Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247266 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.

virtuanna

Sherman, TX

#217128 Mar 5, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually?
The claim is yours:**YOU** morons claim this man-god-man-thing was a real person.
This is YOUR claim.
We just ask for PROOF of this extra-ordinary claim.
That's all.
You've not provided any, so far.
Then we are at an impasse, since you and your cult cannot provide proof of YOUR extraordinary claim either.

Einstein intuited truth when he saw it. Not that you can see anything transcendent past that blind, festering third eye of yours.

You will never ride the wave like he did.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217130 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't. To misquote is to provide something the quoted source did not say.
To quote out of context is to quote out of context.
The out of context quote is inappropriate only if it implies something other than what the quoted person implied.
Prepare to be schooled...

From Google

Misquote: quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.
"the foreign secretary had misquoted Qian"

synonyms: misreport, misrepresent, misstate, take/quote out of context, distort, twist, slant, bias, put a spin on, falsify

Note the synonym "take/quote out of context", which is exactly what your "exact quotes" do. So, yes, your "exact quotes" are misquotes.

Also note the synonym "misrepresent", which your out of context Harris quote also does. So, again, a misquote.

I would think the synonyms "misstate", "distort", "twist", "slant", "bias", and "put a spin on" also apply to many of your "exact quotes".

You misquote a lot.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217131 Mar 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So you acknowledge the accurate quote. Thanks.
Tell me, to you, what is the difference in killing someone for a proposition they believe and killing them for a belief they believe?
I see that YOU have not yet admitted to RR's misquote.
virtuanna

Sherman, TX

#217132 Mar 5, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiccians are hell-bent on forcing their idiot beliefs onto everyone else.
In direct contrast to you hate-theists, who wish to FORCE the whole world to follow your horrid and ugly hate-cult.
I have never suggested that you or anyone else attend any church of any kind. Liar.

Why the subterfuge, bob? Why deny the "push" of your cause? Anybody can see the push by googling...

"Unity Today...Power Tomorrow" posters at atheist meetings are pretty clear in their message of oppressing and/or destroying only one, particular religion and its members. "Christianity" is the only ideology scorned in their sermons.

As long as your cult desires to hurt the people I love I will continue to out them as oppressive creeps that should not be trusted.
virtuanna

Sherman, TX

#217133 Mar 5, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that YOU have not yet admitted to RR's misquote.
That's probably because I didn't read it. I don't have time to read ALL of everybody's comments.

Maybe you would like to show it to me and provide an original source like a book excerpt that proves he misquoted?

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#217134 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So you acknowledge the accurate quote. Thanks.
Tell me, to you, what is the difference in killing someone for a proposition they believe and killing them for a belief they believe?
A proposition necessarily include beliefs, certainly, but also can contain plans for actions. Harris specifically used this word and not beliefs b/c he's discussing how US military attacks on Muslim terrorists can be seen as the acceptance of killing b/c a person's beliefs and behavior, together and not separate.

Changing the word to indicate "beliefs" produces an inflammatory sentence. Taking it out of context leads to the kind of paranoid proclamations of Christians on this thread, claiming that Harris is calling for their deaths b/c of their religious beliefs. Clearly, it was done purposefully by whomever RR is quoting from - and, in the doing, misrepresenting Harris.
virtuanna

Sherman, TX

#217135 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, sorry,'for' their claims.
Yeah, Jedism is based on a fictional movie. Judaism is based on fictional oral stories that are pretty old. So what? They have equal evidence for their claims.
It really doesn't matter how you believe psychology would classify me. Since you aren't a psychologist, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
Just as your suggesting "belief" should be listed as insanity is irrelevant, based on your own lack of a degree in psychiatry.

Got it, hypocrite?

See how that works? The same rules are supposed to apply to both sides else there is NO "debate". Not that there is anything resembling legitimate, authentic debating on topix.
You remind me of a cousin of mine who would make up new rules to a card game when she suspected she was losing. lol, what a joke.
virtuanna

Sherman, TX

#217136 Mar 6, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I make it a point to NOT have conversations with the criminally insane, so------fuckoffyoupatheticlose r!!!
Bathroom mirrors everywhere applaud your decision.

Too many cracks muck the view.
virtuanna

Sherman, TX

#217137 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
A proposition necessarily include beliefs, certainly, but also can contain plans for actions. Harris specifically used this word and not beliefs b/c he's discussing how US military attacks on Muslim terrorists can be seen as the acceptance of killing b/c a person's beliefs and behavior, together and not separate.
Changing the word to indicate "beliefs" produces an inflammatory sentence. Taking it out of context leads to the kind of paranoid proclamations of Christians on this thread, claiming that Harris is calling for their deaths b/c of their religious beliefs. Clearly, it was done purposefully by whomever RR is quoting from - and, in the doing, misrepresenting Harris.
So, you've forgiven Harris's lust to torture?

I wondered how long it would take before you started defending him. Did IANS chide you for your momentary lapse of loyalty to the demented Harris?

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#217138 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not disregarding anything. And I didn't define deities.
Evidence-based knowledge cannot allow you to know that the deity does not exist, and that's due to the property of knowledge, not the property of evidence.
If the evidence favors one view, it is a propositional conclusion.
That's not what you offered. You offered a definitive conclusion.
You've defined deities several times as being non-measurable, non-visible, out of our ability to know. I find that quite silly and childish, a very "god of the gaps" style of protecting cherished beliefs.

Sure, my statement is in the form of a definitive conclusion b/c it's what I have inferred from the available evidence. I've already agreed with you that atheism is a belief statement - no issues - and I have no issues accepting that my statement "there are no deities" is also a belief statement. And it's one based on all the evidence I can muster from the social sciences and hard sciences.

For me, that outweighs someone's encultured "I just know my religion is real because, well, I grew up in this culture. My religion, mind you, and not theirs - we all, over here, know their religion to be false" argument.
virtuanna

Sherman, TX

#217139 Mar 6, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a problem with all attempts to indoctrinate children into cults.
...except Wiccan, Church of Satan, Buddhism and Harhar Krishna, of course.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#217140 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>The majority of people in ancient times scoffed at the "existence" of tiny bits called atoms, based simply on the fact that they couldn't see them.
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism" ;
One wonders if you would have been one of the stoic, "rational" scoffers calling the atomists insane. Funny how someone who claims to be rational can harbor so much hate and bias, based simply on their limited faculty of perception.
The ancient atomists were incorrect, btw - their work did not lead to the discovery of the atom. Rather, we borrowed the name "atom" from ancient Greek b/c it's descriptive. Or, was thought to be descriptive.

So...basically, you're saying that people who don't believe a thing, laugh at that thing. Yeah, that's true. The theists here - well, the Christians - generally misrepresent and laugh at the claims of science. I find that funny since they are laughing at their own misrepresentation - and their image of science is so ridiculous that, yes, we should laugh at such imagery.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#217141 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>Einstein was not as extreme as Hiding would have you think.
1. You clearly didn't read what I wrote about Einstein.

2. Does all your knowledge come from wikipedia?

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#217142 Mar 6, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the whole context-- I tried to find it myself, but all that came up were hate-filled godbot Lying For Jewsus™ websites.
I've never read any of Harris' books myself-- he's not my cuppa tea.
And I happen to agree with you, here (and disagree with Harris).
No problem. I had the same trouble - it's b/c they changed the word "propositions" to "belief" that you cannot find the Harris article. I included Harris' name, and then his page came up.

I have some issues with him, too, especially when he delves into discussions of morality. But his attacks on religious thinking are spot-on.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#217143 Mar 6, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the whole context-- I tried to find it myself, but all that came up were hate-filled godbot Lying For Jewsus™ websites.
I've never read any of Harris' books myself-- he's not my cuppa tea.
And I happen to agree with you, here (and disagree with Harris).
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.
virtuanna

Sherman, TX

#217144 Mar 6, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Right because as a so called reporter said recently on msnbc children don't only belong to the parents. When do you guys start up the reeducation centers?
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.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#217145 Mar 6, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying sack-of-shyt quote-mine, from the viper godbot Nanomindless.
LMAO!
Oh, is that Nano? hahaha! I'll stop bothering with her then. And did she quote mine that? How pathetic you have to be to quote mine to support your beliefs - those who do so clearly don't have a lot of faith in their beliefs; they need to prop them up with lies.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#217146 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text> Just as your suggesting "belief" should be listed as insanity is irrelevant, based on your own lack of a degree in psychiatry.
Got it, hypocrite?
See how that works? The same rules are supposed to apply to both sides else there is NO "debate". Not that there is anything resembling legitimate, authentic debating on topix.
You remind me of a cousin of mine who would make up new rules to a card game when she suspected she was losing. lol, what a joke.
Hiding: 21
Nano: 4

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#217147 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>So, you've forgiven Harris's lust to torture?
I wondered how long it would take before you started defending him. Did IANS chide you for your momentary lapse of loyalty to the demented Harris?
Hiding: 22

Nano: 4
virtuanna

Sherman, TX

#217148 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, is that Nano? hahaha! I'll stop bothering with her then. And did she quote mine that? How pathetic you have to be to quote mine to support your beliefs - those who do so clearly don't have a lot of faith in their beliefs; they need to prop them up with lies.
I didn't quote him to support a belief, you twit, but to show that he wasn't a rabid, extremist dolt like the Topix atheists.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 min DebraE 12,490
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 5 hr -Stray Dog 47,768
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... 5 hr Shizle 51
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 6 hr QUITTNER Aug 29 2015 3
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 7 hr thetruth 19
Proof of God for the Atheist 7 hr thetruth 100
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 21 hr Reason Personified 14,712
More from around the web