Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Jul 18, 2009 Read more: Webbunny tumblelog 237,807
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. Read more

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#231620 Jul 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, Reason Personified'???
Do you understand how far you are from that? If you fell from your ego to your IQ, YOU'D DIE!!!
A core truth of Christianity is that faith is expressed by action.
You top off your ignorance about that, by equating a Christian to Jewish doctrine. Deceitfully distorted at that!!!
Congratulations, you scored a perfect 'rational atheist' oxymoron!
Smirk.
We get it. Christains don't do biblical. They can't, they don't know it. And Christains don't do the god of Abraham, you know the one? You probably call him Jehovah, but he was Yahweh first, Jehovah next then he allowed Mohammed to resurrect him as Allah. If you knew any of them you'd know that to disobey is death, and all of them are the same one.

Somehow I know without doubt that you obey none of the three heads of your god. Do you? Are you female? Would you or your husband be punished if your god laid you out in the street to be humped by the man next door? If you are a female, you are a thing, a possession, something a man owns and the husband would be, the one punished if his possession were dirtied by the gods command.

Don't you wish you were capable of insulting me?

BTW: That faith expressed action is anything but biblical right?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#231621 Jul 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And here is my response on a site for 'rational atheist' oxymorons:
Quit playing the silly blonde games.
1. I quoted Katz quoting "Perrin du Lac's report of his travels in Louisiana and among the Natives of Missouri, Ohio, and the bordering areas (1801-03)", an original source from a site listing original sources.
2. Of course 'transgendered' didn't exist as a word then. Worse than that, they weren't even recording in English. The point is, they described transgendered behavior.
Are you really insinuating that orientations were different then?
3. I have never claimed 'two spirit' is an accurate translation. The literal translation is 'man-woman'. We use the term 'transgendered'.
4. We are not discussing cultural expressions of orientation, you claimed a distorted picture of how LGBT was experienced in American Indian cultures. I called you on it with a quote from the original written accounts.
Man up honey.
Smile.
1. "original site" means nothing. You quote from a tertiary source - that means you didn't read even the secondary source, so you're quote is out of context. You don't have the faintest clue as to what the secondary source (Katz) said about the primary source. I do, since I've read the book. He put the source into social and historical context. Additionally, you completely ignored the ethnography (Whitehead) of North American Native groups that I posted to you, which goes into much more detail than Katz.

So, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You found a paragraph on the issue, without explanation or interpretation, and are pretending you know something. Well done.

2. For some reason, you're failing to understand what "cultural context" means. Additionally, you're failing to understand how a 21st century English word, used in America to describe contemporary sex, gender and sexuality cannot be applied to non-English, non-Western, non-European cultural groups that existed in the past.

Since I've explained this repeatedly to you, either I'm doing a poor job of explaining or you simply cannot understand. You are being a) anachronistic and b) expressing naive realism. Look those words up.

3. The literal translation of which word? Each cultural group had a different word to describe their 3rd and 4th genders. Additionally, English only recently contains words to describe genders not of 'man' and 'woman'- and, since English speaking culture does gender in a binary, the only way it can make sense of non-binary genders is using descriptors that place them in the middle of two somehow.

So, even if you're correct here, which I have yet to see, it completely and utterly makes sense that English would use a word that denotes "between our two genders" like man-woman. However, that would not and possibly could not express how Native Americans would have thought of their third and fourth genders.

Again, read Whitehead, Katz in his entirety, Foucault and Greenberg. I can supply you with endless sources on this topic.

4. Sex, gender, sexuality, and sexual identity are done differently in different cultures. They are, in the words of one anthropologist, "non-translatable." You are totally incorrect, both in your naive critique of presuming that your culture's version of sexuality is a human universal (it's not) and your naive critique of my writing.

Your culture's sexuality is not a human universal. There were no homosexuals in Native American cultures. Homosexuals are a 20th century Western cultural sexual identity. People who engaged in same sex sexual behavior, even in Western culture, prior to the 19th centuries were not homosexuals.

You, naively assuming that all other cultures are repeating your worldview, your "ways of knowing gender," will fail to understand this.

Had you actually read Katz you'd already understand this.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#231622 Jul 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Of course they/we do.
However, the point of the quote is that the Indians in that culture 'scorned' the behavior and horribly abused LGBT's.
Because a person from European culture said so, despite the fact that everything articulated in that paragraph was from a biased point of view that could not encapsulate how Natives actually thought?

Again - naive realism.
Here is the bottom line. Homosexuals are desperate to find a culture that completely embraced them. In all of human history, every culture most often didn't. They saw it as an aberration of nature.
I should tell you about the Etoro next.

I have no doubt that your religion will prevent you from understanding them as well.
Why are homosexuals afraid to admit that homosexuality is a sexual birth defect? Transgendered people already do.
Because it's not. Almost all primate species demonstrate same sex sexual behavior. The behavior is phylogenetically old. It predates humans.

Why are you religious people so bigoted?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#231623 Jul 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Perrin du Lac's report of his travels in Louisiana and among the Natives of Missouri, Ohio, and the bordering areas (1801-03), mentions "men dressed in women's clothes," who, along with prisoners, perform the "humiliating task" of serving at Native ceremonies. He later, adds: "In all the savage nations, there exist men who dress in women's clothes and who are subject to the same work as they are. They engage in neither war nor hunting, but, depending on the circumstances, are used to satisfy the brutal passion of either sex. These men, whose love of idleness and whose abominable depravity lead them to take up this kind of life, are scorned by the braves, who allow them to perform only the lowest kinds of work. Do they go hunting? If they are taken along, it is only to watch over the horses, to skin or carry the pelts of game that are killed, to carry the meat, cut the wood, light the fire, and, in the absence of women, to satisfy a brutal passion abhorrent to nature""
http://www.outhistory.org/exhibits/show/nativ ...
<quoted text>
Of course they/we do.
However, the point of the quote is that the Indians in that culture 'scorned' the behavior and horribly abused LGBT's.
Here is the bottom line. Homosexuals are desperate to find a culture that completely embraced them. In all of human history, every culture most often didn't. They saw it as an aberration of nature.
Why are homosexuals afraid to admit that homosexuality is a sexual birth defect? Transgendered people already do.
Interpretation based on western christian mores at best, certainly not a scientific study and therefore a waste of time really. From what I know of American Indian culture (which having read a couple of books (scientific studies) on the culture is probably quite a lot by European standards) and from the 2 native Americans I personally know, homosexuality is nothing to get excited about, the heemaneh is revered in Cheyenne culture.

Wrong, many cultures up to the advent of the abrahmic religions (originally christianity and later Islam) considered homosexuality to be normal.

What is really funny is that pew have done research into society and homosexuality. It turns out that 60%(up 10% in 5 years) of Americans asked accept that homosexuality should be accepted in America while 33% said that it should not,
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-globa...
What’s it like to be a member of a shrinking minority?

Also funny that the ‘world wide’ survey shows those most opposed to homosexuality are muslim countries. Have you bought your Jellabiya yet?

Homosexuality is a birth defect in the same way being black or white, male or female or ‘normal’ are birth defects. Every single human being is born different from every other human being. I know that people like you like to flock together with “your type” but even each one of your lot is different. The Kinsey scale (look it up) suggest that around 10% of the population are completely heterosexual, the other 90% show some degree of gender ambiguity.
There is one (ONE) study that says brain makeup in (some) homosexuals leans more to the other gender. So your saying that being male is a birth defect? Female?

Some homosexuals are afraid to ‘come out’ because of intolerant hateful a$$holes like you

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231624 Jul 2, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Total, unfiltered BS from BC, Buck Crick.
Not true. I filtered it myself.

I'm sorry it falls short of the mental flopsum you imbibe and puke for us.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231625 Jul 2, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
I see Buck is back telling the same old lies.
Must be out of solitary.
Bars cannot hold my mind.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231626 Jul 2, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. "original site" means nothing. You quote from a tertiary source - that means you didn't read even the secondary source, so you're quote is out of context. You don't have the faintest clue as to what the secondary source (Katz) said about the primary source. I do, since I've read the book. He put the source into social and historical context. Additionally, you completely ignored the ethnography (Whitehead) of North American Native groups that I posted to you, which goes into much more detail than Katz.
So, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You found a paragraph on the issue, without explanation or interpretation, and are pretending you know something. Well done.
2. For some reason, you're failing to understand what "cultural context" means. Additionally, you're failing to understand how a 21st century English word, used in America to describe contemporary sex, gender and sexuality cannot be applied to non-English, non-Western, non-European cultural groups that existed in the past.
Since I've explained this repeatedly to you, either I'm doing a poor job of explaining or you simply cannot understand. You are being a) anachronistic and b) expressing naive realism. Look those words up.
3. The literal translation of which word? Each cultural group had a different word to describe their 3rd and 4th genders. Additionally, English only recently contains words to describe genders not of 'man' and 'woman'- and, since English speaking culture does gender in a binary, the only way it can make sense of non-binary genders is using descriptors that place them in the middle of two somehow.
So, even if you're correct here, which I have yet to see, it completely and utterly makes sense that English would use a word that denotes "between our two genders" like man-woman. However, that would not and possibly could not express how Native Americans would have thought of their third and fourth genders.
Again, read Whitehead, Katz in his entirety, Foucault and Greenberg. I can supply you with endless sources on this topic.
4. Sex, gender, sexuality, and sexual identity are done differently in different cultures. They are, in the words of one anthropologist, "non-translatable." You are totally incorrect, both in your naive critique of presuming that your culture's version of sexuality is a human universal (it's not) and your naive critique of my writing.
Your culture's sexuality is not a human universal. There were no homosexuals in Native American cultures. Homosexuals are a 20th century Western cultural sexual identity. People who engaged in same sex sexual behavior, even in Western culture, prior to the 19th centuries were not homosexuals.
You, naively assuming that all other cultures are repeating your worldview, your "ways of knowing gender," will fail to understand this.
Had you actually read Katz you'd already understand this.
Could you please make your responses longer and more inane?

I'm pulling 6 more months of home incarceration, and I have all this time on my hands.

I think if I could read a couple more of these gems you write, I would be driven to hack-sawing my ankle bracelet off - leg and all.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231627 Jul 2, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Because a person from European culture said so, despite the fact that everything articulated in that paragraph was from a biased point of view that could not encapsulate how Natives actually thought?
Again - naive realism.
<quoted text>
I should tell you about the Etoro next.
I have no doubt that your religion will prevent you from understanding them as well.
<quoted text>
Because it's not. Almost all primate species demonstrate same sex sexual behavior. The behavior is phylogenetically old. It predates humans.
Why are you religious people so bigoted?
Resistance to homosexual behavior also pre-dates humans.

Why are you atheists so bigoted?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231628 Jul 2, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Interpretation based on western christian mores at best, certainly not a scientific study and therefore a waste of time really. From what I know of American Indian culture (which having read a couple of books (scientific studies) on the culture is probably quite a lot by European standards) and from the 2 native Americans I personally know, homosexuality is nothing to get excited about, the heemaneh is revered in Cheyenne culture.
Wrong, many cultures up to the advent of the abrahmic religions (originally christianity and later Islam) considered homosexuality to be normal.
What is really funny is that pew have done research into society and homosexuality. It turns out that 60%(up 10% in 5 years) of Americans asked accept that homosexuality should be accepted in America while 33% said that it should not,
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-globa...
What’s it like to be a member of a shrinking minority?
Also funny that the ‘world wide’ survey shows those most opposed to homosexuality are muslim countries. Have you bought your Jellabiya yet?
Homosexuality is a birth defect in the same way being black or white, male or female or ‘normal’ are birth defects. Every single human being is born different from every other human being. I know that people like you like to flock together with “your type” but even each one of your lot is different. The Kinsey scale (look it up) suggest that around 10% of the population are completely heterosexual, the other 90% show some degree of gender ambiguity.
There is one (ONE) study that says brain makeup in (some) homosexuals leans more to the other gender. So your saying that being male is a birth defect? Female?
Some homosexuals are afraid to ‘come out’ because of intolerant hateful a$$holes like you
Girls have an in-ee and boys have an out-ee.

They are complementary.

It's not my fault.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Camp Cove

#231629 Jul 2, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, well American culture, yes, but Western science in the form of medicine, sexology, economics, physics, military knowledge, that all came over with the ending of the Shogunate in 1868. Mind you, the science started coming in before that, in what's known as the "Bakufu era," beginning about 200 years earlier. That marked the expansion of Japanese education and sciences (largely based - maybe entirely based - on Chinese medicine and knowledge-production). By the end of the Bakufu period, there were various schools of thought espousing different "scientific" ways of thinking - but it was a poor importation of science. Each school tried to keep its knowledge secret, for example, but science works best when open.
Anyways, the fall of the Shogunate and the beginning of the Meiji era ushered in scientists and professionals from Europe. So the old systems were discarded in favor of then-contemporary science. That's what enabled Japan to become a dominate military force in Asia.
What the Americans really brought us after WWII was a constitution, democratic government, and end of theocracy and all kinds of legal reform - plus a competitive, market driven economy (and, shhhhhh, a high tech militar-ahem, defense force).
Interesting stuff.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Camp Cove

#231630 Jul 2, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I dealt with this on the other thread - the one for homosexuals.
Yes, and you gave him a real f**hag burn too.
:-)

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Camp Cove

#231631 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
--The historical record of killing for atheism is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity's worst year.
--There is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a substantial percentage of the population over which he rules.
--Atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.
Not Conservapedia, again!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231632 Jul 2, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Conservapedia, again!
Genetic fallacy, Blowsya.

But that's an improvement for you - using a legitimate fallacy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231633 Jul 2, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting stuff.
Thanks, Blosya.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#231634 Jul 2, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
That’s the buck we all know and loath (oops love, Freudian slip there )
<quoted text>
I’m pretty sure his internet privileges are determine by his behaviour, as to mental patient, I don’t really know, it’s a possibility. Alternatively he could very well be a run of the mill third time looser inmate incarcerated for assault and battery who has a tendency to lose control... Punishment includes no internet.
Both seem valid from what I know of him.
I get no sense of the criminal in his posts. The inability to differentiate reality from fantasy would indicate that he has mental illness or is a minor.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#231635 Jul 2, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>We get it. Christains don't do biblical. They can't, they don't know it. And Christains don't do the god of Abraham, you know the one? You probably call him Jehovah, but he was Yahweh first, Jehovah next then he allowed Mohammed to resurrect him as Allah. If you knew any of them you'd know that to disobey is death, and all of them are the same one.
Somehow I know without doubt that you obey none of the three heads of your god. Do you? Are you female? Would you or your husband be punished if your god laid you out in the street to be humped by the man next door? If you are a female, you are a thing, a possession, something a man owns and the husband would be, the one punished if his possession were dirtied by the gods command.
Don't you wish you were capable of insulting me?
BTW: That faith expressed action is anything but biblical right?
I'm a lesbian trapped in a straight man. Its hell for both of us.

Smile.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231636 Jul 2, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
I get no sense of the criminal in his posts. The inability to differentiate reality from fantasy would indicate that he has mental illness or is a minor.
I can easily differentiate reality from fantasy.

Reality is me whipping your ass. Fantasy is you thinking otherwise.

How's it going, Big Ben? Had a friend named Ben Adam. Lost touch when I went up.
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#231637 Jul 2, 2014
Ask Puck Frick about heirarchies of infinities, Puck is sure they don't exist.
Because god told him so.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Total, unfiltered BS from BC, Buck Crick.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231638 Jul 2, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Ask Puck Frick about heirarchies of infinities, Puck is sure they don't exist.
Because god told him so.
<quoted text>
Infinities do not exist; with or without heirarchies.

You can imagine infinities. You can even imagine heirarchies of infinities.

Great, if that's your thing.

But you should educate yourself enough to know it's an imaginary idea you're imagining.

I can't do everything for you, Tinkling.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#231639 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Girls have an in-ee and boys have an out-ee.
They are complementary.
It's not my fault.
So what’s your excuse when you are bending for that soap in the shower? Your in-ee gets lots of big, fat convict out-ee – right

Of course you black and white personal limitations make little difference to reality

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 The Consequences of Atheism 16 min thetruth 1,276
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min thetruth 18,544
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 32 min thetruth 2,017
News Confessions of a black atheist 34 min thetruth 343
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 36 min thetruth 14,574
News Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an a... 3 hr geezerjock 1
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 7 hr Thinking 24
More from around the web