Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219584 Mar 16, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. did you miss the point of my quizzes ??..
.. since Christians advocated the enslavement of a race, promoted the vile institution, claimed Blacks were only 3/5 human and quoted the bible to substantiate their position, wouldn't it be the Christians' responsibility to overturn the inhumane doctrine ??..
.. back then, materialistic Christians held the power and atheists were a huge closeted minority, politically bankrupt. It took a Civil War, the deaths of 600,000+ soldiers, to end this vile institution invented by good Christian men like George Washington. Rest assured, some of the troops that died were atheists or humanists ..
.. before posting the drivel that Christians eliminated slavery while atheists did nothing, think your position through. Lincoln, a humanist, ended the repulsive system of slavery ..
. guffaw ..
Christians eliminating slavery is not drivel, since that is exactly what happened.

We are not credible if we tag them only with the negatives, and not the positives.

Lincoln was not a humanist, but a theist. And he was not an abolitionist. He said if he could preserve the union without eliminating slavery, he would do it.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219585 Mar 16, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought crime.
You worship a god that punishes for thought crimes even as you rail against Harris for saying that certain thought MIGHT deserve to be considered crimes.
Your values are depraved and you contradict yourself. Please explain to me again how being raised in the Christian tradition prepares you better for life than being raised a humanist.
You have a good point - Christian reason is nearly as bad as Harris' reasoning.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219586 Mar 16, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you avoided the quote from West that Intelligent Design is religion. And West is one of the big shots of the Discovery Institute.
Game...Set...and Match.
There is no such quote. You're lying.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219587 Mar 16, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Apologies. You did comment after all.
Sorry, Buck. You fail at logic. If dissing ID is anti-religious, well, it just sort of follows that ID is religious.
Game...Set...and Match.
(Jeez. The convolutions you go through to rationalize the cognitive dissonance is astounding.)
You reversed the order. You are a liar.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219588 Mar 16, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Your bias is preventing you from addressing what he actually said and believes.
Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Worse than that, your reputation continues to plummet.
<quoted text>
Obviously.
RR is addressing exactly what Harris said and believes.

He said we have to consider killing people preemptively for their beliefs. And he admitted it is an extraordinary claim.

Dance away.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219589 Mar 16, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Arguing with a strawman is easier. I understand.
Harris is talking about killing in self defense using acceptance of dangerous propositions as a predictor for future behavior.
You're lying. Harris' prescription is not for dealing with action, but with belief.

Killing in self-defense is not an "extraordinary claim", and requires no argument.

"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."

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219590 Mar 16, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
If their beliefs included killing large numbers of innocent people, and people with those same beliefs had done just that on numerous occasions?
Yeah. I can see it. Kind of what we did with the Taliban and bin laden. Remember them?
Your logic jack-knifed. Taliban and Bin Laden were killed for actions.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219591 Mar 16, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no extraordinary claim.
It's an ordinary claim, that may seem extraordinary, to simple minded people, or those who have never really considered the decision making process in any detail.
So he was writing only to simple-minded people?

You can't spin this. Neither can Harris. He committed inadvertent honesty - he exposed his true sentiment for eliminating people of belief by killing them if necessary, even if no wrongful action is committed.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219592 Mar 16, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Kitzmiller vs Dover was the slam dunk that ID was a religious assertion. They took the book "Of Panda's and People, ironically published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, and changed every instance of Creator or creation with Intelligent Design. This was demonstrated in the word charts from Barbara Forrest's testimony that was done after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision. It proved to the courts of the religious origin of ID and showed what bald-faced liars the clown in Apologetics, Inc. are.
They wiped the floor with Behe and Dembski. Precipitously. How any clown can then even further claim that ID has nothing to do with religion, when for each clown it points to the god they have created in their own image, is even more ridiculous. It is incredible how much the religionista have to lie for their immoral dogma.
It's all here you religious liars.
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/11798
"They wiped the floor with Behe and Dembski."

Dembski wasn't there. Good indication of the accuracy of your remarks. Thanks.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219593 Mar 16, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, they didn't wipe the floor with Dembski...because Dembski refused to testify for the school board. Laughably, Dembski charged them for his time preparing to testify...even though he didn't testify.
But, yes, Behe was soundly embarrassed.
Yes, the Pandas and People testimony really did show the link between ID and creationism (not that you will ever get Buck to admit it). "Cdesign proponentists" says it all..the transitional fossil.
And then there is Judge Jones's comment on the attempts of the school board to inject ID..."breathtaking inanity".
That's the only phrase Judge Jones didn't plagiarize from ACLU shisters.

You forgot to mention Behe claiming astrology is science. If you're going to lie, Darwin's Dipshit, go all the way, man.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#219594 Mar 16, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I think these "Topix Atheists!" are just imaginary.
RR never seems to be talking about anyone in particular, or describing any actual group accurately.
I named the Topix Atheists! that say these crazy things.

You've made it to the list now...

http://m.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DVLL...

Those were all beliefs of the Topix Atheists!

You think E=MC2 disproves God.-ChristineM

You think you can remove a piece of a mousetrap and it's still a mousetrap.-IANS

You think the Pope is an atheist.-Wilderide

You think all people are atheists.-Wilderide

You think dinosaurs had no DNA.-blacklagoon

You claim to know the Bible better than Christians, but screw up the understanding of every single verse.-all Topix Atheists!

You claim to be atheists but claim to know that there is no God.-all Topix Atheists!

You claim to be agnostic but claim to know there is no God.-all Topix Atheists!

You have a hard time understanding the meanings of very basic words and post things like "define faith".-several Topix Atheists!, including karl

[NEW] Killing people for beliefs is an ordinary claim.-Tide

Did you see the "you Topix Atheists! are so fucking intelligent" part?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219595 Mar 16, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain what tactics are being used to impose evolutionary science that the religious eschew?
<quoted text>
Same question: Can you explain what tactics evolutionary science proponents are using to intimidate advocates of ID that the design proponents eschew?
Yes, I can.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#219596 Mar 16, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
Are you seriously this ignorant, that you don't even know your own stupid bullshyt?
SERIOUSLY?
Irreducible complexity claims that the item in question cannot be reduced, as the component parts have **NO FUNCTION**.{SNIP}
No it doesn't. Irreducible complexity means; "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

In other words, remove the spring of the mousetrap and you no longer have a functioning mousetrap.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#219597 Mar 16, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Nope. That was a display of intellectual dishonesty.
Look it up, then tell me you didn't have to.
IPSEC wrote:
Nope, I excerpted your work. Took it right out of context.
You twisted my post to give a misleading impression.

That's intellectual dishonesty, not an excerpt.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#219598 Mar 16, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>All those women and children, too? All the collateral damage? Every adult male in the vicinity? They all performed actions? Everyone guilty without a trial? No weapons of mass destruction under here, Brownie! We killed them for exactly what Harris was saying. Ideology. Consistently, I think it's disgusting across the board. Inconsistently, you cherry pick which idealogue you are going to stomp your feet and hold your breath about.
What the current and former Administrations do is equally vile, complaining meta data and basing drone strikes on such vague intelligence of a cell phone pinging in two or three coincidental households. Killing wantonly and indiscriminately for the exact reasons Harris spewed. It was wrong then. It is wrong now.
The US insures that every measure is taken to avoid any and all collateral damage.

Osama bin Laden was NOT killed for his beliefs, he was killed for his actions.

And typically, the women and children around him support him and train with him.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#219599 Mar 16, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on pure instinct-- not on design.
You are seriously a low-grade moron.
That's why they always build their dams in the shallowest and narrowest part of the stream/river?

Do you even know why they build their dams?

I bet a beaver can build a fan better than you.

http://ialwayswondered.jarrettgreen.com/wp-co...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219600 Mar 16, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
“We determined through public documents one science class is covering intelligent design in order to bash it. If they allow that, it’s tantamount to state endorsement of an anti-religious view.”- John West, Discovery Institute vice president concerning a course at Ball State University
<quoted text>
It sounds like West was trying to prohibit discussion of ID.
I don't know what happened in that classroom, but if ID is discussed at all in science classes, it should be criticized for being nonscientific, not for being religious.
It's no Peppered Moth warmed on a car hood and glued to a tree.

What West was addressing was people who want to have it both ways.

Is ID "non-scientific" when it agrees with mainstream science? I sense that it is only "non-scientific" when it departs from orthodoxy.

A stereotype is an uncritical judgement.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#219601 Mar 16, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Public safety is important, I agree. Rehabilitation doesn't work most of the time
Tide with Beach wrote:
Got any data to support that?
Yes. Prison only makes people angrier and teaches them how to be better criminals.

According to the National Institute of Justice, the number of Americans behind bars has increased for 37 years in a row.

California's Expert Panel on Rehabilitation found that California spent less than $3,000 per year, per inmate, on rehabilitation programs, and that 50 percent of all prisoners released the year before had not participated in a single program.

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that two-thirds of released prisoners are rearrested for at least one serious new crime, and more than half are re-incarcerated within three years of release.

However, rehabilitation does work some of the time, when implemented properly.

This is a very interesting read on prison stats and how certain rehabilitation techniques fail while others succeed:

http://nij.gov/journals/268/Pages/prison-bubb...

But keep in mind, rehabilitation only works if the person wants it to.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#219602 Mar 16, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
How much, in dollars, is a person's life worth?
On average, an inmate in the US costs taxpayers $23,000 a year.

So if you figure some schmuck that murdered his wife for cheating on him gets life in prison, her life's apparent worth is determined on the man's age and how long his life is.

Assume he kills her at 25 and lives until he's 70, in prison.

Then the dollar amount for a life is $1,035,000.

Or we can go to Home Depot, but a rope for $19.99 and reuse it on every scumbag murderer like him.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#219603 Mar 16, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I agree that some cons see prison as a vacation,
Tide with Beach wrote:
Some don't. Therefor, we shouldn't even consider that aspect one way or another.
It HAS to be considered.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

I've witnessed that myself through coworkers in construction.
Tide with Beach wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is less than compelling.
You wouldn't be saying that had you the experience with ex-cons and cons the way I have.

RiversideRedneck wrote:
So why send them on vacation for life? I say put em down like a rabid dog.
Tide with Beach wrote:
This is what RR, a Christian said.
Obviously, I disagree.
I had two other questions. Should we just assume your answers?
An eye for an eye, bitch.

I answered your questions.

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) 3 hr Regolith Based Li... 78,489
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Science 1,322
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Science 32,431
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web