Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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: Jan 11

Location hidden

#217159 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I thought of perhaps a better scenario for Harris' point. It goes like this:
Some guy comes into your house, with a gun, and tells you his is going to shoot your children. He hasn't done it yet and you don't know whether he has killed someone, but you have a gun that he cannot see. Is it acceptable for you to kill him for that proposition?
That's the clearest case that I can come up with supporting Harris' argument. It's kind of an interesting argument to say "When the US bombs terrorist planners, they are killing people for their propositions" but it totally misses the point that such planners have, in the past, fomented the mass death of innocents. So there's more than a simple proposition to kill, and a belief system enabling that killing, and he's sort of skipping over that.
I think he needs to add in the axiom "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior" to better support his argument.
You'd added a lot to this discussion and moved it forward.

It's too bad you can't be here...always....<sniffle >

I would like to point to the importance of belief structures. Al Qaeda is more than a collection of beliefs, it's a system of installing a specific belief structure, that reliably produces people who act predictably. In that way it is different than the religion that provides the core concepts.

I would also like to point out the difference between the principles that Harris is talking about and the possible applications of it. The practical applications of this principle are highly problematic for a myriad of reasons. It's so messy. We need to acknowledge how far from ideal our responses to threats are.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#217160 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>The twisted liberals are already changing policy in public schools concerning violence.
Now they are pushing/suggesting kids get involved in conflicts to protect another kid from bullying.
Remember when fighting was absolutely forbidden at school... even when it was SELF defense?
I recall getting called on smacking a boy for pinching my boob, I told that teacher to chew out the shyt who started it and she shut up.
Now the radicals want our kids to risk their own hide for someone else, risk being bullied mercilessly for it themselves..
Hopefully, it will be their own kid that ends up proving that indoctrination to be pure BS.
Some will never learn. Within the last year in a nearby town (Lakeland) a 13 year old girl killed herself due to kids that they say were bulling her. This is at the height of a huge campaign against bullying from the biggest one of all (Obama) down to posters in schools. Kids pay more attention to what people do vs what they say. The bs going on in schools here is why one of my friends homeschools his kids and another is looking into it.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217161 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

You truly are one of the dumbest people I've ever known.

At least you're not claiming dinosaurs didn't have DNA, though...
BenAdam wrote:
So you think Manson killed someone ?
Damn, your brain damage is extensive.
Yup. That's exactly what I said.

o.O

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217162 Mar 6, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Unfortunately, but not surprising, you have no idea of the context of Harris's statement. You take something he said that pervert its meaning to suit your agenda. Thats not only dishonest and desperate, but stupid.
Non of the beliefs I stated would be considered dangerous by themselves, but if taken to the extreme could be considered dangerous.
But please do keep up your childish tactics, it's highly entertaining.
Oh.

They aren't considered dangerous but could be considered dangerous.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now which beliefs would make it ethical to kill someone for having said belief?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217163 Mar 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you ask such difficult questions?
No question I ask should be difficult for the mind of the Topix Atheist! intellectual.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217164 Mar 6, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Prior to 1869 no none on the face of the planet knew that DNA existed, as far as science was concerned DNA did not exist until it was discovered in 1869 by Johann Friedrich-Mieschur.
There was also a time when no one on the face of the planet knew that microorganisms existed, as far as science was concerned microorganisms did not exist until they were discovered.
So you claim that I said dinosaurs "didn't" have DNA is a complete lie. Not uncommon for you to lie your ass off.
I now challenge you to cut and paste the portion of my post where I "claimed Dinosaurs didn't have DNA."
I dar ya assclown, I double dare ya to post it. It MUST contain these exact words "Dinosaurs didn't have DNA."
Peer pressure has nil effect on RR.

It's nice knowing that microorganisms didn't exist until they were discovered, too.

Another helping hand from you.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217165 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You can do whatever you want. The damaging parts of your religion needs to be attacked and removed - especially the gross ignorance you personally continue to spread.
ooo lala

I've never been attacked by a Japan chickie.

Let's rock-n-roll.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217166 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
It's been tested over and over. The information is available for anyone who can read - and there's no excuse for the kind of stupidity and ignorance you, and other religious people, continue to espouse.
The common ancestor remains a scientific guess, a myth to those that revere science.

You cannot prove me wrong on this.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217167 Mar 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I mean about your pedantry, Buck.
OK. Forget the distinction between quoting out of context and misquoting.
Either way, it's misleading.
And the misleading is the dishonesty.
No, you're wrong, Counselor.

Misquoting is misleading.

Quoting out of context can be misleading or not, depending on the implication made.

And that's not pedantry. It's fundamental scholarship.

In the case of Sam Harris' quotation, it is not misleading, because the portion of his discourse that is quoted means exactly the same thing it means when the surrounding verbiage is supplied.

It seems I'm the only scholarly writer on this thread.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

United States

#217168 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, that's exactly how his hypocrisy works. He hasn't even considered a coup where the technology ended up being used on the one who encouraged it in the first place.
I suspect he's best buds with Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, the psychopath who suggested forced, mandatory abortions for the poor and sneaking drugs into the public water supply. the low-life pieces of shyt.
I forgot about Holdren. He should be the face of the ever so full of compassion left. The mask they hide under is slowly being removed.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217169 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Your mythological text orders genocides and murders all throughout the older parts of it.
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
OG Kush

Jacksonville, FL

#217170 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
MURDERING FOR BELIEF
The total body count killed for atheism for only ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead, which is several times the number killed by all religions in 3,000 years, and several thousand times higher on an annual basis than all the killing done by Al Qaeda.
Wrong again as usual

According to your belief the world's greatest mass murderer is the object of your devotion! Mr. Flood himself.

By the way - Buddy's last name was not Epsom and he didn't discover salt.

Try Buddy Ebsen who danced with Shirley Temple it was Davy Crockett sidekick in the Disney series.

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

BUH BYE

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217171 Mar 6, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
This is, actually, incorrect. ToE only points to the diversification of life and how that happens. The existence of a LUCA is a likely conclusion given the similarities we see in existing life. It is not an axiom as you are saying.
And, no, "that pesky common ancestor thingymabob remains undetected and likely is undetectable. That's one big giant fuckingguess" is not a guess. It just so happens that we have very very little geology that dates back farther than 3 billion years. And microbes don't fossilize well at all. Put these two facts together and it is likely we will never have fossil evidence of the earliest life. Is this so hard to grasp?
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
RR has been told this over and over. He doesn't care anything about science or learning how science actually works, he just wants to put his ignorance on display.
He said it, too. There's no evidence of the so-called common ancestor.

"it is likely we will never have fossil evidence of the earliest life"

Although you claim it's been proven over and over again.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217172 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! This is like the most sensible post I've read from you.
Harris doesn't argue that we should kill people for having beliefs. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. He did make a immoral, ridiculous argument advocating torture in the face of certain terrorism. But he never said "kill people for their beliefs."
His message is "we need to spread education and get people to question their beliefs. Faith based religion is not sacred, we can and must question it."
Harris said it may be ethical to do so.

"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”
Sam Harris

There is no belief that merits death. There are some actions that do, however.

Actions and beliefs are very different.

Sam Harris is a lunatic, so is anyone that follows him.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217173 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you:
1) not a good waiter
2) in a restaurant w/bad food
3) in a relatively poorer city
4) in a low class joint?
When I worked as a waiter, I'd pull 5$ on 20$ tables consistently. If you're not making double your hourly wage in tips, you're doing it wrong.
Where were you? In Japan or America?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217174 Mar 6, 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. As I mentioned, one of the most annoying things is how he seems to get away with ridiculous and dishonest statements by couching them in an earnest, inoffensive, soft-spoken tone. He doesn't hold up well when facing off with a formidable antagonist, but his hypnotic confidence causes all his fans to declare him victorious.
Harris is clever enough to appear often with Michael Shermer. This may be the only one of the New Atheists who makes Harris appear comparatively smart, Shermer being an idiot.
Harris likes to smear people on issues for which he lacks facts. Eben Alexander is a recent case in point. Way back when, he smeared Ayn Rand's philosophy and called her writing "terrible". Then he admitted he hadn't read the work he was referring to.
The Topix Atheist! Saint Harris says there's no such thing as atheist.

-In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist."-

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#217175 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
It teaches that genocide and murder are acceptable ways to stamp your foot.

From genesis when your very own god gets a pique and commits world genocide

To Kings that teaches trickery and murder

To mathew who tells you to burn “bad fruit”. I,e, anyone who does not agree with you.

To Mark in which your worshipful JC criticise the Hebrews for not killing disobedient children.

Is this not teaching? Instruction?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217177 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misquoting Harris. That's quite appalling.
You and I have already had many discussions about intellectual dishonesty - yet here you are, continuing in that vein.
Here is the correct quote, in context by the author himself:
"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/respo...
I don't agree with him, nor think that he fully flushed that out. He needed to add "and have demonstrated the propensity for carrying out their desires through actions that have resulted in grievous injuries and deaths."
Incidentally, even with that added in, I still don't agree with the above statement.
I didn't misquote him. This link you provided is basically Harris apologetics, his "Response To Controversy", as the header says.

His actual quote, which he has since tried to rebuke, was:

"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”

Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.

From the same book:

"I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss."

What a guy. He'd like to institute some sort of thought crimes, and kill people for having them. To me, he's the typical Freethinker! He has to freethink the same freethoughts that every other freethinker freethinks.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#217178 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, Counselor.
Misquoting is misleading.
Quoting out of context can be misleading or not, depending on the implication made.
And that's not pedantry. It's fundamental scholarship.
In the case of Sam Harris' quotation, it is not misleading, because the portion of his discourse that is quoted means exactly the same thing it means when the surrounding verbiage is supplied.
It seems I'm the only scholarly writer on this thread.
I call a mislead in this case.

But I won't belabor it.

Off to the gym.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217179 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

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?
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
You answer a question with a question?
You first. Since I asked first.
You did not ask a question, IANS did. Are you he?

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Frindly 83,960
News BILL-BORED: Get Ready For Atheists' Annual Use ... 3 hr Eagle 12 - 9
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 5 hr Frindly 3,303
News Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... Thu Eagle 12 - 6
High School Atheism Thu blacklagoon 3 41
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Wed Eagle 12 - 132
More from around the web