Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217040 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If they are Al Qaeda, they have already done something. They are soldiers who have sworn to a war against the United States, and an enemy in war is killed justifiably.
That's not a thought, and it is not what Sam Harris was referring to. Moron.
You are incorrect - Harris was exactly couching his argument in the way that you just did.

Of course you wouldn't know that if you've only read the misquote, taken out of context.

"When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, the answer cannot be,“Because he killed so many people in the past.” To my knowledge, the man hasn’t killed anyone personally. However, he is likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what he and his followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. A willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in many cases this is either impossible or too risky. Would it have been better if we had captured Osama bin Laden? In my view, yes. Do I think the members of Seal Team Six should have assumed any added risk to bring him back alive? Absolutely not.- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/respo...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217041 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
When you are through with your testing of the universal common ancestor, could I see it?
Where do you keep it? Is it still in good shape?
The above is you not understanding how science works and misrepresenting what my claims were.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217042 Mar 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Churches across America are as different and unique as the people across America.
What church? Or are you suggesting we check an independent financial audit of an ideology?
You answer a question with a question?

You first. Since I asked first.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217043 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He misquoted Harris?
He quoted him exactly as you did.
Here is your version:
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."
Here is RR's version:
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."
RR's quote is identical to yours. If he "misquoted" Harris, so did you.
Aside from that, your added context changed the meaning none at all.
No, RR's quote reads "“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”
-Sam Harris"

That's quite different than the one I placed, in context.

The failure that you, and RR, continue is to remove all context from the sentence, change words in it, and interpret in a fashion that wasn't stated in the initial writing.

That's intellectually dishonest on your behalf. You're misrepresenting the author so you can demonize him. It's also intellectually weak since you're refusing to engage in the author's actual argument. I find this especially funny because, in this instance, it exactly mirrors your argument about Al Queda.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217044 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If they are Al Qaeda, they have already done something. They are soldiers who have sworn to a war against the United States, and an enemy in war is killed justifiably.
That's not a thought, and it is not what Sam Harris was referring to. Moron.
So you do think that for some people it may be necessary to kill them for their belief.

Thank you for admitting that, and for showing what a hypocrite you are.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217045 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You have failed to offer any instance of Harris being lied about.
Which makes your statement about us, his critics,...well,...you know.
You and RR have done that already. I've responded with links to his page where the quote in question is as it appears in his book.

No, I don't expect you to engage with his actual argument or answer my posts with anything approaching honesty.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217046 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that $20 for just the Steam & Cream, or the full laid pipe??
You just can't help yourself, can you.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217047 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sam Harris and I go way back. I despise the man. I regard him as a dishonorable and deplorable person. He is arrogant, belittling, dishonest, and vastly over-represents his grasp of numerous subjects.
Now there is some serious projection.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#217048 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's kind of gross.
Be careful to test your animals, making sure that they don't have bird flu if you continue in this odd hobby of yours.
He usually just chokes his chicken.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217049 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Being a deity wouldn't necessarily mean you would know, but knowing would necessarily mean you are a deity.
Ah. So you are saying all these Christians that say they KNOW there is a god are saying they are deities themselves?

1)...knowing would necessarily mean you are a deity.

2) RR knows there is a god.

3) Therefore RR is a deity.

Pretty simple syllogism following directly from your statement.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#217050 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote reads "“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”
-Sam Harris"
That's quite different than the one I placed, in context.
The failure that you, and RR, continue is to remove all context from the sentence, change words in it, and interpret in a fashion that wasn't stated in the initial writing.
That's intellectually dishonest on your behalf. You're misrepresenting the author so you can demonize him. It's also intellectually weak since you're refusing to engage in the author's actual argument. I find this especially funny because, in this instance, it exactly mirrors your argument about Al Queda.
You are correct that Buck is being intellectually dishonest.

RR, not so much.

He is being stupid.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217051 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
False, I could simply have access to extraordinary information without being a deity. Also, your premise is that deities can "know" but people cannot.
That's an intellectually worthless position. We can "know" that unicorns do not exist - just like we can "know" that deities do not exist. In exactly the same manner, actually.
Wrong. "Extraordinary" information is not ALL information. To rule out the existence of deities requires all information, or omniscience, which is not a human faculty. The "extraordinary" information, by definition, leaves possible information unknown. The deity could not be ruled out of the unknown portion of information not included in the "extraordinary" information.

The silly unicorn example is a fallacy of logic based on category error. A unicorn is a physical being, whereas a deity cannot be "reified", or turned into a mere "thing" with physical characteristics for observation and verification.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217052 Mar 5, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that Buck is being intellectually dishonest.
RR, not so much.
He is being stupid.
Well, thank you Catcher :)

It appears my work here is done. I'll go back to doing whatever it is that I do.

Take care and be well.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217053 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote reads "“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”
-Sam Harris"
That's quite different than the one I placed, in context.
The failure that you, and RR, continue is to remove all context from the sentence, change words in it, and interpret in a fashion that wasn't stated in the initial writing.
That's intellectually dishonest on your behalf. You're misrepresenting the author so you can demonize him. It's also intellectually weak since you're refusing to engage in the author's actual argument. I find this especially funny because, in this instance, it exactly mirrors your argument about Al Queda.
Buck a few weeks back went to great lengths discussing how context does not matter. He gave a definition of "exact quote" that basically said if the words presented were in the original text, in the presented order, it didn't matter what was left out, it was still an exact quote.

This muddled thinking is likely part of the reason Buck finds the Harris misquote so compelling. It also explains why he finds creationist quote mines convincing.

Of course, when I used this method on one of his own posts to get buck saying "exactly"..."Bu ck is...an idiot", he did say it was an "exact" quote, but then whined that it wasn't fair because it changed the meaning of what he had said. The point I was making went ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM, right over his head.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217054 Mar 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You and RR have done that already. I've responded with links to his page where the quote in question is as it appears in his book.
No, I don't expect you to engage with his actual argument or answer my posts with anything approaching honesty.
No, RR's quote was exactly accurate, and you called the quote "misquoting" because it did not include the additional context you supplied.

I suggest you read up on what constitutes misquoting.

Your criticism should have been "quoted out of context", not "misquoting". These are two very different phenomena with very different ramifications.

Further, your supplied context does not change the meaning of the quotation when supplied lone-standing.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217055 Mar 5, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that Buck is being intellectually dishonest.
RR, not so much.
He is being stupid.
Intellectually dishonest?

There's no way you ever went to law school.

RR's quote is accurate, and Hiding called it "misquoting".

She is in error, as "misquoting" and quoting out of context are two distinct and different actions.

Any lawyer would know that. I am not only intellectually honest on this, I am accurate on it. Hiding is not.

Your case is dismissed.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217056 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. "Extraordinary" information is not ALL information. To rule out the existence of deities requires all information, or omniscience, which is not a human faculty. The "extraordinary" information, by definition, leaves possible information unknown. The deity could not be ruled out of the unknown portion of information not included in the "extraordinary" information.
The silly unicorn example is a fallacy of logic based on category error. A unicorn is a physical being, whereas a deity cannot be "reified", or turned into a mere "thing" with physical characteristics for observation and verification.
So substitute "ghost" for "unicorn". Then you are talking non-physical and non-physical. The argument is the same.

And...BTW...how do you KNOW a unicorn is a physical being? Kinda hard to be a physical being when you don't exist. And maybe unicorns can be seen but don't have a physical existence. Kinda hard to categorize unicorns, or gods, when you don't have a hard and fast definition.

Or maybe you think unicorns are real?(The Bible says they exist.)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217057 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote was exactly accurate, and you called the quote "misquoting" because it did not include the additional context you supplied.
I suggest you read up on what constitutes misquoting.
Your criticism should have been "quoted out of context", not "misquoting". These are two very different phenomena with very different ramifications.
Further, your supplied context does not change the meaning of the quotation when supplied lone-standing.
Yes, Buck, just as with Barton, providing part of a quote out of context IS misquoting.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217058 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. "Extraordinary" information is not ALL information. To rule out the existence of deities requires all information, or omniscience, which is not a human faculty. The "extraordinary" information, by definition, leaves possible information unknown. The deity could not be ruled out of the unknown portion of information not included in the "extraordinary" information.
The silly unicorn example is a fallacy of logic based on category error. A unicorn is a physical being, whereas a deity cannot be "reified", or turned into a mere "thing" with physical characteristics for observation and verification.
Your argument is twofold:

1. we cannot know anything, b/c absolute knowledge is not possible.

That's a silly and useless foundation for producing information about reality.

2. You're defining deities such that they cannot be measured, so that they cannot be "known," especially according to your absolute requirements.

So what? We can imagine any number of unknowable things and call them deities - your pretense here is make-believe and, as such, is not a compelling argument.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217059 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, RR's quote was exactly accurate, and you called the quote "misquoting" because it did not include the additional context you supplied.
I suggest you read up on what constitutes misquoting.
Your criticism should have been "quoted out of context", not "misquoting". These are two very different phenomena with very different ramifications.
Further, your supplied context does not change the meaning of the quotation when supplied lone-standing.
BTW...I saw the most horrific monster the other day. It had the head of a horse and the body of a unicorn.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism saved me 30 min Elganned 30
The atheists mind 33 min Elganned 67
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 40 min Elganned 184
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 19 hr Into The Night 95,399
Why creation? Thu Elganned 60
man Jun 18 blacklagoon 3 1
News Atheism and Wonder Jun 14 Eagle 12 - 50