Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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

#184125 Nov 14, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Hereditary changes in a population over many generations, Glad I could help with your education. Let me know if there is anything else I can clear up for you.
Pfffftttt!

That is incorrect.

That is not evolution. Hereditary changes occur over generations without evolution.

In fact, there is absolutely no way to avoid it.

If that were the correct answer, there would be no controversy anywhere about evolution.

The Pope, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell would agree with your definition.

To you, it is the most important FACT in all of history - AND YOU CAN'T EVEN SAY WHAT IT IS!
Thinking

Royston, UK

#184126 Nov 14, 2013
You are wrong.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not my logic. It is logic.
To claim to be an atheist, then claim to treat god-claims with "skepticism" is a fundamental self-contradiction.
To the atheist, a god-claim is an absurdity.
To do so is not a rationally skeptical position, but it is the position of the atheist.
Some of you just want to have it both ways.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184127 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you know about that subject? Reality is not related to your psychological needs, and is not determined by how good an idea makes you feel.
What feedback mechanisms do you have to assess the accuracy of your speculations apart from the ridicule of Topix posters, which you are free to disregard?
Validation of any idea scientific idea eventually has to come from physical evidence properly regarded, meaning experimentation performed, repeated, and evaluated by a body of experts who are largely in agreement, and then eventually used to advance technological in a way that allows man to predict and in some cases control nature a little better because of the idea.
That is how the laws of physics, chemistry and biology are determined, not by insufficiently educated amateurs free to idly speculate about whatever pleases them in isolation. You have no feedback from reality - neither from nature, nor the scientific community - to guide or correct you, and therefore no basis upon which to claim that your speculations are any more valid than their opposites.
All you can do is spin, make unsupported claims, and criticize those that don't affirm you.
Is that why climate scientists lied about their global warming data and skewed reports?

Is that what they considered as evidence being "evaluated and properly regarded"?

Because to some, it was more like evidence being stuffed down a dust crack so they could get more funding by being on the politically-correct side of science.

I'm just saying - some would take hiding one's data and lying about it that way.

Have scientists found out if eggs are good for me or not yet?

They've been around a long time.(both eggs and scientists)
LCNLin

United States

#184128 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Rejecting god-claims does not make one an atheist.
Atheism is a position that supercedes the credibility of claims. Credibility is suspended.
That's why an atheist cannot be a skeptic.
Some just want to have it both ways.
Agnostic is now Richard Dawkins position.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184129 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You were accurate in part of your forecast. I do regard Dave's musing as gibberish, not insight, and for the reasons just given.
But not your support of it. That is not gibberish. That is something entirely different. Unlike Dave, you know what you are doing.
This is similar to my assessment of Riverside Redneck's attempt to the use of language and your own. He is unaware of what the people that taught him that material are looking to accomplish with those arguments, but you are not.
I have no surprise that you view Dave's comments as gibberish.

I don't hold it against you, not that you would care.

What is it that makes one person interpret a point of view as profound, and another dismiss it as white noise?

I have seen it numerous times.

I think the cause for the disconnect is something neither of us fully understand.

Now you may proceed to ridicule.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184130 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
..Because to some, it was more like evidence being stuffed down a dust crack so they could get more funding by being on the politically-correct side of science.
I think you have a point there. Many in big business and scientists employed use climate change scare tactics to get more funding, more money and guarantee more work. It comes down to money.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184131 Nov 14, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
..the desire for vengeance and the proclivity to divide and separate is part and parcel of Topix ..
.. if there's a better way, we must find it through each other ..
Yes there is a better way, its called atheism.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184132 Nov 14, 2013
Just some thoughts on the reasons why people believe what they do

* personal experience

* beliefs can be comforting, consoling

* to give meaning

* just becuase

* upbringing / environment

* fear of the unknown

I think all of these are a factor in the political and religious beliefs of people.

However upbringing and the environment are probably most important.

Free thinking people have the ability to question what they were taught and to think for themselves, to question and form beliefs based on evidence and reasoning.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#184133 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
But I am, and as the only one of the two of us able to define the term, I can tell you that it is you that has the closed mind despite it also being indiscriminate and undisciplined. Opening it to indiscriminate nonsense does not constitute an open mind.
And on that subject, I just want to advise you that if you are going to be channeling telluric currents, recall that they enter you through your seated ass and travel upward toward that marvelous mind of yours, meaning that you need to exercise adequate precautions and provide your head with adequate grounding, preferably made from tin or aluminum foil, and optimally fashioned into a the shape of cone in order to safely channel the currents up and out into space. Don't be alarmed if alien races or even gods receive your moonbeam broadcast and answer you back. It is to be expected.
:-)

You are exceptionally rational this morning. For you. More in the amusing range than the obnoxious one.

I have never seen God, IANS, even in my death experience. Have never heard him speak, or seen any identifiable manifestation of him. On the physical level I am just as blind as you are on that score.

But I have deduced a higher intelligent force from following the laws of physics, both the official, and my own experiments. I was trained and developed in the skills of following schematics, none of which have magic beginnings and endings to them. I became aware of a different perspective of viewing EM that followed the same laws and accomplished the same effects,and I pursued following that schematic with this new perspective. This energy source is the very basis of your existence. It is the knitter and animator of matter. We learned to use it, we didn't create it. We make machines to make machines that can make machines employing it. It is not much of a stretch to deduce we were in turn created in a similar fashion. There is a master engineer behind our very being.

Your ego precludes acceptance of such as you would like to fancy yourself as a creator.

In my experiments I found I could draw that force out of the ground and wrap it up. It became an invisible entity. I also disassembled it, and it didn't go with out a fight. This was the same technology employed by the megalith builders and their religion. They just had a different perspective and term of what the energy was. If you get within the influence of those devices on the macro scale you can get a religious experience. There is a difference between experiencing the magnetic force when you are holding it in your hand and manipulating things and when you are the one being held in its hand. It can rattle your cage.

You read about the magnetosphere and electrodynamics of the earth, but they are just remote things viewed that way. They become simple rationalizations in your mind. But you need to understand they are what created you physically. You are the light bulb in that flashlight.

The earth is very polar in its construction. As far as electricity and magnetism go all you have to do is take a step and you have a potential difference between locations. Each minute change in latitude changes your magnetic potential. From your feet down towards the core you have a constantly changing potential of that force. You can tap into it and draw it to the surface. Plus you have lots of electricity flowing and plasma floating around. Simple electrical and magnetic technology. You just need a different perspective to understand something.

Excuse the editing of your post to allow space for this response.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184134 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what "made in His image" means. Don't forget petty, petulant, vindictive, narcissistic, raging, vengeful, capricious, mendacious and sadistic. We inherited that baggage as well.
Yes, we inherited those traits from God, but we also inherited love, compassion, kindness, empathy, etc.

It all depends on how you use what you've got.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184135 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
To claim to be an atheist, then claim to treat god-claims with "skepticism" is a fundamental self-contradiction. To the atheist, a god-claim is an absurdity. To do so is not a rationally skeptical position, but it is the position of the atheist. Some of you just want to have it both ways.
I see that you're still trying to impose your preferred definition of atheism on people that don't meet it yet choose to call themselves atheists anyway. You've already expressed this opinion repeatedly, and probably will many more times.

I've asked you before what you think you might be accomplishing with this. Your answer usually takes the form of some commitment to truth or accuracy, but that's not credible, as we both know that even if you were correct, you've already done whatever amount of that is possible for you to do, and to continue for as long as you have must meet some other need.

I can't imagine what that would be if not the need to be argumentative or the urge to exert some kind of influence that you do not have.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184136 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I can, but that's because I don't accept your definition of atheist.
I am an atheist that acknowledges the logical possibility of gods because I don't know how to exclude it if it is impossible.
I also believe that it may be possible to someday show that gods are impossible, whether by a logical argument, a mathematical argument, or empirical evidence. But not today, which makes me an agnostic.
I also reject all god claims to date, which makes me an atheist. My worldview is godless.
It's not my definition, IANS. It's THE definition.

Why do you atheists always try to change the meaning of words to suit your own desires?

An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

An agnostic is a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

One cannot be both.

You cannot be both.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184137 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand what skepticism is. It's not the emotional experience of uncertainty. It's an intellectual perspective and a method of processing claims that asks you to question what you would have accepted without doubt otherwise.
So yes, skeptics have skepticism for claims of Santa as they do for all claims, something they probably lacked as small children if accepted claims about Santa uncritically.


If you're skeptical of Santa then you could believe that Santa is real - given the proper evidence.

That evidence cannot and does not exist, there is nothing to be skeptical of.

Are you skeptical of Harry Potter? Star Trek? Days Of Our Lives?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184138 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's it proof.
For all I know, you're talking and someone else is typing.
Or maybe you have Siri typing for you..,
Prove you have hands.
ChristineM wrote:
So you are calling me a liar, how pathetic.
No, I'm being skeptical...
Who is Siri? And where does Siri live? Perhaops Siri has extremely long fingers but that does not show that I am a liar.
And you believe in a god with no proof whatsoever – go figure
Who is Siri?! Where do you live, the 1990s?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184139 Nov 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever turns you on –anyway if you threw up then at least your kids can eat tonight
You'd feed your kids puke?

Please tell me you're not a mother...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184140 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who wanted to be atheist, but also wanted to claim to be a rational skeptic.
Kinda' like calling yourself a vegetarian, but hanging out with they guys and eating barbecued moose.
"Having it both ways"
"Having your cake and eating it, too"
"Shit or get off the pot"
(Actually, I boned two sisters - Kate and Edith.)
I had my Kate and Edith too.
I didn't.

I just shit.

Not whilst on the pot...

Suffice it to say, Mrs RR was pissed about the mess she hadda clean up.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184141 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Like an attorney or a pastor?
Or a catcher instead of a pitcher?
~sniggers
Catcher1 wrote:
What?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Like an attorney or a pastor?
Or a catcher instead of a pitcher?
~sniggers

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#184142 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not my logic. It is logic.
To claim to be an atheist, then claim to treat god-claims with "skepticism" is a fundamental self-contradiction.
To the atheist, a god-claim is an absurdity.
To do so is not a rationally skeptical position, but it is the position of the atheist.
Some of you just want to have it both ways.
Again, Bucky-boy, where's the contradiction??

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184143 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I didn't have to look the word up to know you were wrong in your usage. You were discussing philosophical issues, and used "ego" as "self". Philosophy recognizes these as separate concepts, and such a discussion is gibberish if the distinction is not operative. The ego is the imagined image of how you and others see yourself. That is not "self", as it is used in the slang version you looked up and grasped at.
And here you go again, trying to impose not only preferred definitions on words, but also trying to limit the categories of thought free to me, and trying to categorize my usage as slang. This is why it is pointless to try to discuss issues with you when you hunker down into this mode. All that is left for me to do in such "conversations" is to characterize what you have done and speculate about your motives and urges.
Buck Crick wrote:
You can demean my claim, but following my prescription renders better communication than the nonsensical version you prefer.
You are not free to prescribe to me without my consent, and your choice to try to do so has cut off effective communication. As for demeaning, it is you that used the words "slang" and "nonsensical" with reference to me.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184144 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
To put it in terms, perhaps more familiar, you would not discuss the brain with a colleague and call it a "head".
That is irrelevant to what you are doing here.

If my colleague and I found that we were not using language the same way, and we were both reasonable people, we would define our usage and proceed, having restored effective communication in moments. If the colleague used the word "head" to describe what I call the brain as well as what I call the head, I would be alerted to the ambiguity when he used the word, and could ask him which of his definitions he was intending whenever it wasn't clear. I might even ask him if he used the word "head" to mean mind, as in "Get out of my head." It wouldn't be a stumbling block at all. We wouldn't even need to agree on usage. It would be enough just to know what the other person means

If the colleague had your temperament, he would never get past arguing with me about usage even though he easily could in the manner I just described, and I would wonder as I do with you what psychological need was being met by getting mired down in something so meaningless rather than progressing on to discuss any of the thousands of ideas that could have been explored instead. Your choice to insist that others adopt your preferred definition and your preferred definition alone guarantees that the discussions will be sterile exercises.

I have to consider the possibility that that is what you intend, although I put that option low on my list. My guess is that you are manifesting some unwitting need and scratching an itch of some sort.

As I said, when you make this choice, you transform yourself from somebody with ideas to share to somebody useful only to study and evaluate, that is, from somebody with ideas to share to an interesting psychological phenomenon to observe. In the moments when you have transcend this counterproductive habit and discussed ideas rather than allowed meanings for the words that comprise them, there was effective communication and good feelings.

You should think about this.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 13 min yehoshooah adam 4,325
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr brenda6 899
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr John 32,291
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr 15th Dalai Lama 77,078
Atheists are subhuman filth that need to be exe... 13 hr Roec 1
Religion sux ? Tue Eagle 12 - 4
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... (Dec '16) Tue Frindly 291
More from around the web