Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256579 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

#184145 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The primary motive of such as is this course of mine is two-fold:

1. To expose the rampant, dishonest hypocrisy among atheists.(utilizing their own words in doing so)

2. To prevent any open-minded inquirer from buying the atheists' bull shit.

I'm surprised you didn't figure that out yourself, if your faculties for perception are near what you claim.

Anyways, the secret is out now.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#184146 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
It's NEVER a good idea to ask a question about a subject for which you know nothing about. My definition is in fact correct, maybe no as concise as it should be, but basically correct. Just for you, since you remain ignorant on the subject.

1.) The gradual process i which something changes into a different and usually more complex or "better" form. or

2.) The change in genetic composition of a population during successive generations.

Hereditary changes occurring over many generations does NOT happen by itself numbnuts, it is the process of evolution that is responsible for those changes.

Now, be a good little boy and run along, straight to the library and right to the section on evolutionary biology.

Next time you ask a question, educate yourself on the topic, it will make you look less stupid
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#184147 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How about this:
Gb Ab Bb C Db Eb Fb Gb
The lydian Gb is the major Gb scale with the 4th raised a half step, and the b7th variant brings the F down to a Fb. Playing in on guitar is more difficult than playing a major scale because of the frequent five fret spans in most positions, which is a reach for a pinkie not accustomed to it.
I used to know this stuff pretty well, but it's fading. I studied music formally for two years - Walter Piston harmony, the modes, figured bass, sight singing, dictation - you must know the drill better than I.
For dictation and sight singing, we used tricks to identify the intervals: the first two notes of Over The Rainbow make an octave, the first two notes of the Star Trek theme are a minor 7th, the first two notes of My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean are a major 6th, etc. If you weren't sure what you were hearing, you fell back on those.
I also studied music informally including jazz guitar in the seventies at Charlie Bird's studio in DC, and can still tell you the notes in any chord. It wasn't that I cared about the jazz, just that there were no rock guitar teachers to speak of then, and if you wanted to learn guitar, it was going to be stage band arrangements of Autumn Leaves and Stormy Weather, or songs like Goodbye Porkpie Hat and Green Dolphin Street. Charlie Bird's studio (I never met the man) emphaisized the music of Django and bossa nova.
But my passion was the Allman Brothers and the Grateful Dead. And to learn that, you needed to be able to transcribe chords and melodies from the record, which I learned to do by play along with the live recordings, and lifting and replacing the needle so often that you ruined your LPs and stylus doing it.
Did you hear about the man who was so despondent about not being able to remember the bridge to "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" that he jumped out of his third story Parisian apartment window? Unfortunately, the fall didn't kill him - it only paralyzed him. As he lay there motionless, listening to approaching sirens in the distance, it suddenly came to him.(That was the mnemonic for a minor 3rd, incidentally)
Very good, you get an A on your theory test. You're actually smarter than many of my students, LOL.

You forgot Maria from West Side Story for the augmented 4th. Unfortunately many of my student have no history of music, their history spans about 5 years, so they would not know about West Side Story or any of the tunes you mentioned.

Do you still play?
Thinking

Royston, UK

#184148 Nov 14, 2013
Even Lincunt disagrees with Buck, judging by his Dawkins spams.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Again, Bucky-boy, where's the contradiction??

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184149 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
I'm not prescribing.

You talk freely, and I freely point out your errors.

Remember, your ego is not your self. So when your errors are pointed out and it wounds your ego, it really doesn't change the self.

The ego is a product of thoughts. Your self is not.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#184150 Nov 14, 2013
OK, so you're just a cu*t then.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The primary motive of such as is this course of mine is two-fold:
1. To expose the rampant, dishonest hypocrisy among atheists.(utilizing their own words in doing so)
2. To prevent any open-minded inquirer from buying the atheists' bull shit.
I'm surprised you didn't figure that out yourself, if your faculties for perception are near what you claim.
Anyways, the secret is out now.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184151 Nov 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
OK, so you're just a cu*t then.
<quoted text>
He is IN a cult! lol

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184152 Nov 14, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>It's NEVER a good idea to ask a question about a subject for which you know nothing about. My definition is in fact correct, maybe no as concise as it should be, but basically correct. Just for you, since you remain ignorant on the subject.
1.) The gradual process i which something changes into a different and usually more complex or "better" form. or
2.) The change in genetic composition of a population during successive generations.
Hereditary changes occurring over many generations does NOT happen by itself numbnuts, it is the process of evolution that is responsible for those changes.
Now, be a good little boy and run along, straight to the library and right to the section on evolutionary biology.
Next time you ask a question, educate yourself on the topic, it will make you look less stupid
Oh, gee.

If I knew something about evolutionary biology, could I copy definitions straight from a web page like you?

Problem is BlankBufoon, you are still incorrect.

What you are describing is the result, known for ages, of breeding pairs over time producing offspring of the kind.

We have thousands of species to be accounted for.

Can you tell us, or find someone who can, what evolution is?

I can provide the actual process, as theorized, for you from my head, but I want to see if you can.

After all, you like to lecture people on science, right?

Please allow me to learn about science.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#184153 Nov 14, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>It's NEVER a good idea to ask a question about a subject for which you know nothing about. My definition is in fact correct, maybe no as concise as it should be, but basically correct. Just for you, since you remain ignorant on the subject.
1.) The gradual process i which something changes into a different and usually more complex or "better" form. or
2.) The change in genetic composition of a population during successive generations.
Hereditary changes occurring over many generations does NOT happen by itself numbnuts, it is the process of evolution that is responsible for those changes.
Now, be a good little boy and run along, straight to the library and right to the section on evolutionary biology.
Next time you ask a question, educate yourself on the topic, it will make you look less stupid
Your limited faculties prevent you from understanding that evolution is a result of a process, and not a process itself.

That means on the physical level evolution is caused, and there must be a mechanism for the causation and process that turns into that purely descriptive word you accept as some "natural" force or process.

Quit reading and start thinking to complete your education.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184154 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
..1. To expose the rampant, dishonest hypocrisy among atheists....
What? You have never noticed that Christians and Muslims on Topix spend their time bashing others and condemning each other to hell, whilst saying their religion is all about peace and love! THAT is hypocrisy.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184155 Nov 14, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
How many megaliths have you built today with your god-like powers? Erm, none I guess.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184156 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
To be skeptical simply means that you're not easily convinced and that you have doubts or reservations about something.
Not quite. The sine qua non of skepticism is the unwillingness to accept unsupported claims, but to question them and seek for evidence first. I could be easily convinced by evidence and still be skeptical.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
So you are skeptical of Santa Claus, that means you think he *may* be real, but you have your doubts....
You're a loon.
That's also incorrect. Skepticism isn't about feeling uncertain. It's the philosophical position that only reason and evidence determine what is true, not unsupported claims, secret knowledge or revealed truth.

I have no active (psychological) doubt about Santa's existence, but I am still a skeptic. My doubt is purely intellectual - understood by virtue of realizing the limits of knowing, but not felt. Descartes alluded to this distinction with his famous "I think, therefore I am," which was also his way of saying that nothing else can be certain, however certain it seems or feels, even the presence of external reality, the existence of which he didn't actively doubt any more than you or I, but which his perspicacious mind understood could not be confirmed by any method.

If you can understand the distinction between intellectual and psychological doubt, you will understand skepticism better. Remember, one is felt, the other only understood. Skepticism is about the latter, and about the need for empirical and/or logical evidence before claims are accepted.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184157 Nov 14, 2013
"Religion is not provided to us by revelation, it doesn't come from the heavens, it doesn't come from the beyond, it doesn't come from the divine. It's man-made. And it shows. It shows very well - that religion is created, invented, imposed by a species half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee."

Christopher Hitchens

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184158 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Would you please repeat that a few hundred more times? Maybe you'll eventually prevail in your quest to impose your preferences onto others. It's certainly worth the effort to keep trying rather than moving on.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184159 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

Skepticism isn't about feeling uncertain. It's the philosophical position that only reason and evidence determine what is true, not unsupported claims, secret knowledge or revealed truth.
That is not true at all.

Skepticism does not depend on what anyone uses for determinants of truth.

A skeptic could depend entirely on secret knowledge or revealed truth, and still be a skeptic.

An insane person could rely totally on voices in his head to determine truth. And until a particular proposition was revealed by the voices, he is a skeptic.

It is simply a state of withholding judgement.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#184160 Nov 14, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
How many megaliths have you built today with your god-like powers? Erm, none I guess.
I don't need megaliths to tap into the earth. You can use leverage when you understand the process.

You can tap into the earth, or you can tap into the heavens. Tapping into the heavens is safer. The difference is like modifying your boat in a stormy sea or doing it on the shore. But even safer still is letting the heavens do their thing and you go along for the ride.
Bongo

Jamaica, NY

#184161 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Is Buck snooling you? Being pragmatic, I think your description of rational skeptic/atheist is troubling. Most atheists ive ever met unequivocally assert there is no God, not, I think theres no God maybe there is.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184162 Nov 14, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your limited faculties prevent you from understanding that evolution is a result of a process, and not a process itself.
That means on the physical level evolution is caused, and there must be a mechanism for the causation and process that turns into that purely descriptive word you accept as some "natural" force or process.
Quit reading and start thinking to complete your education.
The problem with "evolution" is that it a contrived term.

It's primary purpose is a rhetorical one, serving as a propaganda tool to bolster a particular ideology.

RM + NS = DWM is the basic.

(random mutation plus natural selection equals descent with modification)

No informed person resists this as "evolution".

But then the informed person, by association, is supposed to accept a more God-like power quality such as universal common descent, or that this God-like propensity for design and execution is purely accidental, and if that nucleotide tries long enough, it has to get it right.

No. One claim is modest and scientific. The other is tentative.

Some people like to control the knowledge template.

Bongo

Jamaica, NY

#184163 Nov 14, 2013
spudgun wrote:
"Religion is not provided to us by revelation, it doesn't come from the heavens, it doesn't come from the beyond, it doesn't come from the divine. It's man-made. And it shows. It shows very well - that religion is created, invented, imposed by a species half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee."
Christopher Hitchens
poppycock,pure poppycock

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184164 Nov 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Check out Sanderson Jones and his project in England
What I found in my cursory search was a comedian with a satirical church. His meetings would be productive it he (and his associate Pippa) were doing most of the speaking.

What I meant by meetings was something more like the Freethinkers and Rationalists clubs whose meetings I have been attending for about 16 and 8 month respectively, which meetings I am presently weaning myself from, something I prefer to do gradually and respectfully given the relatively small size of my community, and the likelihood that I will interact with some of these people in other contexts over the years.

Even though the meetings are boring and the conversations as unproductive as one of Bucks hunkering paroxysms, belonging to these groups and receiving their emails is not. It's just the meetings and the tendency to speakers to wander, speak inarticulately, and interrupt one another that makes them a waste.

Since they are handy and might be of interest to this audience as well, I'll share two of those emails - the second in the next post - in my inbox now (which also contained a nice letter from you to which I have just responded). This first one may inflame Buck, who is a David Barton fan, so be forewarned, Buckie ol' boy:

Estimados Amigos,

Lord help us!– if I may use an old Southern expression. The conservative compulsion to make stuff up is just astonishing. Benjamin Carson, an acknowledged expert in his field of medicine, feels completely free to wander off into biology, geology, economics, and history and make proclamations that only a fool would make.

But David Barton? He's an expert in nothing, and a fool in everything. He has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of history, even though he calls himself a historian. Glenn Beck calls him an expert historian, too. But the Bible publisher, Nelson Publishing, pulled his history on Jefferson, because it was too full of historical error. Barton celebrated Veteran's Day by claiming that the Bible rules out any possibility of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD. My problem with him is that I have personally known of at least two cases. David Barton needs to get out more.

Barton proves there can be no such thing as PTSD from Numbers 32:22, because soldiers "shall return and be guiltless before the Lord." For Barton, this is the definitive word on the subject.

Clearly, fools in America have equal and indiscriminate access to the media. That's because they have an audience.

Federico

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
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 4 min Eagle 12 772
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 6 min Eagle 12 21,209
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 12 min IB DaMann 18,617
A Universe from Nothing? 21 min u196533dm 558
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 27 min IB DaMann 43,340
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 1 hr IB DaMann 467
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 hr IB DaMann 4,827
More from around the web