Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 253645 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184727 Nov 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Dawkins claims to be an agonostic.
He also lies, Infinite Donut Boy.
Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia).
Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).
Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God.(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).
Atheism (Greek, a-[private prefix]+ theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).
Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position (Encyclopedia Americana-1990).
Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty (The New Encyclopedia Britannia-1993).
According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no godÖ(rejects eccentric definitions of the word)(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).
Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).
Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
Atheism denies the existence of deity (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).
What the hell are you doing, man?

You're not supposed to use a dictionary, just make it up as you go.

Atheist:
noun

A person who attacks others because they have a religion.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#184728 Nov 16, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
This does not address my point at all. Completely sidesteps it. Whether you agree with Dawkins or not on the validity of atheism, he clearly defines atheism as I do, that atheists claim that a god is an extremely unlikely thing given the total lack of evidence.
Your claim is that atheists say categorically, "there is no god." This is not Dawkins' definition of atheism.
BTW..."The book is Pure speculation."
Is this your opinion formed from having read the book? Or is it the opinion that has been given you by your Christian authorities? If the latter, is it not dishonest to write as if it is your own opinion?
The claim God is a delusion is pure speculation. Who could prove that there is no creator?
Bongo

Coram, NY

#184729 Nov 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. How sad indeed.
Bwahahahahahahaahahahahah....
__________
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a contradiction unless you use different rules.
Darwin's Stepchild wrote:
No contradiction. The contradiction arises IF you try to use the same rules.
That's the one, varmit, bwhwhwhwhwhwhahahahahaha
Bongo

Coram, NY

#184730 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want a model for narcissism, how about a creature that needs lesser creatures to worship it continuously and for eternity. You seem to think people like me are narcissistic for refusing. What you call call narcissism, I call self-actualization.
I challenge you to try to define something more narcissistic than the god you worship.
Dubious claim. Like your claim that crack whores and proletariats cant comment aginst the likes of trained acedemics like you and hfy for instance, you cant make any acceptable comments unless of course you named all the stars and created biological beings, to name a few. Its futile . God is far advanced, he is worthy of praise he doesn't need it as you assert. Wheres your manners and respect for an ancient diety who is Omni everything.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#184731 Nov 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where I denied evolution, you womp-jawed moron.
Dont be so hard on septic, after all, you denied Jesus. Varmit

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184732 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Thanks for that.
About the arrogance issue, I know what you are referring to: a strong sense of self-assurance, self-worth and a not so humble manner when expressing it.
Is that properly called arrogance? One dictionary defines arrogance as "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."
I don't consider myself important, but I do have a huge sense of my own ability. Is it exaggerated? Perhaps. It's hard to be objective about oneself, but I have accomplished just about everything I set out to do, and my life is where I want it to be.
Now let's look at you. We are very much alike in these mannerisms. Like me, you have a huge sense of self, a huge sense of your own ability, and a relative lack of humility in your choice of language.
But that's where the similarities end. I have a lifetime of hard work, sacrifice, self-discipline, personal achievement, and service to others behind me, and feel that I am entitled to a little of that.
You don't, which makes your sense of self definitely exaggerated. By that reckoning, I am immodest, but you are arrogant.
Would you agree?
I agree you are "immodest".

But I think that is saying the least of it.

The world humbled me in many ways. I was born with talents in abundance. How I employed those talents led to episodes of arrogance.

I would agree that my record is,...checkered.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184733 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You can use a word in any way you want as long as you define your usage and use it consistently.
And if enough other people find your choice useful and agreeable, they'll start using it the same way.
Following that, it might appear in a dictionary, which will surely frustrate and infuriate rigid, controlling types.
A prevaricator's dream.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184734 Nov 16, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Then you should take your own advice and use an ordinary dictionary...
From:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ath...
"2a: a disbelief in the existence of deity"
From:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ath...
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
Your own reference entries refute your position.

Obviously, you don't know what "disbelieve" and "deny" mean.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#184735 Nov 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree you are "immodest".
But I think that is saying the least of it.
The world humbled me in many ways. I was born with talents in abundance. How I employed those talents led to episodes of arrogance.
I would agree that my record is,...checkered.
bwhahahha, checkered, is that prescriptive? Smart people don't..... nevermind, lets not go there.
LCNLin

United States

#184736 Nov 16, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
This does not address my point at all. Completely sidesteps it. Whether you agree with Dawkins or not on the validity of atheism, he clearly defines atheism as I do, that atheists claim that a god is an extremely unlikely thing given the total lack of evidence.
Your claim is that atheists say categorically, "there is no god." This is not Dawkins' definition of atheism.
BTW..."The book is Pure speculation."
Is this your opinion formed from having read the book? Or is it the opinion that has been given you by your Christian authorities? If the latter, is it not dishonest to write as if it is your own opinion?
Richard Dawkins is an agnostic

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#184737 Nov 16, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Ians. First time I've been here in quite a while.
I recently came across a book suggested in Jerry Coyne's blog titled "The Authoritarians". The author is a social psychologist in Canada. The book is primarily about the far right wing of the Republican party, but also explores their connection, differences and similarities with fundamentalists. It was a moderately interesting read. I am sure you will notice many of the personality types he talks about from your experience on Topix. I certainly did.
You can find the free PDF here...
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
If you skip the notes, which are mostly there to provide greater technical detail, it is a pretty quick read.
Take care. Hope all is well with you.
BTW...I see you are still having to put up with Buck. How sad.
"They would be a lot more believable if they didn't quote others, or use the same terms and formulations in their arguments. It's like they agree with what their teacher said.

None of them are the slightest bit original in their argumentation. They are almost interchangeable.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184738 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You can use a word in any way you want as long as you define your usage and use it consistently.
And if enough other people find your choice useful and agreeable, they'll start using it the same way.
Following that, it might appear in a dictionary, which will surely frustrate and infuriate rigid, controlling types.
The reason such an explanation does not apply to usage of the term "atheism" is that we can trace the history of the attempt to dilute the term for rhetorical purposes.

An effort to change the meaning of a term, which applies to millions, and whose meaning is clearly understood, so as to service an agenda of one side in a controversy, is far from the innocent evolution of language you pretend.

Don't try to kid me.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#184739 Nov 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
A prevaricator's dream.
Immodest prevaricating is more palatable than obstreperous prevaricating

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#184740 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
He certainly does. Here's more, and it sounds like what we just read from this poster:
GOD AS ABUSER: Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive Spouses
http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/p/Abuse...
"Part of the process of encouraging the victim to feel inadequate involves getting them to feel that they really do deserve the abuse ... God is described as being justified in punishing humanity.
"Abusers instill fear in their spouses; believers are instructed to fear God.
"Abusers are unpredictable and given to dramatic mood swings; God is depicted as alternating between love and violence.
"Abused spouses avoid topics which set off the abuser; believers avoid thinking about certain things to avoid angering God.
"Abusers make one feel like there is no way to escape a relationship; believers are told that there is no way to escape Godís wrath and eventual punishment.
"God is usually described as jealous and unable to handle it when people turn away.
"God is portrayed as using violence to force people to comply with certain rules and Hell is the ultimate threat of violence. God might even punish an entire nation for the transgressions of a few members.
"By getting [people] to feel worthless, helpless, and unable to do anything right, they will lack the self-confidence necessary to stand up to the abuser and resist the abuse. Believers are taught that they are depraved sinners, unable to do anything right and unable to have good, decent, or moral lives independent of God. Everything good that a believer achieves is due to God, not their own efforts.
"[V]ictims are told that itís their fault when an abuser gets angry ... Humanity is also blamed for everything that goes wrong"
==========
Another take on this subject:
GOD: THE ABUSIVE BOYFRIEND
http://conversationalatheist.com/general-essa...
Ways the Christian God is like the most extreme version of an abusive (and possibly psychotic) boyfriend:
[1] Needs constant praise.
[2] Makes you feel guilty for just being human.
[3] Has severe jealousy issues.
[4] He lets painful experiences happen to you that he could easily prevent, just to test your devotion to Him.
[5] Claims credit for everything good in your life; claims nothing bad in your life comes from Him.
[6] Threatens you with eternal torture if you ever leave Him.
[7] He is constantly swearing that He loves you and you need Him.
Ways to tell if you are in danger of being taken advantage of in a relationship with this abusive God:
[8] You are highly defensive of Him from even the slightest criticism of His flaws.
[9] You talk to Him every night, and He never responds yet still expects unwavering devotion.
"They would be a lot more believable if they didn't quote others, or use the same terms and formulations in their arguments. It's like they agree with what their teacher said.

None of them are the slightest bit original in their argumentation. They are almost interchangeable."

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#184741 Nov 16, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd that one of your great atheist bugaboos, Richard Dawkins, rejects your definition and agrees with me. Read his "The God Delusion".
"They would be a lot more believable if they didn't quote others, or use the same terms and formulations in their arguments. It's like they agree with what their teacher said.

None of them are the slightest bit original in their argumentation. They are almost interchangeable."

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#184742 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask you for visible proof. Skeptics like me ask if you have any evidence of any kind at all, and if not, how you can decide there is a god, and how can you decide which one it is. It sounds like guessing to me.
I have more than enough evidence for myself. God is more than self-evident.

God is not something you prove but something that you experience. I can not experience God for you. And you can not experience God if youíre not willing to try. You are not willing to try because you have already decided thereís no God.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184743 Nov 16, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Immodest prevaricating is more palatable than obstreperous prevaricating
Ya.

What he said.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#184744 Nov 16, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's strange.
Atheists don't understand God or Scripture.
Imagine that.
Let's see...
God created the universe and everything in it.
God created the Earth for humans to dwell on.
God created Adam and Eve.
God took that same hand that created all this, the hand that wields unlimited power, power beyond the understanding of mere mortals; he took that same hand and
touched you on the head with it.
Why weren't you fundamentally changed? You don't have enough sense to quit smoking.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#184745 Nov 16, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Except you couldn't prove the god you're lying to us about
One does not prove God. One experiences God.

When are you going to experience God?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184746 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that certainly seems neutral, objective and scholarly.
"David Berlinski ... is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement."
For those unfamiliar with the Discovery Institute and its agenda, here is an excerpt from its Wiki entry:
"Although it often describes itself as a secular organization, critics, members of the press and former institute fellows consider the Discovery Institute to be an explicitly Christian conservative organization, and point to the institute's own publications and the statements of its members that endorse a religious ideology.
"Americans United for Separation of Church and State notes, "Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in national and international affairs,' the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers."
"The 2005 judge in the "Dover Trial", Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, came to a similar conclusion about the Institute in his ruling: "CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones."
What have you got that doesn't come from an agenda driven, Christian based, think tank admittedly dedicated to undermining mainstream science and injecting its religious vision into schoolrooms and textbooks?
[This is the part where Buck traditionally goes ballistic - questioning the integrity of his sources]
Nice try.

Berlinski is an agnostic, and a brilliant mathematician and author.

Nothing posted came from the Discovery Institute.

So your request for something not from them is supplied preemptively.

You predicted I would question the integrity of sources, while you questioned the integrity of my sources.

And I could, because your sources are buffoons. But that would be overkill.

A bit of trivia,...Discovery Institute opposed the school board's action in Dover that led to the trial.

Please delve into that litigation with me if you like. You will lose.

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
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 17 min Earthling-1 8,695
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr IdiggHiggs 1,348,307
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Bruins 31,901
Garry wilson investment company 20 hr Michael Derman 3
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Thu Ozzie Malone 310,661
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Wed 123 say 201,847
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Feb 7 Mary 284
More from around the web