Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 254917 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

#218830 Mar 13, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! You spent all that time vomiting up a cut-and-paste diatribe while missing the point of the question? Wow, reading and comprehension issues much?
OK, I'll give it to you again: "So I'm curious: to those who insist that atheism is a belief, please describe what that belief necessarily entails. I'm an atheist, so I'm interested to see what I therefore must believe as a consequence."
So, once again for the slow kids: if atheism is a belief, then what other beliefs follow as a consequence?
You changed your story.

First, you asked for a description of what the atheist belief entails.

Now, you ask something different - what "other beliefs follow".

I'm going to assume you meant the original question you asked, and you are now just being your usual asshole self. So here is your answer again.

Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether
God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia).
Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia).
Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God.(Oxford Companion to Philosophy).
Atheism (Greek, a-[private prefix]+ theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor).
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia).
Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position (Encyclopedia Americana).
Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty (The New Encyclopedia Britannia).
According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…(rejects eccentric definitions of the word)(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion).
Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
Atheism denies the existence of deity (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218831 Mar 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not possible. Even if you use a Topix Atheist! definition of atheism, it doesn't require one to believe in all gods in order to not be an atheist.
OK, I'll break it down further for you:

Do you believe in the divinity of Lord Krishna? If not, doesn't that make you an atheist in that regard?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218832 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a well-articulated argument. I thank you.
The reason I thank you is you prompted my brain to shift into "Buck Drive".(That's the mental equivalent of "Warp Drive" on the Starship Enterprise in Star Trek.) Scotty always warns "She's about to break up, Captain".(Set-up line)
There is an Achilles Heel to your thesis, and it represents the tidal flaw in Darwinian theory. You want, and need, to apply to this material process a "force" as in pressure or a "pull" as in gravity. We understand gravitational force acting around bodies of matter bending space. We have bathroom scales to measure it.
You can't distinguish between environmental pressures on an organism and gravity?

LOL! Well, so much for "Buck Drive".

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218833 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's rich, coming from you. You think an atheist is someone who rejects the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And I'm correct in that. Thanks for pointing that out.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#218834 Mar 13, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The internet is a tool that can be and is abused. There is considerable work, certainly here in Europe and eastern countries in tracking down and prosecute such abuse. Can’t say the same for the US, seems they are more interested in protecting loopholes in military security than catching paedophiles.
Priest are supposed to be trustworthy. Even 1.8% of all priest being abusers is a long way from 0%
And if that 1.8% hit the media, then so what. Such notoriety is only a fraction of what is deserved
The U.S. spends way too much on defense. I have read anywhere between more than the next 10 countries combined, out of which all but 1 is an ally. In addition to the waste and corruption. While less than 1% of tips about Internet child porn don't even have the manpower to be checked. I agree that the things that take priority with much of our spending makes no sense to me

And I don't sat 1.8% to minimize it. Just to put it in perspective for those that feel (sometimes in part due to the media coverage) that there is a disproportionate amount of abuse in the church compared to anywhere else. And yeah the breach of trust makes it worse if that's possible for a crime that bad

As for the media, sure report it. But my point is that is should all be newsworthy. A kid abuses by a priest is no more victimized than one abused by some unknown teacher. And I know realistically all crimes can't get coverage or equal coverage but it should be based on ability and resources. We should be trying as a society to expose as much as this as possible. The church gets so much attention in the same way Paris Hiton or celebrity gossip does. Because people's priorities and concerns are messed up as well. We only seem to care if it can be labeled a scandal because that makes for juicier 'news' rather than news being based on what's more important that society knows

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218835 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. You are judging me from the same perch of wisdom from which you pronounced slavery as being overcome by non-christians,...somewhere,.. ..somehow.
You aren't paying attention again Buck; that's not what I said. Any Christian who argued against slavery did so against the clear dictates of the Bible. Christians were not the only ones who fought against slavery but they were they only ones who fought for it.

Don't take my word for it; crack open a history book sometime and see for yourself.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218836 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed your story.
First, you asked for a description of what the atheist belief entails.
Now, you ask something different - what "other beliefs follow".
*sigh* No Buck, you are conflating two entirely different posts. It's not my fault that you can't pay attention, OK? Take some personal responsibility for yourself.

Meanwhile, answering either point would be welcome. It's better than whining, anyway.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#218839 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The mousetrap is irreducibly complex, per the definition.
It is falsifiable. All you have to do is remove a component and observe the same trap still performing the same function that the complete system does.
And mammalian sea creatures do not have a pelvis.
The Bergen Museum, for one, disagrees with you.

"The pelvic anatomy of whales makes a good example of how evolution has transformed body parts that lost their importance as the animals changed their lifestyle. In modern whales, the pelvic girdle is much smaller than in land living mammals, but there is a considerable variation among species. Bones from the Natural History Collections in Bergen were used by Professor O. Abel in Vienna when he in 1907 described the morphology of pelvic girdles and vestigial limbs of whales. Read the article here (pdf, 39 MB) >>>"

They have some.

More here: http://bergenmuseum.uib.no/fagsider/osteologi...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#218844 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Heh

Not bad:)

If we can't laugh at ourselves occasionally then not much point in getting out of bed.

(T) Peace

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#218846 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's rich, coming from you. You think an atheist is someone who rejects the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Row Kay Mr. atheist on a unicorn....hahahah

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218847 Mar 13, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Buck is up the crick without a paddle so he has to invent points to "argue" against. I thought a Redneck was the prime Riverdancer but this yokel is stiff competition in the numbnutsian sphere.
Yes, as I said before, this is how Buck argues. He redefines terms to suit his arguments and hopes that no one notices. Of course they do, but then he lobs ad-hominem attacks and bluster to try and cover up his errors. It's not that Buck is stupid; it's that he is emotionally crippled with narcissism. And I would not be surprised if he also self-medicates too.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218848 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The gift of evolution is the moral sense, also known as the conscience and moral faculty. It is only the start. Moral rectitude is the result of a cultural process that goes much further.
<quoted text>
Maybe. Probably.
<quoted text>
No. Cultural evolution may be working at cross purposes to biological evolution, as with zero population growth programs. Cultural evolution is done with design and purpose, and its goal is not to increase a gene's frequency, but to improve the quality of life for some or all..
I see. Evolution is one wise and intelligent cookie.

If I accept your thesis, I don't need a god any more. I mean,...besides the one you describe here.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218851 Mar 13, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
He knows that he would be a psychopathic mass murderer without some threat of retribution.
At least he's doing something to control his urges, whether it's based on reality or not.
Psychopathic mass murderer?

Kinda' harsh, Aunt Betty.

I am the only one who controls my urges. Well,...if they are controlled, I'm the one.

My ex-wife used to control a few of them. When she would learn what I was doing behind her back, she would catch me asleep and hit me with heavy objects.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#218852 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The mousetrap is irreducibly complex, per the definition.
It is falsifiable. All you have to do is remove a component and observe the same trap still performing the same function that the complete system does.
And mammalian sea creatures do not have a pelvis.
That not the hypothesis, you can't remove a part from anything and expect it to perform the same function. Remove a leg and lets see you run, do you even believe your own nonsense?
The IR hypothesis says remove a part and the remaining parts are functionless in any way.
Another way of saying without that one part , it never could have evolved to become a mousetrap.

"Is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_comp...

Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, which claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" — that in order to evolve, multiple parts would have to arise simultaneously.

How do we decide when the term IC applies? Organisms don't come with parts, functions and systems labeled, nor are 'part','system' and 'function' technical terms in biology. They are terms of convenience. We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system. We will see later that Behe's treatment of cilia and flagella follows this pattern.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmys...

Remove your lower jaw and chew on that awhile. or is your head IC?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218853 Mar 13, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, as I said before, this is how Buck argues. He redefines terms to suit his arguments and hopes that no one notices. Of course they do, but then he lobs ad-hominem attacks and bluster to try and cover up his errors. It's not that Buck is stupid; it's that he is emotionally crippled with narcissism. And I would not be surprised if he also self-medicates too.

Eye Spec wrote:

As Christianity is the worship of self, it is easily argued that narcissism is its root.
__________


Thank you doctors Freudy 'n Slip.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218854 Mar 13, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>As Christianity is the worship of self, it is easily argued that narcissism is its root.
Well, as to Buck, I recall him insisting that he isn't a Christian, so I don't think we can blame religion for his neuroses.

Since religion is the ego projected onto the universe, yeah, I'd have to agree with you that it's has narcissism at it's root. I never really thought about it that way, but it makes sense.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#218855 Mar 13, 2014
wilderide wrote:
So I'm curious: to those who insist that atheism is a belief, please describe what that belief necessarily entails. I'm an atheist, so I'm interested to see what I therefore must believe as a consequence.
sure bud, that's simple:

as an atheist, obviously you don't know nor care what you believe, as long as it's in direct opposition to your perception of fundamentalism!

that'll be 20 bucks!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218856 Mar 13, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That not the hypothesis, you can't remove a part from anything and expect it to perform the same function. Remove a leg and lets see you run, do you even believe your own nonsense?
The IR hypothesis says remove a part and the remaining parts are functionless in any way.
Another way of saying without that one part , it never could have evolved to become a mousetrap.
"Is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_comp...
Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, which claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" — that in order to evolve, multiple parts would have to arise simultaneously.
How do we decide when the term IC applies? Organisms don't come with parts, functions and systems labeled, nor are 'part','system' and 'function' technical terms in biology. They are terms of convenience. We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system. We will see later that Behe's treatment of cilia and flagella follows this pattern.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmys...
Remove your lower jaw and chew on that awhile. or is your head IC?
Nothing in your post is correct.

You can remove parts from many things and they perform the same function. Take a sparkplug out of your car, it performs the same function, though not as efficiently. You can remove the entire battery and starter from a diesel engine, and it performs the same function.

And you can also remove parts of a leg, and it performs the same function.

The Darwinian mechanism has no way to explain systems requiring parts that are self-referential, that is, relying on many parts to be present for there to be a selective advantage.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218857 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. Evolution is one wise and intelligent cookie.
If I accept your thesis, I don't need a god any more. I mean,...besides the one you describe here.
Everyone of course has the option to accept reality or not, but I really don't get what your opposition to the process of evolution is. The only thing it threatens is a literalist interpretation of the Bible, and you aren't a Biblical literalist anyway.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#218859 Mar 13, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
it's also about someone being responsible for others, which is historically a job that most women don't want.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. women don't take responsibility for their offspring ??..
<quoted text>
.. aren't children 'others'??..
am i on another one of your infamous 'time-outs' for being naughty?:-(

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) 6 min scientia potentia... 29,497
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 57 min Patrick 50,949
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Uncle Sam 11,510
Religion Down Suicide Up 2 hr Patrick 74
News Revered Artist Was an Atheist Who Rejected God.... 10 hr emperorjohn 48
News Here are 10 myths and truths about atheism 14 hr nanoanomaly 44
News Speaking for God 14 hr Jaimie 556
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 18 hr ChristineM 9,604
More from around the web