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
178,861 - 178,880 of 224,097 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186416
Nov 21, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, but no.
I have looked at all the evidence I can get my hands on, and my conclusion is...
It is more likely God exists than not.
Skip the first 14 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
William Lane Craig? No thanks.

You're not going to like the following, but Craig disqualifies himself from rational debate because of this comment:

"If in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that contraverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." . William Lane Craig

Do you understand what the man just said there? He said his mind is closed. He calls his opinions the "witness of the Holy Spirit," and that makes them true. He said that even if he encountered evidence that those opinions were wrong, he would ignore the evidence and assume that he was right anyway - that if he dug into it a little more, that this would be proven to him.

He refers to the relationship between faith as reason, which is to subordinate reason to faith. That may fly in church where faith is respected, but in a reasoned argument like a debate, it's a concession. No sound conclusion can follow from a faulty premise, however valid the form of the argument may be.

"Faith-peddlers like to put themselves beyond question by claiming that their faith transcends reason, the very thing that calls it to account. How convenient. Yes, faith transcends reason the way a criminal transcends the law." - Pat Condell

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186417
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I still think you're stupid.
That hurts, Aunt Betty.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186418
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Kaku is also a pop scientist like the late Richard Feynmann and Carl Sagan, and Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. They speak to lay audiences, and takes poetic license. Scientists don't consider the expansion of the universe to be an explosion which occurs into a larger space, but the expansion of space itself. I'm sure that Kaku knows that.
That being said, I think that we can discuss the cause of the universe, but we have to do it from an extra-universal perspective, as from that of a multiverse, which is highly speculative. Polymath has a right to object to us doing that. Still, I will:
Our time may have begun some thirteen trillion years ago, but this multiversal metatime (any transcendent or higher level time) from which our space-time may have budded may extend back infinitely (please don't bother arguing about the impossibility of that, especially if you are willing to conceive of a god that way).
From the perspective of within the universe, referring to something existing before the start of time is meaningless, just as being on the surface of the earth but north of the north pole is meaningless.
We're dong pretty good staying civil, Buck.
<quoted text>
What do you need Kaku for? You do that yourself. This was the purpose of all of this, wasn't it - to get to that sentence.
Please, allow me to gloat a bit.

It's not often I get to go toe-to-toe with a physicist like Polymath, knowing I'm right and he's wrong, and then have my rightness confirmed by an independent expert.

On my other disagreements with him, I know I'm right and Polymath is wrong, and I just have to prove it over and over myself.

So this is icing on the cake.

... and the infinite multiverse is impossible.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186419
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
I had the same thought. IAnus wants words to be precise, except when he wants them to be imprecise. As in "atheist agnostic". It's like flavor-of-the-month at Baskin Robbins. I love that chocolate raspberry truffle.
Well, at least you tried to substantiate your claim a bit this time.

FOUR COMBINATIONS of KNOWING and BELIEVING

If you believe there is a god, you are a theist. If you claim to know so, you are called GNOSTIC. You can be either, but not both.

Those who don’t believe are atheist, and those claim not to know are agnostics. At the same time, you can also be either of these, but once again, not both.

[1] Agnostic atheist – Does not accept the claim that gods exists, but doesn't claim to know that none do for a fact.

[2] Gnostic atheist - Believes that no god exists and claims to know so for a fact.

[3] Agnostic theist - Believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know so for a fact.

[4] Gnostic theist - Believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.

Most theists claim to be gnostic [4], that is, to know that gods exist, as do a few atheists [2]. Most atheists, like me, claim to be agnostic [1], as do a few theists [3].

This more modern nomenclature is supplanting the old schema popularized by Webster wherein there are only three categories - atheist, agnostic and theist - arranged in a linear scale analogous to small, medium and large.

By way of contrast, the geometry of the above is better represented by a 2 x 2 square grid like Punnet square, crossing knowing (G and -G for gnostic and agnostic) with believing (T and -T for theistic and atheistic).

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186420
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Most certainly. Makes a tremendous difference, especially cooling down at night. The house back in NM would stay hot until after midnight, with two gable vents. I put a gable fan in one side and it cooled down quick. Much more liveable. Heat rises, if you don't have a roof turbine it builds up and heats everything. It got over 130 degrees in that attic before I put that fan in.
Testify, my brutha!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186421
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
That hurts, Aunt Betty.
Sorry, I thought I was being gentle.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186423
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Your science is hopeless, Dave. Why don't you think about purging the words "biological" and "life" from your cosmogeny prattling.
<quoted text>
Rambling disconnectedly from the Big Bang Theory to "fancy circuit boards" to rutabaga-like skeptics is your private, undisciplined, moonbeamery, which in this case segues right into your gratuitous demeaning of unbelievers in the service of your curmudgeonly, sour grapes attitude.
Congratulations, Dave. You have managed to merge your two most prominent qualities together for this substance-free post.
IANS, you spend looking too much time at your belly button and not enough around you.

One more time.

You learn things and try to juggle them instead of figuring how they came to be. Book learning and no thinking.

Some like to make fun of my EM, but they do so with the ignorance of a heeyukker. Their limited mentalities are stuck on magnets, the thingies on the refrigerator. They haven't understood a thing I have said about it being the very basis of their very being.

A magnet is not the magnetic force. It just channels it.

Grab one of your refrigerator magnets. You can't see a thing around it, can you? Totally invisible, isn't it? But it attracts some metals. It even repels other magnetic particles.

This is the same stuff on the outside of every atom that combines with other atoms that combine to make you and everything you can see. It is the skin of all you know. Physics classifies it as one of the forces, but it is THE force that allows you to operate. The way they classify it makes it just look as a force that arises from the polarity of the atom. But you have to understand that polarity was made. And that force transverses the universe through empty space. It travels through that space with the least impediment to its propagation. Any other matter in the way impedes it because it has to deal with those same fields within that matter. This stuff is everywhere, as a light particle or a magnetic wave. You can consider it as a divine wind driving the universe as well as likely being that which formed matter. This is the sole force that counteracts gravity and moves things via attraction and repulsion.

If you knew how this stuff is manipulated by us, then you could perhaps grasp what I mean in those metaphors. But you are stuck playing with alphabet blocks. Oh, it's just a force they list in the book.

Your perspectives are extremely limited. You are limited to replacing parts, not engineering them.

You are a dumb ass,

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186426
Nov 21, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
Your use of the term "creatures" is intentionally vague.
It's not vague at all. Did you mean too general? Would you prefer human organisms to creatures. I could have also said organisms or life forms.
Buck Crick wrote:
That's a "tell". You suspended your preference here for word-meanings being personal matters, and switched on your requirement for precision.
Perhaps that's because I don't consider fetuses persons/people.
Buck Crick wrote:
But within the same post, in one sentence you demand accuracy
The word "creature" is accurate. Did you mean precise? Shall I explain the difference?

Suppose someone weights 170 lbs. Saying that he is 16o-200 lbs is accurate. Saying he is between 160-180 lbs is also accurate, but it more precise. Saying he is 180-200 lbs is more precise than 160-200 lbs, but inaccurate. OK?

Accurate means correct. Precise means within a relatively narrow range. As with atheism and agnosticism, a description can be called accurate, precise, both or neither. For a 170 lbs man

Accurate and precise 169-171 lbs
Accurate and imprecise 100-200 lbs
Inaccurate and precise 196-198 lbs
Inaccurate and imprecise 200-300 lbs
Buck Crick wrote:
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".
Only if you want to be accurate. In each case, we can be more precise (fetus and agnostic atheist).

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186427
Nov 21, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
Buck Crick wrote:
I want to get this straight. If medical terminology were revised to call fetuses "babies", then you would be opposed to abortion?
No.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Thank you for your opinion. And your guess. I will treasure them as always.

Earlier, you spared me the use of the word "stupid" out of Buck respect, which varies from regular respect in an essential way, one which I'll leave to the reader to discern for himself.

In the spirit of Buck respect, please allow me to return the favor by noting that your comment isn't stupid, merely that you have had a little bad luck thinking.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186428
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hold on there Vegas Cowboy. Now you're ditching evolution?
If you believe in evolution then give evolution it's credit.
Evolution is a FACT, how could I "ditch" it?

Very good, you're coming around, you finally realize that evolution is responsible and not you demon God. Took long enough!!!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186429
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not vague at all. Did you mean too general? Would you prefer human organisms to creatures. I could have also said organisms or life forms.
<quoted text>
Perhaps that's because I don't consider fetuses persons/people.
<quoted text>
The word "creature" is accurate. Did you mean precise? Shall I explain the difference?
Suppose someone weights 170 lbs. Saying that he is 16o-200 lbs is accurate. Saying he is between 160-180 lbs is also accurate, but it more precise. Saying he is 180-200 lbs is more precise than 160-200 lbs, but inaccurate. OK?
Accurate means correct. Precise means within a relatively narrow range. As with atheism and agnosticism, a description can be called accurate, precise, both or neither. For a 170 lbs man
Accurate and precise 169-171 lbs
Accurate and imprecise 100-200 lbs
Inaccurate and precise 196-198 lbs
Inaccurate and imprecise 200-300 lbs
<quoted text>
Only if you want to be accurate. In each case, we can be more precise (fetus and agnostic atheist).
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/21/youn...

You can cut the cord on a preemie and it becomes a baby. In a prior post you made the distinction between a baby and a fetus as being that cord. If the cord existed you felt justified in killing it. It was just a growth within the mother. You made absolutely no distinction regarding the age of your "fetus".

Someone is on life support? No problem for you to shut it off, is there? Once they go on it they lose their human identity.

Secular humanist, huh? You have the mind of a murderer.
Thinking

Chard, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186430
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

We got stuck on that oddly asymmetric gyratory on the abc road a couple of times and felt the benefit of the A/C then. But yes, mainly pointless.

Most UK people refer to Grantley Adams International as Bridgetown Airport. BA fly there from London Gatwick, which is also nowhere near London. ;)

http://barbados.airport-authority.com/
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, but no a/c, what for since they're totally open?
And you didn't land in Bridgetown!

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186431
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
Grab one of your refrigerator magnets. You can't see a thing around it, can you? Totally invisible, isn't it?
The Disciple Series: Holy Infinite Cypher Kibbitz.

The <±.·:*¨`*ELECTRIC±UNIVERSE* ¨`*:·.±>

Of the Blather Mage, Dave Of Zizzy Edicts.

1. Circumpolar Magnetidialectictric Geological Stringy Thingeory.

<±The Dave Nelson±> "Okay, here is something you can all do yourself. An experiment, if you will. You must first deunderstandify or something like that, and put aside all preconceived notions that the science you understand or have been "taught", has any validity even if you know it is valid. It may fly in the face of your "so called" Physics, but, I say it plain, unashamedly and without reservation. I march to the beat of a different drum. I boldly go where no man, except me, obviously, HAS GONE BEFORE!... <ahem> ... Now, let me explain; Tie a string to your finger, any bodily appendage thingy will work, but I prefer a finger because it's easy to locate and see. Next, obtain two speaker magnets, say from a Radio Shack™ dumpster. Now, find a rock. Juggle those for 56¼ seconds.... SEE? Amazing, isn't it?

That's called personal experience, I've replicated it hundreds of times, and the "religion science" of today can't adequately explain what just happened there...."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186432
Nov 21, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
Your answer is bull shit, but it is the exact guess I gave as your excuse for being wrong.
I don't think so. You wrote: "1. Say he was not a real scientist" and it was one of several guesses. I wrote, "The little bit I found on this subject doesn't support your claim that what he did was science."o

Your guess was neither accurate (it was wrong - not being a real scientist is not the same as not doing science) nor precise (you gave four answers: 1. Say he was not a real scientist? 2. Say we were only talking about raw meat? 3. Say he was not addressing all spontaneous generation, only this narrow subject? 4. Respond to something else, and pretend he rebutted this?), so your characterization of yours being "the exact guess I gave" is wrong in every possible way.

==========

Now, would you care to refute my comment? Let's review what happened before you joined in:

RiversideRedneck wrote, "Science once "knew" that insects were born of rotting flesh."

I answered, "No scientific experiment concluded that. That was what was commonly believed on faith until science debunked it with experiment."

Your claim at that point was "Wrong. Jan Baptist van Helmont, an early Flemish chemist, physiologist, and physician, did scientific experiments which concluded that spontaneous generation occured."

My reply to you was, "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."

As I said, following a cursory search, what I found was that Jan Baptista van Helmont (1577-1644) may or may not have done an experiment, and if so, no description of his methods. From Wiki:

"[Helmont's] notes also describe a recipe for mice (a piece of soiled cloth plus wheat for 21 days) and scorpions (basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight). His notes suggest he may even have done these things"

I repeat: there is no evidence that this man did what constitutes science, nor that the scientific community was influenced by whatever he did do, nor even that there even was a scientific community at the time, as he was a sixteen year younger contemporary of the father of science, Francis Bacon (1561–1626).

If his writings influenced posterity, they accepted his opinions on faith. I repeat: No scientific experiment concluded that science once "knew" that insects were born of rotting flesh. That was what was commonly believed on faith until science debunked it with experiment.

By the way, I appreciate your sparring with me. This has been a good exercise in disputation.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186433
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
hehe
If you say that to Christine, she'll accuse you of attempted murder or a violent threat or something....
If I showed her my gun she would faint, you know ..
This is my rifle , this is my gun...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186434
Nov 21, 2013
 
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The Disciple Series: Holy Infinite Cypher Kibbitz.
The <±.·:*¨`*ELECTRIC±UNIVERSE* ¨`*:·.±>
Of the Blather Mage, Dave Of Zizzy Edicts.
1. Circumpolar Magnetidialectictric Geological Stringy Thingeory.
<±The Dave Nelson±> "Okay, here is something you can all do yourself. An experiment, if you will. You must first deunderstandify or something like that, and put aside all preconceived notions that the science you understand or have been "taught", has any validity even if you know it is valid. It may fly in the face of your "so called" Physics, but, I say it plain, unashamedly and without reservation. I march to the beat of a different drum. I boldly go where no man, except me, obviously, HAS GONE BEFORE!... <ahem> ... Now, let me explain; Tie a string to your finger, any bodily appendage thingy will work, but I prefer a finger because it's easy to locate and see. Next, obtain two speaker magnets, say from a Radio Shack™ dumpster. Now, find a rock. Juggle those for 56¼ seconds.... SEE? Amazing, isn't it?
That's called personal experience, I've replicated it hundreds of times, and the "religion science" of today can't adequately explain what just happened there...."
heeyuk yuk yuk yuk

That's right, you are from North Carolina.

Don't need to know or understand nothing but what they tell you, right?

That was EM actions that occurred when that green caterpillar bit you.

heeyuk yuk yuk

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186435
Nov 21, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah?
I can lift you up to my level - with one hand, by your crotch.
So tough , the internet tough guy.
You can try that...but first.
Say hello to my little friend...

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186436
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, but no.
I have looked at all the evidence I can get my hands on, and my conclusion is...
It is more likely God exists than not.
Skip the first 14 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I don't think the subject is proper for debate.

I require evidence. Not a guy's words that you consider to be logical, or persuasive.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186437
Nov 21, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
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?
I didn't. I wrote in the hypothetical. I used the word "suppose":

IANS wrote "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."

Why would it matter to the discussion if I had erroneously assumed that you were not pro-choice? I wasn't discussing you, but rather framing using terms like pro-life in place of anti-choice. How could putting you in one group or another matter unless I was accusing you of doing the framing?

By the way, I'm putting the roofing thing on the back burner until you guys can decide on your definitions. It's been remarkably difficult to find anything on the Internet that clearly defines hip, valley, ridge, gable, rake, gable end, gable rake, or rake end in a way that a novice could look at a diagram and say "this is that."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186438
Nov 21, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
You don't have a clue as to what liberalism and conservatism mean in the context of modern politics and government.
Are you moving the goalposts? You didn't make that qualification in the posts I answered.

And yes, I do have a clue. You probably should use terms like classical liberalism and progressivism if you want to be more precise.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
•••
•••