Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257132 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: May 10

Location hidden

#217274 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny. I came back yesterday and have utterly and totally destroyed your weak positions on every topic I've seen you post. I just came back to malinger b/c I had to craft a new syllabus and I'm finding you ... too easy.
I'm a bit sad. While I enjoy your humor, I'm wondering what's left of your intellect. Was it truly always this poor? Did some accident befall you while I was away?
Yeah, I know. I'm all red-faced.

I should be grateful. You taught me that belief is not belief, and that you simultaneously support and oppose the idea of killing someone for their belief.

Oh, and you convinced us that Sam Harris is suggesting fighting terrorists.

That's great stuff.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#217275 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a break. They locked me down at Danville and gave me 75 electorshock treaments in one month, while feeding me an anti-psychotic cocktail of drugs. One of the orderlies would sneak in and piss in my bed right before the shock so it would hurt more. Something happened to him later on, kinda' mysterious like.
So a few unorthodox habits can be understood, I would think.
And even with all that, they still didn’t cure you.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217276 Mar 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Some gangsters are so well protected they cannot be brought to justice by conventional means. They will continue to operate above the law , committing murder, mayhem , piracy , kidnapping, extortion and terrorism until they are destroyed. The whole world is held hostage by such international criminals. There has to be a force they will answer too, lest the entire world become a completely lawless state of confusion and chaos where thugs like this can hide from justice.
You have made a number of claims above, including postulating that a criminal force, beyond any law, controls the world. That's...a bit unusual. Can you back that up?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#217277 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear he's also a lousy tipper.
So that’s where RR gets it form

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217278 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
His attacks on religious thinking are "spot-on"?
So you agree that it may be ethical to kill people for believing certain propositions absent any wrongful act?
He didn't make that claim. Again, you're being intellectually dishonest here.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217279 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Harris WAS talking about beliefs.
He said so himself, you fucking idiot!!
"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."
<caps added in case you are too stupid to notice the word "belief">
I take it full arguments are too difficult for you? Rather than engage in the entirety of what's he's discussing, you just want to isolate key phrases for your convoluted and, apparently, weak, belief system so that you can further a misrepresentation of Harris' point?

Or is this about your mother, Buck?

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#217280 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You have made a number of claims above, including postulating that a criminal force, beyond any law, controls the world. That's...a bit unusual. Can you back that up?
No I didn't say a gangster force controls the world, I said there are gangster forces that operate above the law. Bin Laden was the head of such a force, as was Al Capone there are and were many others.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217281 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
A mastermind of a terrorist organization is not limiting himself to his beliefs, he's performing heinous actions that require action directed back at him. Harris said nothing of killing people (religious terrorists) for their actions, he said for the propositions, beliefs.
Give me one good example of killing someone, ethically as Harris said, for having a proposition.
To even make the comment that killing someone for a proposal is ludicrous and hateful.
Ok,

1. All of our social actions are dictated by beliefs (I might be overstating this). A terrorist 'mastermind' develops plans based on their belief system. It's not possible to do so otherwise, so I fail to see why you're disassociating action and belief above.

2. If you had actually read Harris in the paragraph and link that I supplied to you, you would see that all of his discussion about the sentence you and Buck and I have been discussing is about whether it is acceptable to direct US power at people of the Muslim religion who are terrorists but who yet have not killed anyone. i.e. planners.

You, and Buck, and all of the religious quotes I've read thus far for the misquote I was presented with here, ignore what Harris is engaging in. You mistakenly believe he's attacking religion. He is, but he's doing so through Muslim terrorism - because that's where religion is at its worst. So you cannot divorce the violence of terrorism from his argument. When you do, as the Christian websites you seem to have taken your information from have done, you are misrepresenting what he is arguing and not fully grasping the position he takes.

Nevertheless, I disagree with him. It's funny, Buck keeps arguing with me, but Buck has already stated that he agrees that US military power can and should be directed at terrorists, despite whether they've killed - so Buck sides with Harris on this point.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217282 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessary. If you want me, just say so. I'll decide if I need the bag over your head.
You keep bringing up sex between us. First, it was you and someone who didn't move the entire time. Now it's you and a whiskey-bearing me, with a bag over my head.

What's with that? Are you into tiny, flat, naive Asians or something?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217283 Mar 6, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I think he said his brother spit tobacco juice on him and then pushed him out of a truck or something like that.
hahaha!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217284 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
macumazahn wrote:
"He said to them,“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you have not a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
—Luke 22:36.
WTF you think swords are for?
Nice red herring, really.

The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217285 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I know. I'm all red-faced.
I should be grateful. You taught me that belief is not belief, and that you simultaneously support and oppose the idea of killing someone for their belief.
Oh, and you convinced us that Sam Harris is suggesting fighting terrorists.
That's great stuff.
Literally, what part of this paragraph is beyond you? All of it? Maybe it would be better if you would just tell us what part you understand. Then I'll slowly go over the rest.

"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...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217286 Mar 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Don’t forget your little short skirt and white knee socks
White socks?! Blaspemy!! Heresy!!!

EGADS!!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217287 Mar 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No I didn't say a gangster force controls the world, I said there are gangster forces that operate above the law. Bin Laden was the head of such a force, as was Al Capone there are and were many others.
Ok. Harris subsequently argues that we (may) have to find and kill them to protect our safety. I disagree, morally, with his suggestion. The whole point of having a civil society is that our gov't cannot simply decide who to kill - it cannot have that power and remain a civil society.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217288 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
She's wrong, though. Harris is advocating killing for having a thought. Her hypothetical with the home invader is an action, not a thought. Harris' ideology would have a person killed just for thinking about the home invasion but not actually doing it.
That's sort of illegal, you know...
No, that's not what Harris is advocating. That's what the religious websites you have turned to, that have quote-mined Harris and, worse, changed his wording, have told you.

Why don't you try reading what he actually wrote? Are you afraid to think for yourself?

A small snippet is found here:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/respo...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217289 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
<quoted text>
Nice red herring, really.
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
King James Version (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217290 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok,
1. All of our social actions are dictated by beliefs (I might be overstating this). A terrorist 'mastermind' develops plans based on their belief system. It's not possible to do so otherwise, so I fail to see why you're disassociating action and belief above.
2. If you had actually read Harris in the paragraph and link that I supplied to you, you would see that all of his discussion about the sentence you and Buck and I have been discussing is about whether it is acceptable to direct US power at people of the Muslim religion who are terrorists but who yet have not killed anyone. i.e. planners.
You, and Buck, and all of the religious quotes I've read thus far for the misquote I was presented with here, ignore what Harris is engaging in. You mistakenly believe he's attacking religion. He is, but he's doing so through Muslim terrorism - because that's where religion is at its worst. So you cannot divorce the violence of terrorism from his argument. When you do, as the Christian websites you seem to have taken your information from have done, you are misrepresenting what he is arguing and not fully grasping the position he takes.
Nevertheless, I disagree with him. It's funny, Buck keeps arguing with me, but Buck has already stated that he agrees that US military power can and should be directed at terrorists, despite whether they've killed - so Buck sides with Harris on this point.
That's ridiculous. RR is not falling for that double-talk, and I have already refuted it.

Harris wants to justify killing people for holding certain beliefs. So he lies about the reasons U.S. military is fighting terrorism to aid his thesis. They are not killing for "ideas" or "belief". Can you not see the weasel's sleight of hand here?

I don't agree with anything Harris says in this passage. It's a phony, bull shit argument. You will find no knowledgeable person that makes this linkage, except for maybe the Islamic terrorists.

"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."

War of ideas my ass. The goat humpers can have any idea they want. That's not why we fight them. The man is supposed to be smart. He's a lying piece of shit. He hates religion, so he cobbles up a fake rationale for fighting it. Despicable.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217291 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not what Harris is advocating. That's what the religious websites you have turned to, that have quote-mined Harris and, worse, changed his wording, have told you.
Why don't you try reading what he actually wrote? Are you afraid to think for yourself?
A small snippet is found here:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/respo...
That is what he's saying. He is very clear. He links belief to action, and suggests murdering the believer before he acts, simply because his belief is so dangerous. It is clearly stated in his own words.

His attempt to link such a proposal to the war on terrorism is phony and disgustingly dishonest.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#217292 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It's incredible how ignorant you are. And stupid.
An intelligent and ignorant man would know the limitations of his knowledge, yet you consistently fail in this regard.
Thanks for the example.
If google and Wikipedia were not available, I have no doubt the Redneck would admit his limitations.

His knowledge is minimal, but he's a quick googler.

He may think he's fooling somebody, but Emperor Redneck has no clothes.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217293 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. No worries. Silly little liberal jehovah.
Honey based on that logic all atheists are the same too.

Puts you in great company, right?

Smile.

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
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 1 hr Paul WV-Uncle Sam 325
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 20,270
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 2 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 435
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Chimney1 45,557
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 5 hr ATHEOI 21,398
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 9 hr NightSerf 10,341
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 17 hr Thinking 547
More from around the web