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.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#183858 Nov 13, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. what does reasoning have to do with belief ??..
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything.
Belief without reason and without **facts** to support it?
Is just bullshyt-- like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
.. I believe my cat loves me ..

.. no facts necessary ..

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#183859 Nov 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That individuals are endowed with rights by virtue of each person being created by a creator, and thus those rights accrue to each person equally, regardless of status or birth.
That is a religious concept, and they could find no other justification.
That's the factual record. You don't have to like it.
These are pertaining to natural rights unalienable and exist specifically prior to government and not given by government nor can be taken away by government.
Exact words are the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
It makes no distinction that is religious It could in fact mean all men were endowed by their father.

What it really say's is there is no power that can take away certain things. While this may have a religious overtone it isn't a religious concept. This is in the declaration of Independence however and not the constitution and bill of rights.

Which was a statement to the British Empire against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights.
This was a direct result of limiting the power of a King over people and granting the power of a King to the people themselves.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183860 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Sure there is such a thing as spirit, unless by that you mean agents like ghosts, angels, succubi, sprites, gods, pixies and the like. None of those have ever been demonstrated to exist.
What I claim to experience is spirituality, not spirits. You may be confusing the former with spiritualism.
You probably shouldn't try to speak for me since you have such difficulty understanding my words, and seldom paraphrase them accurately as you did here, and as you just did a few posts ago regarding what I claim about gods.
You seem to do what a lot of faith based thinkers do, which is to filter and transform input to conform to your preferences for reality. Faith is about reality creation, which depends heavily on antiprocess, or active confirmation bias. It is useful to protect your faith generated personal reality from external evidence, but it at the cost of mangling ideas in the uptake. We see it a lot in faith based thinkers.
Are you familiar with Morton's demon? You should be.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/...
You experience "spirituality" without "spirit".

Got it.

I understand your words with ease. Otherwise, I would not be able to illustrate how your words contradict facts.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#183861 Nov 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if you keep repeating the lie?
It will not magically transform into a not-lie.
I know this is what you **believe** but-- belief based on lies? Is still a lie--no matter how often you repeat the lie.
(your credibility is on a rapid decline here)
.. you're being a very naughty little boy ..

.. you must want me to take you over my knee. That's understandable ..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183862 Nov 13, 2013
wja
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Whatever else it is, atheism remains skepticism for unsupported god claims.
Buck Crick wrote:
No, it isn't. "Skepticism" concerning a god-claim would be to doubt or suspend judgement.
How does that contradict or negate what I said? Because I am skeptical of god claims, I do not accept them without sufficient evidence, evidence neither you nor anybody else has provided, And am most an atheist because of that.

You make this too difficult, Buck. And for what possible benefit to you or anybody else? To get people to use a different word than your favorite?
Buck Crick wrote:
The atheist believes all god-claims have to be false.
Not this atheist.
Buck Crick wrote:
Atheism has nothing to do with skepticism.
Good luck with that.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183863 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I guess you do.
You are free to masturbate the language with this linguistic sophistry with which you are so enamored to your heart's content if that meets some need of yours. It seems that it does.
What amazes me is how difficult it seems to be for you to understand my claim that I have no burden to act if I am content with the status quo. I am quite pleased that the fraction of non-Christians in America is growing, and expect things to proceed in the same manner until Christianity assumes minority status and its church eventually cedes its cultural hegemony.
So where is my burden? Are you going to answer that this time, or just keep insisting that I have one?
Our present disagreement is not about language.

It is about your idea, which is unsupportable, and factually wrong.

Change is not status quo, and you recommend the change as the superior course.

You have the same burden as anyone who wants to support a particular outcome of events as the preferred one.

The rest is your attempt at subterfuge via language.

I have no problem with your language other than pointing out that it is farcical.

By the way, Blob-Of-Cum-On-Face likes you.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#183864 Nov 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You experience "spirituality" without "spirit".
Got it.
I understand your words with ease. Otherwise, I would not be able to illustrate how your words contradict facts.
It's the brain, Buck, an incredible organ that brain.

For example: Hallucinations can have spiritual meaning to us, but they don't provide evidence for the existence of any metaphysical beings, or places. They provide evidence only of the brain's great power to create them.

The future lies in neuroscience.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#183865 Nov 13, 2013
Prove it.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. the desire to unweave the rainbow connotates self-transcendence ..

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#183866 Nov 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice.
Do you have a single, objective **fact** to back up your "feelings"?
no?
Interesting.
Lots of things based entirely on feelings have turned out to be bogus-- in fact? Pretty much 100% of them are.
This is because feelings are not rational--by definition, actually.
Feelings are nice-- but they must be set aside if you wish to remove human bias from the observations.
You can't simply ignore something because you do not feel good about it.
.. I have a feeling that you don't like me and it's based on fact ..

.. is it bogus ??..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183867 Nov 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The "ego" is not the "self". That error invalidates your post.
More linguistic sophistry.

You would do well to investigate how your collocutor is using language rather than trying to impose your preferences on him. You cannot control usage or invalidate posts.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#183868 Nov 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That website is a hack-- they are Liars For Jewsus, and are incapable of telling the unvarnished truth.
Except by accident--**never** by intent.
Atheist demagoguery.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#183869 Nov 13, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. I have a feeling that you don't like me and it's based on fact ..
.. is it bogus ??..
Bob a switch hitter?

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#183870 Nov 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
But if there **is** a god who **could** save the starving babies?
BUT DOES NOT?
Then such a deity is **evil** beyond the pale.
(let's see you try to dodge this one-- I wonder which tack you'll take? Ignoring? Change the question? Trying to divert the point? Or simply calling me ugly names? It ought to be interesting, whichever it turns out to be)
.. dodge? Nah, not me ..

.. you don't have a clue what I believe or don't believe and I don't call people ugly names, that's not who I am ..

.. your questions are rhetorical and do not require a response ..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183871 Nov 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Why do you say "any proof"? If there is "proof", how does the quantity of proof matter? If there is not "proof", how does the lack of any particular quantity matter?
And now you choose to expend energy over the choice to use of the word "any" to modify proof. You don't really have a message as much as a need to be contrarian.

I've got some words you might like:

Quibberdick an unpleasant quibbler
Mome nitpicking critic
Snoutband one who constantly interrupts to contradict
Breedbate one looking for a fight
Snool - to nag constantly to drive another into submission.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183872 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
wja<quoted text>
<quoted text>
How does that contradict or negate what I said? Because I am skeptical of god claims, I do not accept them without sufficient evidence, evidence neither you nor anybody else has provided, And am most an atheist because of that.
You make this too difficult, Buck. And for what possible benefit to you or anybody else? To get people to use a different word than your favorite?
<quoted text>
Not this atheist.
<quoted text>
Good luck with that.
I am not an atheist. Therefore, I can be "skeptical" about god-claims.

The atheist cannot. Being "skeptical" about god-claims is to reserve judgement.

The atheist is afforded no such luxury, and does not get to award himself the rationality of "skepticism", because atheism means you already disbelieve them as a matter of belief.

If one believes there is no god, he is not "skeptical" about god-claims. No atheist can be a "rational skeptic".

His position is faith..

But he WANTS to claim rational skepticism.

But he WANTS to claim atheism.

This is why,....finally,....here it comes....

****ATHEISTS WANT TO REVISE THE TERM****

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183873 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
More linguistic sophistry.
You would do well to investigate how your collocutor is using language rather than trying to impose your preferences on him. You cannot control usage or invalidate posts.
You invalidated your post by using "self" and "ego" interchangeably.

Language choice aside, the two are distinctly different concepts.

Put more simply, your self is not your ego.

Can you understand it that way, or do you want it spelled in phonics?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#183874 Nov 13, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. the desire to unweave the rainbow connotates self-transcendence ..
You have become more spiritual, thoughtful and sensitive than you used to be.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183875 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
And now you choose to expend energy over the choice to use of the word "any" to modify proof. You don't really have a message as much as a need to be contrarian.
I've got some words you might like:
Quibberdick an unpleasant quibbler
Mome nitpicking critic
Snoutband one who constantly interrupts to contradict
Breedbate one looking for a fight
Snool - to nag constantly to drive another into submission.
AS much as I would like to be called Quibberdick, the point I was getting to was the writer's misuse of the term "proof".

As opposed to "evidence", which is quantifiable.

As it goes, if the Atheist Turd wants to sound authoritative, he will say "there is no proof", "what is your proof?"

The opposing reader then seems challenged to offer "proof", which is a much taller order than producing "evidence".

That's how that works. Ability to spot fraud in language is a gift.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#183876 Nov 13, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the brain, Buck, an incredible organ that brain.
For example: Hallucinations can have spiritual meaning to us, but they don't provide evidence for the existence of any metaphysical beings, or places. They provide evidence only of the brain's great power to create them.
The future lies in neuroscience.
Catcher, so you figure out the circuitry and the mechanics.

Now what?

Who does the determining of what is real and what isn't? Don't forget those who figured out those things have one of their own doing the figuring, along with all of the other human traits.

Who does the directing in this little play?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183877 Nov 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You invalidated your post by using "self" and "ego" interchangeably.
Language choice aside, the two are distinctly different concepts.
Put more simply, your self is not your ego.
Can you understand it that way, or do you want it spelled in phonics?
I should have said, "Do you want it spelled in Mexican?"

That would have been funnier.

...can't catch 'em all.(No pun intended)

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 Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 min Truth is might 320,283
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Noono 1,643,533
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 7 hr Not who you think 34,846
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Tue Poor performance 11,802
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