Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255314 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

#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

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184165 Nov 14, 2013
This one speaks to some issues raised here recently:

Dear Freethinkers:

The author of this article, published in the American Humanist Association's (AHA's) weekly Humanist Network News, is Treasurer of the AHA and also President of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. He suggests that atheists, or at least those atheists who identify themselves as humanists, should be more accepting of "the terminology of religion," and specifically "spirituallity." To my knowledge, "spirituality" is a supernatural phenomenon, as "spirit" surely is.(I think that Dawkins referred to that during his recent debate with Chropra.) If atheists accept the existence of the supernatural phenomenon of spirituality, why should they not accept the existence of other supernatural forces or entities: qui, karma, angels, demons, even dieties? I disagree strongly with the author's contention that "may God bless us" in the Franciscan prayer that he endorses adds nothing that would be worth stripping out. The phrase explicitly recognizes the existence of a god, belief in the existence of which is rejected by atheists for the simple reason that there is no evidence of his/hers/its existence.

The "embracing" of "spirituality" by the military that the author seems to endorse is why American Atheists and the Freedom from Religion Foundation have opposed the inclusion of "spiritual fitness" in the Army's fitness evaluation.(The remainder of his sentence is garbled, but I assume it is referring to the identification of spirituality with religious belief. His statement that "Neither the Naval Academy nor my own alma mater, West Point, have any reference to a higher power" makes no sense to me.)

Finally, the author's reference to atheists not rejecting "a fun time on Sunday morning simply because Christians also do it" has nothing whatever to do with his contention that atheists should be more open to religious language.

I do not find the suggestion made in this article rational or meaningful. That the "humanism" represented by the AHA seems to be becoming steadily more "religious" is why I cannot identify myself as a "humanist," but only as a "secular humanist" as represented by the Council for Secular Humanism.

What do you think"

Ken C
LCNLin

United States

#184166 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
"My definition is in fact correct..." ;-)
Alas you seem a legend in your own mind?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#184167 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Via esoteric sophistry.

Aligning the molecules to make changes is quite a task.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184168 Nov 14, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Most atheists ive ever met unequivocally assert there is no God, not, I think theres no God maybe there is.
Atheism is a disbelief OR a lack of belief in deities.

Everyone lacks belief in deities so we are all technically atheists, except those who cling to a belief in the tribal Jewish deity.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184170 Nov 14, 2013
"There is no Big Brother in the sky. It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who owns us, who makes us, who supervises us waking and sleeping, who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought crime, thought crime - just for what we think, who can judge us while we sleep for things that might occur to us in our dreams, who can create us sick (as apparently we are) and then order us on pain of eternal torture to be well again. To demand this, to wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave. It is a wonderful thing, in my submission, that we now have enough information, enough intelligence, and - I hope - enough intellectual and moral courage to say that this ghastly proposition is founded on a lie, and to celebrate that fact, and I invite you to join me in doing so." Another, Christopher Hitchens quote
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#184171 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So I presume you are talking about number 1, were something actually changes from on form to another as in Whales.

The closest living relative to Whales is the Hippo, though it is NOT the ancestor to the Whale. I guess you would agree that a Whale looks and acts nothing like a hippo, yet they are connected. Both evolved separately.

Pakicetus was the first whale but were typically LAND MAMMALS. Further along the evolutionary trail Ambulocetus developed a more aquatic lifestyle. Fossil records show the nostrils moving back toward the head, from Artiocetus to Prozeuglodus.

ALL whales demonstrate land mammal characteristics especially in moving through the water. They move with an up and down motion, flexing their spines as would a running land mammal.

So here we have an example of something changing from on form to another.

Of course you're wrong once again, there are numerous examples of breeding pairs where their offspring have evolved different characteristics over many generations.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#184172 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>**PORTIONS DELETED**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.
.. when the negative ego is in charge, you do not have thoughts, the thoughts have you hence a defensive emotional response is triggered ..
Bongo

United States

#184173 Nov 14, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a disbelief OR a lack of belief in deities.
Everyone lacks belief in deities so we are all technically atheists, except those who cling to a belief in the tribal Jewish deity.
So, its soup and salad not soup OR salad?
Bongo

United States

#184174 Nov 14, 2013
spudgun wrote:
"There is no Big Brother in the sky. It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who owns us, who makes us, who supervises us waking and sleeping, who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought crime, thought crime - just for what we think, who can judge us while we sleep for things that might occur to us in our dreams, who can create us sick (as apparently we are) and then order us on pain of eternal torture to be well again. To demand this, to wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave. It is a wonderful thing, in my submission, that we now have enough information, enough intelligence, and - I hope - enough intellectual and moral courage to say that this ghastly proposition is founded on a lie, and to celebrate that fact, and I invite you to join me in doing so." Another, Christopher Hitchens quote
This incredulous rebel cant handle the fact that he is created and anything he says or does may be used against him. Its no big brother, its a Father, who has a plan and forgives those who submit to him. The ones who don't, well, that's foreboding.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#184175 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Like an attorney or a pastor?
Or a catcher instead of a pitcher?
~sniggers
<quoted text>
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Like an attorney or a pastor?
Or a catcher instead of a pitcher?
~sniggers
You are such a clever boy.
Bongo

United States

#184176 Nov 14, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Via esoteric sophistry.
Aligning the molecules to make changes is quite a task.
Nothing like a nice lunch time apophthegm.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#184177 Nov 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
NightSers also once gave us a beautiful definition of skepticism.
I'll try to find it, but my skills are meagerer than yourne.
Even with my limited technical skills, I FOUND IT!!

NightSerf on skepticism:

I can't speak for other atheists, but I try to use words as precisely as I can, at least within my own frame of reference. For me, God, gods and goddesses are mythical/fictional characters in books (or Books) that some believe also exist in the physical world. Within the context of those stories, they are just a real as Luke Skywalker is within the context of a Star Wars movie, and when I'm reading a book or watching a movie, TV show, or play, they are real for me, too because I engage in a deliberate suspension of disbelief to enhance my enjoyment. But when I leave the theater or turn off the tube, or even become distracted by something real-world, that suspension ends.

I think that we begin life in a similar condition. In children we call uncritical acceptance of new ideas innocence, in adults gullibility. That's the quality that allows people to have faith in all sorts of ideas, not just religion: we believe because we want to, not because the evidence is compelling, and then search for evidence to support our beliefs.

We all begin life doing that, atheists, too. But some of us discount contradictory evidence when we encounter it and some of us question our beliefs: we become skeptics. Again, this applies to all beliefs, not just religion.

The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling. That leads to a consideration of the nature of evidence, i.e., what is compelling and what is not, which in turn leads to questions about derivation and methodology.

The further we go on the path of skeptical analysis, the more we separate ourselves from the mainstream culture that operates with a different balance between skepticism and faith. Religion is the place where these differences clash most severely because religious people us their reasoning skills only to defend their beliefs, never to question or reevaluate them.

From an ideological perspective, we atheists and skeptics are an alien culture to the theists. They make feeble attempts to understand us only for the purpose of refuting us, even trying to persuade us to return to their systems of faith. They try to imagine what could cause someone to turn away from their faith, but their imaginations fall so far short of the reality that their suppositions say more about them than about us.

This is not likely to change. Skepticism cannot be taught--trying to do so would only create people who believe in skepticism but don't know how to practice it. So the basic argument between skeptics and believers will go on as long as humanity endures even if the beliefs about which we argue change.

Welcome to skepticism, gang, and fasten your safety belts. It's going to be a bumpy flight.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#184178 Nov 14, 2013
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.
Who here would in your view qualify as an "open-minded inquirer"?
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#184179 Nov 14, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong again, I use to do all the tun ups on my cars, gapping the points, plugs, flushing the radiators in the fall, changing batteries when necessary. I do most of the maintenance on the boat, change the oil and mist the engine, pull out the marine batteries and store them, flush the water out of the system, and lube the roto-furl on the jib.
I'l bet you can't play a lydian b7 scale in the key of Gb.
In the ole days we all had to do tune ups on our vehicles. Setting the points and timer. With fuel injection and computer controlled systems it’s a rarity now.

Now about flushing that radiator. I hope you don’t use those flushing agents. Because inevitably they cause the seals to go out on your water pump. I’m a firm believer nothing but distilled water and antifreeze should ever go into a radiator.

I’m totally illiterate when it comes to music. My wife played the trumpet in school and my son teaches music. I know it takes thousands of hours to be proficient with the trumpet. Then one must keep their armature in shape to maintain proficiency.

My expertise is much different than yours Doctor. And thankfully those days of working with class “A” poisons is behind me now. We have had some commonality in our trades. Monel Alloy used in your trumpet valves was extensively used in the Chemical industry. Especially where Chlorine was used.

Do you ever play the flugelhorn?

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#184180 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If Hiding saw this post of yours, you'd catch it big time, dude.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184181 Nov 14, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a disbelief OR a lack of belief in deities.
Everyone lacks belief in deities so we are all technically atheists, except those who cling to a belief in the tribal Jewish deity.
Wrong.

"Disbelief" is a belief.

Everyone who lacks belief in deities is not an atheist.

In fact, someone who simply "lacks belief" is not an atheist.

He could be an agnostic, a verificationist, or in a coma.

An atheist believes there are no deities. None.

LCNLin

United States

#184182 Nov 14, 2013
"There is no Big Brother in the sky...." LOL

Always amused by UK atheists, agnostics if they think about it?, lecturing Americans
while the House of Lords
has Bishops of the Church of England.

Amusing

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) 5 min Brian_G 31,358
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min ChristineM 13,311
News Why I quit atheism 3 hr Aerobatty 1
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 8 hr ChristineM 19,907
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 12 hr ChristineM 9,738
Majority of Scots now have no religion 15 hr Eagle 12 9
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 15 hr Eagle 12 4,352
More from around the web