Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256576 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: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#192148 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Buck was implying that a BELIEF in a deity as the source of rights was significant apart from whether that was true or not, as if without that belief, that we couldn't or wouldn't have had those rights.
My contention was that the words alluding to a god added nothing, and wouldn't convince a Christian who thought he knew his god's will of anything. The Christian god has nothing to do with rights or freedom. It is apparently opposed to the exercise of free will, for which the most harsh penalties imaginable are imposed.
I can envision Christian preachers everywhere objecting strenuously to ideas like gender equality, the freedom to work on the sabbath, and the freedom to blaspheme.
Your last sentence is the danger.

I hear that Mike Huckabee may run for president in 2016.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#192149 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery, as mentioned, wasn't condoned by the christian Bible, and it was white Christians who fought and died to eradicate the institution from a nation that inherited it.
That is a huge benefit singularly to the credit of Christianity, specifically initiated in the pulpits of Christian churches.
Furthermore, it is a benefit derived from the founding principle of natural rights being endowed by God.
I am fortunate that I do not have a philosophy that requires the volume of historical revision that yours and Snide with Bleach does.
The slave owners were white Christians.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#192150 Dec 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>Your last sentence is the danger.

I hear that Mike Huckabee may run for president in 2016.
Nice guy, but way out of touch with reality.

It's a shame, really. If his brain hadn't been poisoned by religion, he might actually be halfway decent.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#192151 Dec 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The slave owners were white Christians.
And free men of color, and Indians.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192152 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I don't expect this to sink in to a spoiled American punk.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your sense of history comes from video games and dope.
What's your beef with Tide? His opinions seem sincere, compassionate and thoughtful.

Do you resent his joking about Smurfs? The purpose of such implied comparisons with god belief is to underscore what religion looks like to unbelievers. My purpose in suggesting putting "In Smurfs We Trust " on the currency was the same as it was in telling Christians that opening meetings such as those of the Rotary Club with prayers is as off-putting to a non-Christian as Muslim prayers on prayer cloths opening the same meetings would be to them. We still hope (against hope, it seems) that people of faith will try to be unselfish enough to try to see through the eyes of others, and fair enough to treat them as they would like to be treated.

I just read and watched this report of a court order to remove a Christian cross from public property - a national war memorial no less
http://www.10news.com/news/judge-orders-remov...

Watch the video and see the Christians lamenting the judgment, utterly indifferent to the wishes of the Jews and possibly other non-Christians that initiated the legal action. They just don't care about non-Christians or their feelings.

These are the same people who resent "Happy Holidays" because it doesn't give priority to their holiday, and call an attempt at inclusivity a "War on Christmas". I'm sure that the cross issue is also perceived as a War on Christianity.

It's not. It's a war on Christians attempting to assert themselves as special. Those that can be made to see that and who respect the Golden Rule will modify their behavior appropriately. Those that cannot or will not will just be angry and adopt the language of victims.

So yeah, comments about Smurfs and prayer cloths are appropriate, and not legitimate grounds for wrath.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#192153 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Who taught you geology?
By the time the central collection of helium gas had collected itself into a mass sufficiently dense and massive to fuse hydrogen and become a star, the rest of the solar nebula had had time to form not just dust, but pebbles, boulders, and mountain sized chunks of stone (asteroids and comets). The solar wind would have almost no effect on these. It strips atmospheres from planets not shielded by magnetic fields, not solid matter, like their crusts or the stones resting on them..
<quoted text>
Sure. That must be it. Or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_ev...
Those pebbles and stones were not dust collecting.

Read up on how rocks are formed. They are formed from a dynamic process beyond dust bouncing off each other. Heat, pressure, etc? Which takes a pre-existing mass. Stars eject elements that were formed within them. Under intense heat, pressure, and gravity. Those chunks have to collect into a sufficient mass to create heat and pressure to meld together. With the wind blowing.

The solar wind is a breeze blowing away. If you didn't have sufficient mass for gravity to overcome it it would just keep moving away after the first push. Momentum.

You need a pre-existing mass passing through that dust to accrete.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#192154 Dec 14, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Those pebbles and stones were not dust collecting.

Read up on how rocks are formed. They are formed from a dynamic process beyond dust bouncing off each other. Heat, pressure, etc? Which takes a pre-existing mass. Stars eject elements that were formed within them. Under intense heat, pressure, and gravity. Those chunks have to collect into a sufficient mass to create heat and pressure to meld together. With the wind blowing.

The solar wind is a breeze blowing away. If you didn't have sufficient mass for gravity to overcome it it would just keep moving away after the first push. Momentum.

You need a pre-existing mass passing through that dust to accrete.
The dust starts to accrete by static charges, I think.

It was demonstrated using a baggy full of salt crystals in microgravity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192155 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Slavery, as mentioned, wasn't condoned by the christian Bible
We've already reached a dead end in this matter. We have no basis for discussing this problem if you believe that. I'm sure that I can't budge you with any number of words, so I won't try. Let's just note that we have the opposite opinions here, and that any conclusions that you come to based on your stated belief in this area won't be considered sound by me.
Buck Crick wrote:
and it was white Christians who fought and died to eradicate the institution from a nation that inherited it. That is a huge benefit singularly to the credit of Christianity, specifically initiated in the pulpits of Christian churches.
I don't see it, Buck.

Anybody that believed that the "natural rights" already in place were unjust, and who was willing to employ compassion and reason to make the world better for slaves, was applying rational ethics - the humanist methodology - to a problem that religion no only had not solved in millennia, but actually contributed to by condoning it, and by its pernicious model of a (super)natural order that transcended man and his machinations..
Buck Crick wrote:
Furthermore, it is a benefit derived from the founding principle of natural rights being endowed by God.
Maybe I will rebut you just a little, in the interest of sharing the following with the entire thread. That belief supported the institution of slavery. Christians cite the curse of Ham:

"The explanation that black Africans, as the "sons of Ham", were cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the Middle Ages, but it became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries.[54][55] The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of African labor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham#Eur...
Buck Crick wrote:
I am fortunate that I do not have a philosophy that requires the volume of historical revision that yours and Snide with Bleach does.
I'd say that you are the revisionist. So would that Wiki entry.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192156 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
What's your beef with Tide? His opinions seem sincere, compassionate and thoughtful.
Do you resent his joking about Smurfs? The purpose of such implied comparisons with god belief is to underscore what religion looks like to unbelievers. My purpose in suggesting putting "In Smurfs We Trust " on the currency was the same as it was in telling Christians that opening meetings such as those of the Rotary Club with prayers is as off-putting to a non-Christian as Muslim prayers on prayer cloths opening the same meetings would be to them. We still hope (against hope, it seems) that people of faith will try to be unselfish enough to try to see through the eyes of others, and fair enough to treat them as they would like to be treated.
I just read and watched this report of a court order to remove a Christian cross from public property - a national war memorial no less
http://www.10news.com/news/judge-orders-remov...
Watch the video and see the Christians lamenting the judgment, utterly indifferent to the wishes of the Jews and possibly other non-Christians that initiated the legal action. They just don't care about non-Christians or their feelings.
These are the same people who resent "Happy Holidays" because it doesn't give priority to their holiday, and call an attempt at inclusivity a "War on Christmas". I'm sure that the cross issue is also perceived as a War on Christianity.
It's not. It's a war on Christians attempting to assert themselves as special. Those that can be made to see that and who respect the Golden Rule will modify their behavior appropriately. Those that cannot or will not will just be angry and adopt the language of victims.
So yeah, comments about Smurfs and prayer cloths are appropriate, and not legitimate grounds for wrath.
It is a war on Christmas, and a war aimed at Christians.

The use of "Happy Holidays" as a substitute greeting for "Merry Christmas" has nothing to do with other holidays. Hannukah is over, and New Year's day is signified by the greeting "Happy New Year". So it's about one holiday, and the controversy is that it contains the word "Christ".

You are not arguing; you are hunkering down.

Tide's opinions, which he asserts as facts, are not thoughtful. They are indicative of the shallow, liberal revisionist thinking being instilled in today's education system, and popular culture.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192157 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
We've already reached a dead end in this matter. We have no basis for discussing this problem if you believe that. I'm sure that I can't budge you with any number of words, so I won't try. Let's just note that we have the opposite opinions here, and that any conclusions that you come to based on your stated belief in this area won't be considered sound by me.
<quoted text>
I don't see it, Buck.
Anybody that believed that the "natural rights" already in place were unjust, and who was willing to employ compassion and reason to make the world better for slaves, was applying rational ethics - the humanist methodology - to a problem that religion no only had not solved in millennia, but actually contributed to by condoning it, and by its pernicious model of a (super)natural order that transcended man and his machinations..
<quoted text>
Maybe I will rebut you just a little, in the interest of sharing the following with the entire thread. That belief supported the institution of slavery. Christians cite the curse of Ham:
"The explanation that black Africans, as the "sons of Ham", were cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the Middle Ages, but it became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries.[54][55] The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of African labor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham#Eur...
<quoted text>
I'd say that you are the revisionist. So would that Wiki entry.
The wiki entry is nonsense. Slavery in America was an economic measure to harness the vast productivity of the southern lands.

Slavery represented in the Bible is a profoundly different animal, and centers around Hebrew tradition of debt repayment. I am not the authority on such customs, nor the Hebrew language used to describe it, but I have studied a bit with those who are.

Slavery has existed in virtually all cultures, still existing in some today.

The most spectacular revolution against it was that of white Christians in America, led by a white Christian president, and rooted in the authority of the natural rights endowed by God embodied in our founding principles.

This is in no way a matter of opinion. It is the historical fact.

These factual benefits of Christianity do not suffer the disadvantage of being hypothetical musings, as speculation about the superiority of humanism does .

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192158 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

Speaking of unjust, the concept you invoke using the term "natural rights" wasn't of much value to women and blacks in America, was it?
Quite the opposite. It is the concept that allowed their rights to be ratified.

By a majority of whites and a majority of men.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192159 Dec 14, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not attack Atheism directly, instead of trying to claim Stalinism is Atheism?
Atheists ask people to read and think, not kill one-another over the politics of belief.
Atheists find plenty of reasons to kill people.

In fact, when they get power, that's the first thing they do.

If you are dead, do you care whether someone killed you for atheistic reasons?

You are a moron and a liar, by the way. I have made it clear I am not a christian or a creationist or religious.

Your belief blinds you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192160 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I can? How? By expressing my opinions about religion and other the other topics of interest that roll through this thread?
Dave's testiness with me is all of his own making. I make him feel bad about himself and his choices, and he responds by telling me how much I've missed in life, how inadequate I am, and by fantasizing about harm coming to me. You don't have to be a licensed psychotherapist to know what he must be feeling to react in that way.
You'll have to admit that I am extremely tolerant of him most of the time - like an older dog putting up with a puppy nipping at its ears most of the time, but occasionally, gently nipping a friendly reality check back his way.
Why would you want to make someone feel bad about his choices?

"Don't remind me of my failures. I have not forgotten them."

-Jackson Brown, "These Days"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192161 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It does with me. Calling the same entity both A and non-A at the same time in the same way makes it a fiction.
<quoted text>
Nope. Yahweh is the married bachelor.
When you remove either the A or non-A, both Tide and I agree that you are talking about something that is logically possible. When we are told about a god that permits free will, yet knows the out come of every choice in advance and has since before time, we balk at that.
You're saying that the married bachelor has been described incorrectly. We know that, which is why we reject the claim for it. If you want to say that one of those words is incorrect and that the god is either married or a bachelor, fine - but that's a different god.
That is irrational.

"Calling the same entity both A and non-A at the same time in the same way makes it a fiction."

The fatal error in your logic is the term "calling".

Logic dictates an entity cannot be both A and non-A.

Logic DOES NOT dictate that no entity can be CALLED both A and non-A.

You are hunkering down.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192162 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he has beliefs. So do I. Why do you think that holding beliefs is antithetical to rational skepticism? How is it even possible to not hold beliefs?
You've got your work cut out for you trying to argue convincingly to evidence based thinkers that faith based beliefs are as good as beliefs derived from reason and evidence, especially given the explanations that amount to nothing more than "yes, free will and omniscience can coexist, and things can exist before and outside of time"
The rational skeptic rejects such belief. His or her belief is that such thinking is irrational and sterile. The beliefs generated by faith and those generated by reason applied to evidence have nothing in common, and the argument that they are somehow alike because they are both beliefs gains zero traction except with those eager to feel better about their choice to embrace unreason..
If you respect faith and prefer it to the alternative, why aren't you arguing that it is superior to rational skepticism rather than arguing that it is its equal?
You cannot reach atheism with logic and reason alone. You can reach agnosticism.

The jump from reason to atheism is belief, and it is no less so than theism.

Another irrational assertion is that atheism is reached by reason more so than theism.

The two people in question can weigh the same evidence, and one can decide that the preponderance of that evidence indicates a higher designing intelligence outside ourselves.

You use the existence of beliefs in the more mythical aspects of a detached, omnipotent, interventionist god as a red herring to support your thesis. Having employed it so, you then convince yourself you have the superior rational approach - the fallacy of the false dilemna being the actual case.

A rational skeptic can believe in God. It is naked human arrogance to suggest otherwise.

Pure rational skepticism does not get a person to belief in God, nor does it get a person to atheism.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192164 Dec 14, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
To be more precise, he's an "intelligent designist."
You really want to open that one up?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192165 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
People in Montana and the Dakotas thank God for "climate change".
Otherwise they would be under a glacier.

https://www.google.com/search...

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#192166 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Yes I do, but Eagle isn't interested. That kind of material has no impact on faith.
I do enjoy watching the gymnastics though.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#192167 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I don't argue that there wasn't value in telling religious people that their god not only approved of human and civil rights, but was also its source.
What I do argue is that this is not a benefit of a god belief or religion, nor a reason to thank or value religion.
Christianity only solves the problems of its own making, like cigarettes do. It posits an immortal soul, sin, a fall, and the doctrine of damnation, redemption and salvation via its priests and its man-god..
And like cigarettes, quitting is the far better solution.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#192168 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What do you think about changing the currency to read "In Smurfs We Trust"? I see it as a step in the right direction.
To the believer, the actual motto and that one are worlds apart. But to the rest of us, its just a few letters difference. If you're going to plaster nonsense that not everyone buys into on the money and claim that we all believe it, why not make it fun?.
That's what I'm Smurfin'.

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) 3 min An NFL Fan 1,419,711
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr ThomasA 311,628
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Sat Trojan 32,332
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Aug 26 Earthling-1 10,065
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