Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256000 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184489 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really want to go there? I want to limit my insults of Dave to the occasions in which he chooses to insult me. This isn't one of them, so I probably won't argue with you about him except to say that if you take this position, you're not making either of you look any better.
Suit yourself.

I wouldn't expect you to recognize genius, unless it had a humanist stamp on it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184490 Nov 15, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's their favorite play in the ole playbook alright.
But what can you expect from “Team Narcissism?”
These guys celebrate even when their losing.
I gotta get me a copy of the Atheist's Handbook.
LCNLin

United States

#184491 Nov 15, 2013
"Proving a non-existent, fantasy-delusion (god) is real?

Would require a machine that could examine a person's **imagination**.

Because we all know (yes-- even YOU know--but are afraid to admit) that **your** god is **not** real."

Proving B*b overposts seems simple and is defended by is twin :-)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184492 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism isn't a claim. It's an opinion about theists' claim and their evidence and arguments for gods, which I have rejected after careful consideration.
Furthermore, my rejection of your god - my atheism - is self evident. The proof of my atheism is that rejection
If you're waiting for a disproof of all gods, I can't give you one. I can disprove the claim that the Christian god exists, but not to somebody that has a stake in remaining a believer. I'd need your cooperation.
A disproof of gods were it possible would be superfluous anyway. I don't need one to reject unsupported, extraordinary claims, and faith is immune to evidence. So which of us would benefit from such a proof? Neither.
Notice that I don't ask you for a proof for your theism. I already know you don't have one.
No, atheism is a claim. A big one.

It is not an opinion about any other claim.

And you cannot disprove the Christian god, or any god.

This illustrates the importance of words and what they mean.

Any charlatan can support such claims as yours if he can appropriate to himself the power to decide the meaning of the terms.

All your word games are bluster. You won't stand up for the claim you make and defend it.

You hide behind linguistic fakery.

Act like a man.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#184493 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
A dream is a thought, image or sensation occurring in your mind.
Are you implying that thoughts, images or sensations are not "things"?
Are you attempting to redefine yet another word?
You are Thing One.

Skom is Thing Two.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184494 Nov 15, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In my view, you are guilty, in your "belief" wordsmithing, of precisely what you accuse IANS and NightSerf of doing.
Then you didn't comprehend what I said.

I hold myself to the meaning of terms in the debate.

Others equivocate and water down, as the Stanford Senior Editor explained on "atheism", in order to gain an advantage.

And they're gonna' need it with me.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#184495 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not "my interpretation".
That's the point. I'm advocating the actual meaning of words, both historically and by the consensus of academic usage.
We don't get to make up meanings for words, and then use the fake meaning to gain a rhetorical edge.
Case in Point: If one wants to appear as a rational skeptic, but also wants to claim atheism, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Why? Because skepticism is a suspended judgement. Atheism is a belief that no god exists - judgement rendered.
An atheist cannot be a skeptic on the issue, but he knows it makes him sound more rational if he were. You know how it goes:
"I'm an atheist. I rely on evidence. I evaluate it, sift it, and lo and behold, it is not convincing. But look at that dumb hick theist over there. He doesn't rely on evidence - he has a "belief".
Hence, the bull-shit-artist trying to have it both ways.
No, not a belief.
Faith.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184496 Nov 15, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your dishonest use of language leaves me in disbelief.
I am skeptical of your motive.
You don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe it's time to go to the gym.

And you'll have to define what you mean by "skeptical" for the others.

I know what it means.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#184497 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe it's time to go to the gym.
And you'll have to define what you mean by "skeptical" for the others.
I know what it means.
OK then.

Which amendment do you care to discuss, the First or the Fourteenth?

Better yet, how about we discuss the concept of separation of church and state?

No biggie, just suggestions as fodder for more wordsmithing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184498 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's interesting, but easily refuted. The DNA of man and the 6 other extant great apes, especially the human chromosome 2 evidence, is the smoking gun proof that we all descended from a common ancestralpongid several million years ago. Hominins, man's taxon, separated from the chimps about 5-8 million years ago.
NO. It is evidence; not proof.

Sorry to pull word meanings on you again.

If you mean "evidence", maybe you should say "evidence" instead of "proof".

I know that's asking a lot, but the difference has huge ramifications.

A guy goes to jail on proof. The prosecution can fail with evidence.

Oh, but what the hell. We're among friends.

Let's just change it today - evidence is proof.

As you were.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#184499 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical atheist.
They deny God because there's no evidence but they accept dreams, intuition, ghosts & aliens....
And it's only the Christian God they deny. You very rarely see them discuss any other god except for jokes.
Hilarious.
They can't honestly Comprehend the Christian God, therefore why or even how could they move on to other Gods.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184500 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I thought of posting that myself, but it sounds better coming from you.
One wonders whether he is being humorously self-abasing or is really that uninsightful.
Don't know.

First you'll have to tell me what those words mean today.

If "self-abasing" means handsome and brilliant, the the answer is Yes.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#184501 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, atheism is a claim. A big one.
It is not an opinion about any other claim.
And you cannot disprove the Christian god, or any god.
This illustrates the importance of words and what they mean.
Any charlatan can support such claims as yours if he can appropriate to himself the power to decide the meaning of the terms.
All your word games are bluster. You won't stand up for the claim you make and defend it.
You hide behind linguistic fakery.
Act like a man.
Sure seems to us that YOU"RE THE ONE making claims here.
They just said a blanket statement "I'm atheist" you make a federal case of it. Why must there be super precision to this statement. To most people it just means "I don't there's a god".
You will force the issue to them saying they know there is not a god.... So why must there be this precision in meaning to you?
Does it rattle you believe in god cage you are in?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184502 Nov 15, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
I am sorry, but you are too addicted to talking about "The Christian God" to tell me you don't believe in him. I would perhaps say this even if I was not a person that believes your thoughts do give life.
Thank you for sharing your expert opinion. I'll have to give serious consideration to the possibility that I don't know what I think.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#184503 Nov 15, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been said that Happy Lesbo = Catcher1 and
Catcher1 = Happy Lesbo
When you talk to one you are talking to the other?
Could one person be both?
Not at exactly the same instant.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184504 Nov 15, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
David Berlinski?
Intelligent design?
Discovery Institute?
Dude, please!!!!!!!!
Here I am, berating RR for interloping into serious discussions, and you have the gall to introduce this stuff?
You don't know what you are talking about.

You don't understand ID, and you couldn't carry Berlinski's jock strap, intellectually speaking.

So back off before your infant quibblings rile me, boy.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#184505 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not "my interpretation".
That's the point. I'm advocating the actual meaning of words, both historically and by the consensus of academic usage.
We don't get to make up meanings for words, and then use the fake meaning to gain a rhetorical edge.
Case in Point: If one wants to appear as a rational skeptic, but also wants to claim atheism, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Why? Because skepticism is a suspended judgement. Atheism is a belief that no god exists - judgement rendered.
An atheist cannot be a skeptic on the issue, but he knows it makes him sound more rational if he were. You know how it goes:
"I'm an atheist. I rely on evidence. I evaluate it, sift it, and lo and behold, it is not convincing. But look at that dumb hick theist over there. He doesn't rely on evidence - he has a "belief".
Hence, the bull-shit-artist trying to have it both ways.
.. thanks for the clarification ..

.. indeed, you present a clear, convincing argument ..

.. now, I await IAN's rebuttal ..

.. but, PLEASE, no infinite donuts ..

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#184506 Nov 15, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been said that Happy Lesbo = Catcher1 and
Catcher1 = Happy Lesbo
When you talk to one you are talking to the other?
Could one person be both?
.. are you unable to sense male and female energy through someone's writing ??..

.. there's a subtle difference ..

.. do you want to be my friend ??..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184507 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
It was all about how abiogenesis could be started according to the laws of physics and maintained after it started.
Thank you for that.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Just point out a random pattern that could happen and then replicate itself in the swirl of those energies. But you won't.
What would be the relevance?

This, by the way, is the value of knowing what your thesis is - where you are going. Now that I know that you are questioning the possibility of abiogenesis occurring, I know how to answer your questions. Abiogenesis was not necessarily a random process. In fact, it is likely inevitable given the proper conditions.

You seem ready to argue that the complexity of a cell means that it could not exist undesigned. That is where you are going, right? If so, we need to resolve what appears to be special pleading. I need you to explain to me why you believe that a god could exist undesigned and uncreated, but not a cell.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184508 Nov 15, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. are you unable to sense male and female energy through someone's writing ??..
.. there's a subtle difference ..
.. do you want to be my friend ??..
Hi, I'm RR.

Have we met?

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) 1 min RealDave 1,404,468
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 40 min IB DaMann 9,991
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Mon Brian_G 311,489
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mon NotInPotatoQuality 201,878
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jul 23 Trojan 32,307
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web