Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256546 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186347 Nov 21, 2013
“Whatever cannot be shown to correspond to some observable reality, cannot be meaningfully spoken about.”- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Buck Crick wrote:
I thought the idea was neither profound nor thought-provoking.


Sorry you couldn't find anything thought provoking there. Maybe I can change that now.

As you know, I did find that thought provoking - intensely. I have thought about it quite a bit for several decades, ever since I became aware of Wittgenstein, analytic philosophy, logical positivism, and the philosophy of language. These ideas more than any others informed informed my present understand of the relationship between reality and thought about reality. After so many years of studying and contemplating these matters, I have become a clearer thinker,t and have a clearer idea about what I think and why I think it, an essential element of critical thought.
Buck Crick wrote:
In fact, I suspect it was not even honest, and harbors an agenda.
How could it be dishonest? Did you mean that Wittgenstein didn't mean it? If so, a better word would be sincere or insincere.

And what agenda do you suppose might served by such a comment? I can tell you what the his stated agenda was: to clarify the relationship between reality and language, and to develop guidelines to identify language which was actually about nothing.

His philosophy of language and its methods have been as damaging to religious dicta as the philosophy of nature and the methods that we call science. For example, Wittgenstein would say that words are as meaningful or as meaningless as the discernible phenomena to which they refer. In the case of a word like "[the] soul," that would be nothing at all at this time. He would conclude that the word had no real world referent, or that if it did, until that referent could be shown to manifest in some way that affected physical reality, it was indistinguishable from the nonexistent. Quite a few religious words fit into this category, such as angel, holy, and even god.
Buck Crick wrote:
Who decides when the study is of the "real"?
You're free to decide that for yourself, as I have done.

Evidence based thinkers use empirical methods, which is what the quote speaks to. As I indicated, if a word to has no discernible referent in the world, then it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent. This acknowledges the possibility of things existing in some sense in causally disconnected domains, which by definition have and cannot have any effect on us. This does NOT include a god capable of affecting our world, which must be causally connected to our world to affect it.
Buck Crick wrote:
There is an abundant body of thought suggesting much of what we see as real is, in fact, not real.
Much of the best thought on the subject is related to Wittgenstein's comment. Consider these ideas, an amalgam from various Wiki articles:

The early Wittgenstein was concerned with the logical relationship between propositions and the world. Logical positivism ... embraced verificationism, a set of theories of knowledge that combined logicism, empiricism, and linguistics to ground philosophy on a basis consistent with exemplary examples of empirical sciences. The logical positivist principle [is] that ... the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. The logical positivist movement became a major underpinning of analytic philosophy.

The term analytic philosophy can refer to [a] broad philosophical tradition characterized by an emphasis on clarity and argument (often achieved via modern formal logic and analysis of language) and a respect for the natural sciences.

Philosophy of language is concerned with four central problems: the nature of meaning, language use, language cognition, and the relationship between language and reality.

I hope you find something thought provoking here.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186349 Nov 21, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Only two reasons, you are short of a few years education and a qualification.
However you are free to enrol in uni to take and pass a medical degree, spend a few years as a trainee and intern under supervision and then you are free to go doctoring people as often as you wish.
Thank you, Christine.

Is there any way I can ever repay for this huge favor?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186350 Nov 21, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Biologically speaking, human beings evolved.
Nothing you can lie about can change this fact. Its your mental illness that believes god created everything.
Its funny hwo you try to sound scientific, but reject the fact of evolution due to your faith based mental illness.
Seek help instead of advertising your hallucinations - do yourself a favour and get well mentally first.
You are one developmentally challenged individual.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186352 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Addendum:
The hip and ridge are the same thing.
See "hip & ridge" shingles.
No, the hip and ridge are not the same thing.

A ridge can be the junction of two sides of a gabled roof.

A hip is only the junction of side slope with end slope.

But you cover it with the same type of shingle.

We used to cut them from regular shingles. Some brands sell a special hip shingle.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186355 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the area where theistic antiscientism is the most threatening to the rest of us. We really need to start taking this matter seriously. We need people to listen to the experts.
But science undermines faith, and so the church selfishly and irresponsibly undermines confidence in science and scientists. Evolutionary science is its principle target, but the work the church does there makes Americans more susceptible to the disinformation coming from the fossil fuel industry.
And yes, Buck, we all know that you disagree.
Science undermines faith?

That's not the problem here.

The problem here is science undermining truth, not to mention the U.S. economy, jobs, and free thought.

Those of us who maintained for years that such hoaxes as global warming are, well, hoaxes are being proven prescient.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186356 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the hip and ridge are not the same thing.
A ridge can be the junction of two sides of a gabled roof.
A hip is only the junction of side slope with end slope.
But you cover it with the same type of shingle.
We used to cut them from regular shingles. Some brands sell a special hip shingle.
They are virtually the same thing, the "peak" on a roof.

On three-tab shingle roofing, you can cut the shingle into it's own ridge shingle, but on dimensional, tile & cement shingles, you must purchase the hip & ridge shingle separately.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186357 Nov 21, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a suggestion - how about return to your creationist cave whence you came, never to return ever again?
You're cults had enough of a beating these past few months I am sure you will agree...
Says the dumb ass atheist troll that thinks writing "whence" will make him seem smarter.....

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#186358 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, Christine.
Is there any way I can ever repay for this huge favor?
Not really, consider it a gift

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186359 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
He said babies, not fetuses. Babies are those terrestrial, air breathing, and food eating creatures that you see in strollers and cribs. You're confusing them with creatures that live in an aqueous milieu in a uterus and take oxygen and nutrition through an umbilical cord. Those aren't babies.
Your use of the term "creatures" is intentionally vague.

That's a "tell".

You suspended your preference here for word-meanings being personal matters, and switched on your requirement for precision.

But within the same post, in one sentence you demand accuracy; in another sentence you are intentionally vague with your terminology, as in referring to a human being as "creature".

My brain analytics, which are considerable, sense something going on with this post.

There is more going on here than simply a preference for accurate terms.

The "tell" tips it off.

An unborn human must not be called a "baby", but someone who has no position on the existence of god can be called an "atheist".

And Hitler says "I am a Christian".

Definitions as propaganda.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186360 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They are virtually the same thing, the "peak" on a roof.
On three-tab shingle roofing, you can cut the shingle into it's own ridge shingle, but on dimensional, tile & cement shingles, you must purchase the hip & ridge shingle separately.
Or you can do what a previous owner of this house I live in did. He poured concrete on a steep pitched roof. One and a quarter inches deep on a wood frame house. But it was braced real well. Great protection against hail damage. Not so good for maintenance by old men. Plus he didn't figure the sag in the sheathing caused by the dampness while drying.

Took six Mexicans two days to remove and replace with an additional layer of sheath and shingles. They did a great job. But I do miss that protection against hail damage and crashing 747's. However, the insurance company didn't give a break for it. This roof is much more attractive.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186361 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Not all of us think in medicinal terms, IANS. I'm not used to seeing a woman rubbing her preggo belly and saying; "OH! My fetus just kicked!"
You're used to the language that the sources you trust choose to use.

The use of words like "baby" and "murder" in the context of abortion is not an accident. They are the result of a persuasive technique called framing, which concerns itself with the unstated assumptions, implications and value judgements that a phrase carries - what you might call "baggage."

Those words were chosen by others - the assorted think tanks and policy centers where such strategies are conceived and delivered to the echo chamber of assorted media outlets - in this case to gain sympathy for the fetus by calling it a baby, since the more clinical and less sympathetic word fetus connotes a shrimp-like thing, and the latter something cute, cuddly and irresistible, and also to vilify abortion by calling it murder, a charged term, rather than the more clinical and accurate feticide.

Framing is something we should all be aware of. It occurs commonly. For example, suppose I favor giving the mother the choice to continue or terminate her pregnancy, and you don't. I might say that I am pro-choice regarding abortion, and that you by virtue of being the opposite are anti-choice.

Anti-choice is not a very sympathetic word in a culture that values freedom, and the movement recognized that. So,it called itself pro-life instead - a happier sounding term. Who could oppose people that support life?

Joseph Goebbels is considered the father of using this and similar subtle persuasive techniques, and George Lakoff has written the most about it in the context of American political and religious culture wars:

"George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff. The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive."

"The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing."
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/...

Other famous examples of this technique include "death tax" for inheritance tax and "family values" for Christian priorities, How could you possibly be a death tax or against families, which of course is the point?

Also, "taxpayers money" for public funds. If I'm against taxes, I want to emphasize that the money is the taxpayer's, not the government's. Buck can tell you how well that has worked.

If you're against them, you call them "entitlements" to bring out negative feelings that people that think they're entitled to something evoke, rather than phrases like "Social security," "veterans benefits," or "aid to dependent children." What kind of monster would object to security for society, benefits for our veterans, or aid to dependent children?

It should be noted that the latter phrases are also examples of framing and propaganda. Neutral terms would be things like retiree income or veterans' payments.

If you weren't already aware of this, now you are. Forewarned is forearmed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186362 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
He said babies, not fetuses. Babies are those terrestrial, air breathing, and food eating creatures that you see in strollers and cribs. You're confusing them with creatures that live in an aqueous milieu in a uterus and take oxygen and nutrition through an umbilical cord. Those aren't babies.
I want to get this straight.

If medical terminology were revised to call fetuses "babies", then you would be opposed to abortion?

You have only two possible answers: Yes or No.

If you answer "Yes", you are absurd.

If you answer "No", then your above contention is absurd.

Do you want your next statement to be absurd, or your previous statement to be absurd?

There is a way to be both absurd and cowardly - choose neither option.

I predict this will be your choice.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186363 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You should know better than this by now. I don't accept your unsupported claims. The little bit I found on this subject doesn't support your claim that what he did was science.
Your answer is bull shit, but it is the exact guess I gave as your excuse for being wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186364 Nov 21, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not suggesting that a whole group of people, due to their religious background, or their mental disabilities might not be as evolved, but rather the certain persons that I was referring to (but I have now forgotten my original point) might not be as evolved. Hitler and Mengele advocated using or misusing these people for evil reasons. I would not support the thinking of either of them.
But that's exactly what you did, and you just did it again.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186365 Nov 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you can do what a previous owner of this house I live in did. He poured concrete on a steep pitched roof. One and a quarter inches deep on a wood frame house. But it was braced real well. Great protection against hail damage. Not so good for maintenance by old men. Plus he didn't figure the sag in the sheathing caused by the dampness while drying.
Took six Mexicans two days to remove and replace with an additional layer of sheath and shingles. They did a great job. But I do miss that protection against hail damage and crashing 747's. However, the insurance company didn't give a break for it. This roof is much more attractive.
Holy shit. An 1-1/2" thick concrete slab roof?! That's a first.

Since concrete is porous, that's not a very good idea.

Also the sheer weight of it would require a substantial structure to hold it.

I did an apartment once that had 1-1/2" of concrete on the second floor. The first floor structure was massive. In the end, it paid off because the footfalls from upstairs were virtually nonexistent because of the slab.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186366 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're used to the language that the sources you trust choose to use.
The use of words like "baby" and "murder" in the context of abortion is not an accident. They are the result of a persuasive technique called framing, which concerns itself with the unstated assumptions, implications and value judgements that a phrase carries - what you might call "baggage."
Those words were chosen by others - the assorted think tanks and policy centers where such strategies are conceived and delivered to the echo chamber of assorted media outlets - in this case to gain sympathy for the fetus by calling it a baby, since the more clinical and less sympathetic word fetus connotes a shrimp-like thing, and the latter something cute, cuddly and irresistible, and also to vilify abortion by calling it murder, a charged term, rather than the more clinical and accurate feticide.
Framing is something we should all be aware of. It occurs commonly. For example, suppose I favor giving the mother the choice to continue or terminate her pregnancy, and you don't. I might say that I am pro-choice regarding abortion, and that you by virtue of being the opposite are anti-choice.
Anti-choice is not a very sympathetic word in a culture that values freedom, and the movement recognized that. So,it called itself pro-life instead - a happier sounding term. Who could oppose people that support life?
You & I speak slightly different languages.

I am not anti-choice, IANS. I've stated plenty of times that I am pro-choice for abortion. I don't agree with it, but it isn't my call to make , it's the parent's call.

You didn't even ask me what my position on it was, why did you just assume?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186367 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It is my sincere wish for all of you ingrates who express opinions such as this one that they someday get a taste of a world free of liberal innovations. Not forever - just for a year. You would be singing a different tune if you survived it. I'd like to see Limbaugh in the Tower of London weeping over the skeletons of Richard III's nephews about his rights.
You don't have a clue as to what liberalism and conservatism mean in the context of modern politics and government.

You liberals live your own lives and raise your children by the principles of conservatism, and publicly recommend liberalism for everyone else.

Diane Fienstien having a concealed carry permit - case in point.

Warren Buffet promoting higher taxes on the wealthy, and paying a full-time staff of tax accountants working to minimize his tax burden - case in point #2.

I could go on all day and not repeat one example.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186368 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're used to the language that the sources you trust choose to use.
The use of words like "baby" and "murder" in the context of abortion is not an accident. They are the result of a persuasive technique called framing, which concerns itself with the unstated assumptions, implications and value judgements that a phrase carries - what you might call "baggage."
Those words were chosen by others - the assorted think tanks and policy centers where such strategies are conceived and delivered to the echo chamber of assorted media outlets - in this case to gain sympathy for the fetus by calling it a baby, since the more clinical and less sympathetic word fetus connotes a shrimp-like thing, and the latter something cute, cuddly and irresistible, and also to vilify abortion by calling it murder, a charged term, rather than the more clinical and accurate feticide.
Framing is something we should all be aware of. It occurs commonly. For example, suppose I favor giving the mother the choice to continue or terminate her pregnancy, and you don't. I might say that I am pro-choice regarding abortion, and that you by virtue of being the opposite are anti-choice.
Anti-choice is not a very sympathetic word in a culture that values freedom, and the movement recognized that. So,it called itself pro-life instead - a happier sounding term. Who could oppose people that support life?
Joseph Goebbels is considered the father of using this and similar subtle persuasive techniques, and George Lakoff has written the most about it in the context of American political and religious culture wars:
"George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff. The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive."
"The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing."
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/...
Other famous examples of this technique include "death tax" for inheritance tax and "family values" for Christian priorities, How could you possibly be a death tax or against families, which of course is the point?
Also, "taxpayers money" for public funds. If I'm against taxes, I want to emphasize that the money is the taxpayer's, not the government's. Buck can tell you how well that has worked.
If you're against them, you call them "entitlements" to bring out negative feelings that people that think they're entitled to something evoke, rather than phrases like "Social security," "veterans benefits," or "aid to dependent children." What kind of monster would object to security for society, benefits for our veterans, or aid to dependent children?
It should be noted that the latter phrases are also examples of framing and propaganda. Neutral terms would be things like retiree income or veterans' payments.
If you weren't already aware of this, now you are. Forewarned is forearmed.
Disregard my last, you were just making an example. Sorry.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186369 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They are virtually the same thing, the "peak" on a roof.
On three-tab shingle roofing, you can cut the shingle into it's own ridge shingle, but on dimensional, tile & cement shingles, you must purchase the hip & ridge shingle separately.
Correct.

Putting on shingles is both the hottest and the coldest job there is.

I have had my ass melted stuck to shingles.

I mean the shingles melting, not my ass. I don't think,...

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186370 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy shit. An 1-1/2" thick concrete slab roof?! That's a first.
Since concrete is porous, that's not a very good idea.
Also the sheer weight of it would require a substantial structure to hold it.
I did an apartment once that had 1-1/2" of concrete on the second floor. The first floor structure was massive. In the end, it paid off because the footfalls from upstairs were virtually nonexistent because of the slab.
It took some getting used to sleeping under. But it was about 20 years old. Porous is the issue, and minute cracks, though it didn't leak. Every time the wind blew the old sealant flapped and flew. But I was not about to go up there and reseal it again. Got a USDA grant to replace it. Still have the garage, spa, and a big shed covered like that.

The guys that built those were very good. Standard lumber and sheathing and they are solid as rocks. We get 70 mph winds and nothing shakes. I have some steel siding soffit that flaps a bit in one spot, and that is really the only indication of a strong wind blowing. One day I may crawl up there and fix it.

You should have seen that crew groan when they arrived. They were subcontractors who made the deal with the contractor without knowing it was a concrete roof. They drove a hundred miles out here.

Six guys up there chiseling concrete and putting new roof on and not a shake. Didn't even bother my skittish kitty.

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) 2 min Megan 1,417,672
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr Trojan 32,324
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr zef 311,604
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Tue Into The Night 10,059
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