context"?

Bucky, a single word can alter, not just the context, but the entire meaning of a sentence.

Heck, a punctuation mark can do that.

"Let's eat, Grandma!" has a fairly specific meaning. Now rewrite that sentence, without the comma.

Or "Eats, shoots and leaves". That's not a panda.

Or the probably-apocryphal "Edwardum occidere nolite timere, bonum est", which legend has it was the execution order for Edward II. Put that comma one word to the left, the meaning is completely reversed.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217550 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:

No. Anyways, it's not an apologetics site - it's Harris' site.
Ya it's Harris' apologetic site.

You do know that apologetics has nothing to do with apologizing, right?
You posted what you claimed were his words and what you claimed were his intentions. You were decidedly incorrect about the latter, as Harris himself explains on that site. If we're going to talk about what Harris meant, and for me to demonstrate that you took the quote out of context, I have to return to the original source material.
An apologetics site would be a site not run by him, but sympathetic to his argument that reframed history, science, whatever to make it appear that Harris' point is actually the only valid position we can have. He's not doing that.
He's pointing out how people like you have misrepresented him. I can understand why you don't like that. But if you are going to engage in his argument fully, and debunk it honestly, the only way to do that is to engage with the source material and Harris' own defensive writing.
Maybe you don't.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217551 Mar 7, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh...Like...There were children sexually abused. Your excuse...there weren't that many.
Or...The Inquisition was bad. Your excuse...well, the RCC did hospitals, too.
Yeah. Excuses.
Those are facts, not excuses.

Please don't try again.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#217552 Mar 7, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I actually got red-flagged for posting "COC" as an abbreviation for "Church of Christ".

And I very rarely cuss.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217553 Mar 7, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>Ain't it funny how he claims there is no such thing as "free will" but he insists on trying to take away the very thing he insists does not exist...from theists only, of course. Strange how he lusts after punishing those same people for a "will" that he claims does not exist. More idiotic fantasies of his. He can't seem to make up his mind, do we or don't we "own our own minds"? ;)
They are hypocrites to the nth degree.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#217554 Mar 7, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"Context"?
....
Or the probably-apocryphal "Edwardum occidere nolite timere, bonum est", which legend has it was the execution order for Edward II. Put that comma one word to the left, the meaning is completely reversed.
You just gave a dozen Christ-Stains a cerebral hemorrhage.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217556 Mar 7, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>hush...you don't want to wake up the reverend anal, do ya?
EGADS!

Moving on....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217557 Mar 7, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I have and only one of them was a good dog. He was very protective of me and the yard, he killed any other animal that entered our yard, so I was never comfortable with the idea of leaving him alone, unsupervised, with a small child. The other dogs I had were even more aggressive than he was, snapping and growling at kids. Useless as pets.
I have a Boxer that's 100% harmless.

It all depends on the breed of dog and how they are raised.

Just remember this:

Dogs have servants.
Cats have slaves.

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) 4 min Incognito4Ever 1,420,176
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr BUZZFEED fan 10,066
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 23 hr ThomasA 311,628
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Aug 27 Trojan 32,332
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Aug 19 JustStop 201,888
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) Aug 14 Alex 17
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Aug 11 Ceren 9
More from around the web