Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.

Comments (Page 8,842)

Showing posts 176,821 - 176,840 of223,128
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184271
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> This incredulous rebel cant handle the fact that he is created and anything he says or does may be used against him. Its no big brother, its a Father, who has a plan and forgives those who submit to him. The ones who don't, well, that's foreboding.
If I were to worship something freely and sincerely, it wouldn't be something that tortures. The Christian god simply isn't worthy of respect or affection.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184272
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello, old friend! What a coincidence seeing your post seconds after leaving a musical post myself. You play either a Höfner Beatle Bass or a Rickenbacher guitar like John Lennon did if I recall correctly. I seem to recall you playing in a Beatles tribute band of sorts. I almost never play any more. My latest passion is contract bridge.
Actually, I play a Rogue copy of the violin shaped Hofner. I'm playing mostly jazz a les Cats and the Fiddle and other Harlem stylists. I've taken to playing with a fellow burnout who's girlfriend sings like an angel, too. Fun--and he manages to find well-paying gigs from time to time, too.

Dang, I wish I could truck myself down to your piece of Mexican Heaven for a little jamming.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184273
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were to worship something freely and sincerely, it wouldn't be something that tortures. The Christian god simply isn't worthy of respect or affection.
Hi, IANS!

I wonder if you are 'awed' nature ? That is to say, appreciate the power and majesty of the world. Can sit and smile during a summer rain or drive in terror through a blizzard. That sort of thing.

Has nothing to do with God or anything. Just something I wondered.

I don't so much "worship" that which I call "God" (for lack of a better word in English) but am in 'awe' of the entire Universe and the laws that govern it.

To me, the mysteries of how two individual cells combine to create every baby in history is more awesome than "God got Mary pregnant".

The again, I never liked magic shows but loved the science behind the illusions.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. I haven't been able to sleep tonight/morning.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184274
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Catcher1 wrote:
NightSerf on skepticism: In children we call uncritical acceptance of new ideas innocence, in adults gullibility ... some of us discount contradictory evidence when we encounter it and some of us question our beliefs: we become skeptics ... The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling. That leads to a consideration of the nature of evidence, i.e., what is compelling and what is not, which in turn leads to questions about derivation and methodology.
I would say that Night Serf's and my description of skepticism are essentially the same:

IANS: The sine qua non of skepticism is the unwillingness to accept unsupported claims, but to question them and seek for evidence first ...[S]kepticism is ... an intellectual perspective and a method of processing claims that asks you to question what you would have accepted without doubt otherwise.

Notice also the difference between the way that people like he and I use definitions, and the way our faith based disputants do. One is a gentle, pliable effort to distill into a few words the essential features of an object, activity, relationship or quality as people generally understand and intend it, the other an attempt to rigidly restrict how people are permitted to use language.

Those are the essential differences between the descriptive and prescriptive lexicographical temperaments.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184275
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a response to your praise of the blanket virtue of scientists, their methods, and their high motives.
The point is clear.
I am a rational skeptic of science.
Just because you reject science doesn't give you the right to benefit from it.

If you deny evolution, stand by your principles and reject science in its entirety??

or are you chicken?
truth

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184276
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

if i need i will remove all of you

who say thatyt

this planet as well others re less them marble

love your evil posessors yee
for your posession you nweed be killer

YOUR CREATOR NOT CREATED EVIL KILLERS

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184277
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
Wrong. "Disbelief" is a belief. Everyone who lacks belief in deities is not an atheist. In fact, someone who simply "lacks belief" is not an atheist. He could be an agnostic, a verificationist, or in a coma. An atheist believes there are no deities. None.
Keep trying, amigo. This is a critical issue. If you ever prevail, you will no doubt make it a better world.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184278
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LCNLin wrote:
"There is no Big Brother in the sky...." LOL
Always amused by UK atheists, agnostics if they think about it?, lecturing Americans while the House of Lords has Bishops of the Church of England. Amusing
I tried and tried, but couldn't find the amusing part of this. Are you implying that if his country makes a mistake, he should make it, too, or ridiculing his opinion because it contradicts his nation's policy?

Do you disagree with him? If so, what makes your opinion less amusing. How do you suppose UK atheists view US theists? How do you suppose the world views you?

If you'd like to know how Hollywood and the entertainment media view you, check out how religious people are depicted in movies and television shows. They are generally depicted either as predators, money lusting charlatans, ineffectual counselors for people with life problems they could no nothing about, or as ridiculous and comical characters angrily or hypocritically judging others - never as people to admire or respect.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184279
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
Disbelief is not belief, its disbelief - that's why there's a separate word in the dictionary for it. If it was called belief, we would say Atheists believe there is no god. But atheists don't believe there is no god, we simply disbelieve the claims made by religious liars with no evidence of god.
A pithy way to saying that is that not believing is distinct from believing not.

What do you suppose the motive is behind trying to pressure atheists into abandoning the word "atheist" in self-reference if they are not willing to take the untenable position that the existence of gods is impossible or that the possibility has been definitively ruled out?

I don't think most of the people serving as vectors for this meme have any clear idea why they are arguing the point. But I'm pretty sure that the people that created it and released it into the apologetics echo chamber do, although I'm not clear on what it is.

The motive for trying to make people see evolution as a faith based religion is probably to help give creationism an equal footing in the classroom. But what would be the analogous motive for trying to get us to cease describing ourselves as atheists, or convincing others that we are not? I can't see how that serves the church.
truth

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184280
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Why you think God need be Englishman or Englishwoman?

must be fun funny smart but very deadly sneaky way let down someone..

evil can be nice in suits too
wrote very nice but promice nothing

Zasto crv bjezi u vlagu.
How much crv as stonoga have lags..as chu chu chu chu chu chu..is your language c.uk.a.n.j.e
o really
stone age
is c.uk as m.uk
jeste li malo kuku cuk c.uk.nut.i
a tako stretni doboitnik je kikiriki from argetina..o well kikiriki is roots in vlaga aha
mojsture=vlaga
What a abot wog as fog?

In fog can grow up what..as para-mashroom.

Please tell me which pra-historic kingdom is?!

Is mashroom as gigant can be ijuju or hi hi haygrant..
Please tell me ,,for high grant..you need highwarant..hydrogen..bummmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
no thanks net.ros.imo dr.ogu..nechu nechu drogerashe chu chu chu a yes
chukanje c.uk a n j.e is to much talk..
you can find most evil set up blame as blamerige as po.me.r.id.ge..eh..

see
Why crv=warm go into mojshcer.

Poems is good yee

Neboj se majko
crva sto u vlagu bjezi
ni spodobe sto se nochu sulja
ni onog sto se krivo naglas kune
ni onog sto krivo sude
neokreci se
na njihove mutne vode
neokrechi se
na njihove mutne snove
jer dobrota
je ko sunce
sto na nebu visoko sije.

nkh
in tisini

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184282
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say that Night Serf's and my description of skepticism are essentially the same:
IANS: The sine qua non of skepticism is the unwillingness to accept unsupported claims, but to question them and seek for evidence first ...[S]kepticism is ... an intellectual perspective and a method of processing claims that asks you to question what you would have accepted without doubt otherwise.
Notice also the difference between the way that people like he and I use definitions, and the way our faith based disputants do. One is a gentle, pliable effort to distill into a few words the essential features of an object, activity, relationship or quality as people generally understand and intend it, the other an attempt to rigidly restrict how people are permitted to use language.
Those are the essential differences between the descriptive and prescriptive lexicographical temperaments.
The way you and Nightserf use definitions is to take words with positive, intellectually respectable connotations and twist them to support your bias so as to appropriate a legitimacy to your ideas which otherwise would not apply.

A more honest approach, and one which I advocate, is choosing words based on their actual meaning in order to communicate a message, and abstaining from using words based on what we wish them to mean.

The use of "skepticism" is a sufficient example.

Neither of you employs a proper usage of the term, but you seek to borrow its implied intellectual legitimacy in service of an agenda.

This technique cannot be described as "descriptive lexicography".

A more simple and quaint description is available - "bull shit".

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184283
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
The sine qua non of skepticism is the unwillingness to accept unsupported claims, but to question them and seek for evidence first. I could be easily convinced by evidence and still be skeptical.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Got any secularist examples of that?
Of which? Any time anybody questions a claim and asks for supporting evidence, they are being skeptical. If a teenager tells me she's at her friend's house and I want to verify it, I might call a land line to that home to verify it, which evidence would easily convince me, and after which I would remain a skeptic, albeit a convinced one.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Honestly, I don't know the distinction between intellectual and psychological doubt, can you elaborate (in redneckese)?
As I said, one is felt, the other understood. I don't doubt that my car is parked right now where I left it, but I understand that it is possible that it has been stolen since I last saw it. Do I doubt that my car is there for me right now? Not psychologically. I feel pretty certain that it is. But as a skeptic, I understand that my knowledge is incomplete, and my assumption possibly in error. I do not feel doubt in the psychological sense, but I have doubt anyway because of my understanding of things.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184284
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RiversideRedneck wrote:
I've always seen supposed skeptics as pseudo intellectual 'freethinkers' who hide behind the rouse of critical thinking to support their lack of belief in anything they haven't read in Scientific American.
Where do you suppose that idea came from?

I think I know. It's one of dozens of ideas that I see coming only from faith based thinkers. Others would be calling abortion the murder of a baby, calling unbelief belief, calling trust based on experience faith, being offended at being called a descendant of an ape, the rejection of evolution, calling secular humanism a religion, saying that reality is evidence for a god. People that say such things are almost exclusively theists, which in my world is, so I assume that their thoughts come from religious training that has never been critically examined.

If you ever embrace skepticism, you will ask yourself why you believe what you do. If you can't find a better reason that that it is because you were told so and never questioned the idea, you will have reason to look for supporting evidence through unbiased eyes, and modify your beliefs as appropriate. That is how evidence based belief differs from faith based belief, and is the essence of (rational) skepticism.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Don't ever take a skeptic to a magic show, they'll ruin the fun & mystery for everyone else.
This is more of your prejudice for skeptics. A Christian is no less likely to behave that way than a rational skeptic.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184285
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
A pithy way to saying that is that not believing is distinct from believing not.
What do you suppose the motive is behind trying to pressure atheists into abandoning the word "atheist" in self-reference if they are not willing to take the untenable position that the existence of gods is impossible or that the possibility has been definitively ruled out?
I don't think most of the people serving as vectors for this meme have any clear idea why they are arguing the point. But I'm pretty sure that the people that created it and released it into the apologetics echo chamber do, although I'm not clear on what it is.
The motive for trying to make people see evolution as a faith based religion is probably to help give creationism an equal footing in the classroom. But what would be the analogous motive for trying to get us to cease describing ourselves as atheists, or convincing others that we are not? I can't see how that serves the church.
"Disbelief" is not "not believing", nor is it "believing not".

It is not that one does not believe.

It is a refusal or inability to believe.

Disbelief is not skepticism.

"Atheism" is not a position that the existence of gods is impossible.

Words mean things.
LCNLin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184286
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you reject science doesn't give you the right to benefit from it.
If you deny evolution, stand by your principles and reject science in its entirety??
or are you chicken?
Just prove your atheistic philosophy!
Scatology seems proven in your posts!
LOL

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184287
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

"People that say such things are almost exclusively theists, which in my world is"

should read

"People that say such things are almost exclusively theists"

That fragment should have been deleted along with the rest of the clause that used to follow it, but I'm not a good editor.

I was about to say that such people were mostly Christians to distinguish them from Muslims that say the same thing, but not to me. Then I remembered the people that are not fully Christian any more like Dave Nelson and Buck Crick, who are both church trained, and whom I have already said function as Christians, but chose not to go there rather than devote this many words to what was not an essential part of my argument.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184288
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RiversideRedneck wrote:
Lol
Dear Freethinkers:
You should freethink this way.
What do you freethink?
More of your prejudicial thought.

Would you like to see my reply to him and my group? It's nice illustration of how we teach one another. nobody is trying to coerce anybody yo believe anything. All ideas are explained and supported, and offered on their merits, not with threats of hellfire or claims of divine authorship.

Here it is in two parts:

Hey Ken and gang. It's been a while since I've chimed in.

Spirituality is a subject of interest to me and one that I've discussed at length in my Internet message board pursuits, so rather than reinvent the wheel, please indulge me by allowing me to recopy a few words a little out of context here.

But first, I'd like to address Ken's comment, "To my knowledge, "spirituality" is a supernatural phenomenon, as "spirit" surely is."

I would remind us all that there is a difference between spiritualism, which invokes the supernatural, and spirituality, which describes a delicious psychological phenomenon that can be pursued, nurtured and enjoyed for its own sake without injecting magic.

Here are some of those posts on that subject:

==========

[1] "What does a rationalist and empiricist do with such spiritual notions? If he's wise, he enjoys them for what they are. He doesn't call them beliefs or make decisions based on them. Chasing them away, or despising them for being unfounded if he can't chase them away, is both unnecessary and undesirable. Reason helps us understand the world. But it is an irrational aspect of mind that lets us take pleasure from it. Reason is only useful in the service of the pursuit of satisfaction.

"These are the some of the kinds of thoughts that I am referring to when I talk about spirituality from an atheistic perspective. Spirituality comprises intuitions of the mysterious combined with awe, gratitude, and a sense of connectivity, the latter having been violently extirpated from the Christian experience by the insistence that he separate himself psychologically from "the world" and "the flesh" - his own body and the human race.

"It is unknowable if these intuitions have correlates outside of the head, or are merely psychological phenomena. But it is not necessary to know to benefit from their sublime experience. They add to my life in a very positive way whatever they are, and I nurtured and embraced them for that reason rather than despise or dismiss them.

==========

[2] "I think that your religion strips the universe of the admiration it deserves, and exports it to some object that may not exist in some space that may not exist. It diverts your attention from how magnificent things are - including man - and cheapens them by demeaning them with a deep pessimism for our physical world and by demeaning the life on it, both human and animal."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184289
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Here's a little more on the subject of spirituality without superstition, its relationship to our physical world and a sense of connectivity to it, and how Christianity poisons the authentic spiritual experience, although that is not the principal message, nor are those words used explicitly. It's a wonderful YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch... called "Science Saved My Soul" by a fellow that punningly calls himself Phil Hellene.

He's describing an authentic spiritual experience that he was deprived of in his church years, but which an understanding of science later afforded him. Being deprived of this understanding, and of this degree of communion with nature, is damage just as surely as voting from ignorance is.[If you like what you read here, I recommend the whole video]:

[3] "When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more.

"If God exists, God made this [photo of a galaxy]. Look at it. Face it. Accept it. Adjust to it, because this is ... how God works. God would probably want you to look at it. To learn about it. To try to understand it. But if you can’t look — if you won’t even try to understand — what does that say about your religion?"

"To even partially comprehend the scale of a single galaxy is to almost disappear. And when you remember all the other galaxies, you shrink 100 billion times smaller still. But then you remember what you are. The same facts that made you feel so insignificant also tell you how you got here. It’s like you become more real, or maybe the universe becomes more real. You suddenly fit. You suddenly belong. You do not have to bow down. You do not have to look away. In such moments, all you have to do is remember to keep breathing."

"The body of a newborn baby is as old as the cosmos. The form is new and unique, but the materials are 13.7 billion years old, processed by nuclear fusion in stars, fashioned by electromagnetism. Cold words for amazing processes. And that baby was you. Is you. You’re amazing. Not only alive, but with a mind ... When I compare what scientific knowledge has done for me and what religion tried to do to me, I sometimes literally shiver."

"Religions tell children they might go to hell and they must believe, while science tells children they came from the stars and presents reasoning they can believe. I’ve told plenty of young kids about stars and atoms and galaxies and the Big Bang and I have never seen fear in their eyes, only amazement and curiosity. They want more."

"Why do kids swim in it and adults drown in it? What happens to reality between our youngest years and adulthood? Could it be that someone promised us something so beautiful that our universe seems dull, empty, even frightening by comparison? It might still be made by a Creator of some kind but religion has made it look ugly."

=========

To my way of reckoning,*THAT* is the authentic spiritual experience, not the fear and worship of ghosts from the kneeling posture.

I'll close with a little scripture that nicely illustrates the death of spirituality and connectivity that Christian philosophy imposes:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.”- Luke 14:26

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184290
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

I would say that Night Serf's and my description of skepticism are essentially the same...

I should have taken you and Nightserf to my AA meeting.

I could have avoided admitting I was an alcoholic.

"Hi, I'm Buck, and I am skeptical of sobriety".

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184291
Nov 15, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
The only saving grace about all this? Is that the universe is nearly unimaginably huge.
And that creates (as far as we know now) insurmountable barriers between the various islands of life (planets).
It's almost like the "the floor is lava" game we played as kids-- only instead of lava, it's huge, vast distances.
I do hope we are wrong about that, though-- it'd be cool if there was a way to traverse the gulf between planets.
.. within the next 15-25 years, I think science will solve the mystery of time and humans will be capable of traversing the planes ..

.. do you think time is linear ??..

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 176,821 - 176,840 of223,128
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••