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.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#184291 Nov 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
The only saving grace about all this? Is that the universe is nearly unimaginably huge.
And that creates (as far as we know now) insurmountable barriers between the various islands of life (planets).
It's almost like the "the floor is lava" game we played as kids-- only instead of lava, it's huge, vast distances.
I do hope we are wrong about that, though-- it'd be cool if there was a way to traverse the gulf between planets.
.. within the next 15-25 years, I think science will solve the mystery of time and humans will be capable of traversing the planes ..

.. do you think time is linear ??..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184292 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
Dear Freethinkers:
You should freethink this way.
What do you freethink?
I hope you liked that.

Perhaps you can imagine the feedback I got from emailing that material to about 200 people, people that haven't really examined spirituality properly. What do you think that ideas like mine and philhellene's (the video) mean to people that have allowed Christians to convince them that they are not spiritual because they reject the notion of a spirit world, and therefore have no claim the word?

My argument is that authentic spirituality belongs to us, not you. I say that we take it back, along with the moral high ground and the Christian claim to a superior understanding of what love is.

This is the kind of debate and discussion I like, not meetings.

Incidentally, I've just shared your reaction with them. I think it's good for all of us to know about one another. Many of them have little or no experience with Christians in informal conversation like this, and see only the output of the published apologists. They generally don't know how you misunderstand things like atheism, skepticism, and freethought, or how you mock them in your prejudice and ignorance.

Incidentally, that was all freethought - Ken's material, my response to it, and philhellene's ideas. Freethought need not be original to be freethought. It merely needs to be a departure from unexamined and generally accepted dogma.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184293 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh...
NightSerf:
The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling.
--
So NightSerf must not believe in dreams, emotions or intuition...
If he does, he's full of shit.
How is it that you've misunderstood even those simple and self-evident ideas?

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#184294 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Disbelief" is not "not believing", nor is it "believing not".
It is not that one does not believe.
It is a refusal or inability to believe.
Disbelief is not skepticism.
"Atheism" is not a position that the existence of gods is impossible.
Words mean things.
.. yes, words are important ..

.. if you say someone is dead, it can have a myriad of meanings. They may be physically, spiritually or intellectually dead ..

.. in America, an atheist may be described as someone who rejects the Abrahamic God ..

.. why is your interpretation of any word the correct one? I do not understand the logic. What does it accomplish ??..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184295 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Would you believe me if I told you I had a dream last night? Yes, you would. Without evidence to support it. Imagine that.
You don't seem to know what evidence is, or that your words are evidence of your intellect, character and disposition. There is ample evidence that you are honest except when cornered and trying to save face. You post many things that I know to be true, and others that I have read about because of your posting that confirmed that you were honest about those matters. I remember a post of yours on another thread about door hinges that caused me to read more about them:

Riverside Redneck: "Don't use self-closing hinges, they make the door slam. Instead, use a commercial door closer, it makes the door shut and latch without having to hear it slam."

So why wouldn't I believe you if you said you had a dream? As a skeptic, I have intellectual doubt: I realize that you may be lying. But I experience no psychological doubt about a mundane claim from a guy who is largely honest and has no apparent motive to be lying. That's all reason applied to evidence. It's how skeptics form opinions.

As I said, I think it's good for all of us to understand one another and how we think, both evidence based thinkers and faith based thinkers. Your opinions about me as an atheist, a skeptic, and a freethinker, and the way you come by them - your faith in the opinions of people that despise all of those things - is just as instructive.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184296 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Your kind seek to replace organized religion with organized unreligion.
Why is that better?
Why is secular government better than theocracy?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184297 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
That's because only one member of Dave's present audience is as smart as Dave. Dave's post to which I referred displays more insight into the nature of humanity than everything you learned in medical school, or even if you throw in all your humanist propaganda literature. His ability to experience and express it is the most impressive thing I've seen on Topix,...other than myself.
Do you really want to go there? I want to limit my insults of Dave to the occasions in which he chooses to insult me. This isn't one of them, so I probably won't argue with you about him except to say that if you take this position, you're not making either of you look any better.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184298 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Explain how the molecules get arranged to do their chemical thing. The triggers and alignments that cause the "knowing" of when and how to process. Nuts and bolts. That would be a great start. Remember, we are dealing with material reality, not esoteric terms and words. You need material proof of concept.
What I know about the subject is limited. This is off the top of my head:

Smaller molecules move by Brownian motion (impacts by neighboring molecules), diffusion, osmosis, capillary action, and electrostatic attractions and repulsions. These might not be mutually exclusive categories, and there may be more mechanisms.

Biological (macromolecules) also pleat, coil and uncoil, denature, conform around metal ions, and capture then modify substrates according to affinities and repulsions in response to electrostatic and hydrophobic/hydrophilic influences in their milieus.

Molecules of various sizes are also actively transported through cytoplasm by carrier molecules, and both actively and passively transported across membranes

Why do you ask?
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184299 Nov 15, 2013
Interesting article
"A U.S. ecologist says conditions such as bad backs and sunburn suggest humans did not evolve alongside other life on Earth"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

Sounds a bit crazy, or could it be possible?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184300 Nov 15, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
You may wait a while for his proof of atheism.
Atheism isn't a claim. It's an opinion about theists' claim and their evidence and arguments for gods, which I have rejected after careful consideration.

Furthermore, my rejection of your god - my atheism - is self evident. The proof of my atheism is that rejection

If you're waiting for a disproof of all gods, I can't give you one. I can disprove the claim that the Christian god exists, but not to somebody that has a stake in remaining a believer. I'd need your cooperation.

A disproof of gods were it possible would be superfluous anyway. I don't need one to reject unsupported, extraordinary claims, and faith is immune to evidence. So which of us would benefit from such a proof? Neither.

Notice that I don't ask you for a proof for your theism. I already know you don't have one.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#184301 Nov 15, 2013
Quote "A U.S. ecologist has claimed that humans are not from Earth but were put on the planet by aliens tens of thousands of years ago.


Dr Ellis Silver points to a number of physiological features to make his case for why humans did not evolve alongside other life on Earth, in his new book.


They range from humans suffering from bad backs - which he suggests is because we evolved in a world with lower gravity – to getting too easily sunburned and having difficulty giving birth.


Dr Ellis says that while the planet meets humans’ needs for the most part, it does not perhaps serve the species’ interests as well as the aliens who dropped us off imagined.


In his book, HUMANS ARE NOT FROM EARTH: A SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE, the ecologist writes the human race has defects that mark it of being ‘not of this world’.


‘Mankind is supposedly the most highly developed species on the planet, yet is surprisingly unsuited and ill-equipped for Earth's environment: harmed by sunlight, a strong dislike for naturally occurring foods, ridiculously high rates of chronic disease, and more,’ he told Yahoo.


Dr Ellis says that humans might suffer from bad backs because they evolved on a world with lower gravity.


He also says that it is strange that babies’ heads are so large and make it difficult for women to give birth, which can result in fatalities of the mother and infant. No other native species on this planet has this problem, he says.


He also believes humans are not designed to be as exposed to the sun as they are on Earth, as they cannot sunbathe for more than a week or two – unlike a lizard – and cannot be exposed to the sun every day without problems.


Dr Ellis also claims humans are always ill and this might be because our body clocks have evolved to expects a 25 hour day, as proven by sleep researchers."
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#184302 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never heard that one.
I don't use WD-40, anyhow. It's junk.
Best stuff was something they sold a few decades ago with teflon in it. Great for guns and fishing tackle. But they took it off the market because you couldn't leave fingerprints on it.
Incredibly I still have a can of it from 1979. It still sprays. Used it on a sluggish pocket door a few months ago. At that time I worked as a contractor for dupont building machinery to manufacture Teflon. In order to grind it you must first irradiate it.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#184303 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really want to go there? I want to limit my insults of Dave to the occasions in which he chooses to insult me. This isn't one of them, so I probably won't argue with you about him except to say that if you take this position, you're not making either of you look any better.
Bucks not my hero anymore, Dave is.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184304 Nov 15, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
Have you ever had a x-ray? Could you see the x-ray, the actual penetrating energy?
Is this part of an argument for a god belief? If so, would you please explain how. If your point is that there exist things not visible to the naked eye, I think that we would all agree to that, but still reject unsupported god claims. The claims about x-rays are different: they can be supported with evidence, including visible evidence, like a chest x-ray.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184305 Nov 15, 2013
madscot wrote:
X rays produce results that are observable and measurable. Your god does not.
Hey there, old friend! Nice to see you here.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184306 Nov 15, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
What wine are you having?
It's F. Chauvenet chenin blanc / sauvignon blanc. I'm not a connoisseur, which is probably why I like it.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#184307 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you and Nightserf use definitions is to take words with positive, intellectually respectable connotations and twist them to support your bias so as to appropriate a legitimacy to your ideas which otherwise would not apply.
A more honest approach, and one which I advocate, is choosing words based on their actual meaning in order to communicate a message, and abstaining from using words based on what we wish them to mean.
The use of "skepticism" is a sufficient example.
Neither of you employs a proper usage of the term, but you seek to borrow its implied intellectual legitimacy in service of an agenda.
This technique cannot be described as "descriptive lexicography".
A more simple and quaint description is available - "bull shit".
In my view, you are guilty, in your "belief" wordsmithing, of precisely what you accuse IANS and NightSerf of doing.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#184308 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were to worship something freely and sincerely, it wouldn't be something that tortures. The Christian god simply isn't worthy of respect or affection.
What torture are you referring to? In an earlier post you described accurately what a great time weve been born in and all kinds of gifts. I believe this is all Gods doing. You don't respect the one who gave you all, and I mean everything? Upon finding out he "is" after death and that you refused him, that may well be the torture you refer to. Incredibly advanced creators don't have thoughts or ways like man, why drag him down to your level, even an advanced human level such as yours.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184309 Nov 15, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
I still miss Bertrand Russell.
He was gone before I knew who he was, so I can't say I missed him. But I did learn from him and admire him.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#184310 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I should have taken you and Nightserf to my AA meeting.
I could have avoided admitting I was an alcoholic.
"Hi, I'm Buck, and I am skeptical of sobriety".
Your dishonest use of language leaves me in disbelief.

I am skeptical of your motive.

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) 4 min Regolith Based Li... 57,962
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 min Dogen 1,812
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 37 min Hedonist Heretic 1,927
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Eagle 12 5,958
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 2 hr Hedonist Heretic 134
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 27,254
News The Atheist Delusion': Ray Comfort's Masterpiece (Jun '16) 22 hr Eagle 12 78
More from around the web