Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258485 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184738 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You can use a word in any way you want as long as you define your usage and use it consistently.
And if enough other people find your choice useful and agreeable, they'll start using it the same way.
Following that, it might appear in a dictionary, which will surely frustrate and infuriate rigid, controlling types.
The reason such an explanation does not apply to usage of the term "atheism" is that we can trace the history of the attempt to dilute the term for rhetorical purposes.

An effort to change the meaning of a term, which applies to millions, and whose meaning is clearly understood, so as to service an agenda of one side in a controversy, is far from the innocent evolution of language you pretend.

Don't try to kid me.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#184739 Nov 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
A prevaricator's dream.
Immodest prevaricating is more palatable than obstreperous prevaricating

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#184740 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
He certainly does. Here's more, and it sounds like what we just read from this poster:
GOD AS ABUSER: Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive Spouses
http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/p/Abuse...
"Part of the process of encouraging the victim to feel inadequate involves getting them to feel that they really do deserve the abuse ... God is described as being justified in punishing humanity.
"Abusers instill fear in their spouses; believers are instructed to fear God.
"Abusers are unpredictable and given to dramatic mood swings; God is depicted as alternating between love and violence.
"Abused spouses avoid topics which set off the abuser; believers avoid thinking about certain things to avoid angering God.
"Abusers make one feel like there is no way to escape a relationship; believers are told that there is no way to escape God’s wrath and eventual punishment.
"God is usually described as jealous and unable to handle it when people turn away.
"God is portrayed as using violence to force people to comply with certain rules and Hell is the ultimate threat of violence. God might even punish an entire nation for the transgressions of a few members.
"By getting [people] to feel worthless, helpless, and unable to do anything right, they will lack the self-confidence necessary to stand up to the abuser and resist the abuse. Believers are taught that they are depraved sinners, unable to do anything right and unable to have good, decent, or moral lives independent of God. Everything good that a believer achieves is due to God, not their own efforts.
"[V]ictims are told that it’s their fault when an abuser gets angry ... Humanity is also blamed for everything that goes wrong"
==========
Another take on this subject:
GOD: THE ABUSIVE BOYFRIEND
http://conversationalatheist.com/general-essa...
Ways the Christian God is like the most extreme version of an abusive (and possibly psychotic) boyfriend:
[1] Needs constant praise.
[2] Makes you feel guilty for just being human.
[3] Has severe jealousy issues.
[4] He lets painful experiences happen to you that he could easily prevent, just to test your devotion to Him.
[5] Claims credit for everything good in your life; claims nothing bad in your life comes from Him.
[6] Threatens you with eternal torture if you ever leave Him.
[7] He is constantly swearing that He loves you and you need Him.
Ways to tell if you are in danger of being taken advantage of in a relationship with this abusive God:
[8] You are highly defensive of Him from even the slightest criticism of His flaws.
[9] You talk to Him every night, and He never responds yet still expects unwavering devotion.
"They would be a lot more believable if they didn't quote others, or use the same terms and formulations in their arguments. It's like they agree with what their teacher said.

None of them are the slightest bit original in their argumentation. They are almost interchangeable."

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#184741 Nov 16, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd that one of your great atheist bugaboos, Richard Dawkins, rejects your definition and agrees with me. Read his "The God Delusion".
"They would be a lot more believable if they didn't quote others, or use the same terms and formulations in their arguments. It's like they agree with what their teacher said.

None of them are the slightest bit original in their argumentation. They are almost interchangeable."

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#184742 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask you for visible proof. Skeptics like me ask if you have any evidence of any kind at all, and if not, how you can decide there is a god, and how can you decide which one it is. It sounds like guessing to me.
I have more than enough evidence for myself. God is more than self-evident.

God is not something you prove but something that you experience. I can not experience God for you. And you can not experience God if you’re not willing to try. You are not willing to try because you have already decided there’s no God.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184743 Nov 16, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Immodest prevaricating is more palatable than obstreperous prevaricating
Ya.

What he said.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#184744 Nov 16, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's strange.
Atheists don't understand God or Scripture.
Imagine that.
Let's see...
God created the universe and everything in it.
God created the Earth for humans to dwell on.
God created Adam and Eve.
God took that same hand that created all this, the hand that wields unlimited power, power beyond the understanding of mere mortals; he took that same hand and
touched you on the head with it.
Why weren't you fundamentally changed? You don't have enough sense to quit smoking.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#184745 Nov 16, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Except you couldn't prove the god you're lying to us about
One does not prove God. One experiences God.

When are you going to experience God?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184746 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that certainly seems neutral, objective and scholarly.
"David Berlinski ... is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement."
For those unfamiliar with the Discovery Institute and its agenda, here is an excerpt from its Wiki entry:
"Although it often describes itself as a secular organization, critics, members of the press and former institute fellows consider the Discovery Institute to be an explicitly Christian conservative organization, and point to the institute's own publications and the statements of its members that endorse a religious ideology.
"Americans United for Separation of Church and State notes, "Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in national and international affairs,' the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers."
"The 2005 judge in the "Dover Trial", Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, came to a similar conclusion about the Institute in his ruling: "CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones."
What have you got that doesn't come from an agenda driven, Christian based, think tank admittedly dedicated to undermining mainstream science and injecting its religious vision into schoolrooms and textbooks?
[This is the part where Buck traditionally goes ballistic - questioning the integrity of his sources]
Nice try.

Berlinski is an agnostic, and a brilliant mathematician and author.

Nothing posted came from the Discovery Institute.

So your request for something not from them is supplied preemptively.

You predicted I would question the integrity of sources, while you questioned the integrity of my sources.

And I could, because your sources are buffoons. But that would be overkill.

A bit of trivia,...Discovery Institute opposed the school board's action in Dover that led to the trial.

Please delve into that litigation with me if you like. You will lose.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184747 Nov 16, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
This does not address my point at all. Completely sidesteps it. Whether you agree with Dawkins or not on the validity of atheism, he clearly defines atheism as I do, that atheists claim that a god is an extremely unlikely thing given the total lack of evidence.
Your claim is that atheists say categorically, "there is no god." This is not Dawkins' definition of atheism.
BTW..."The book is Pure speculation."
Is this your opinion formed from having read the book? Or is it the opinion that has been given you by your Christian authorities? If the latter, is it not dishonest to write as if it is your own opinion?
No he doesn't.

Dawkins disagrees with you about himself.

Dawkins prefers to call himself an agnostic, as he says on this public forum.

He shies away from "atheist", since he is not sure God does not exist.

So Dawkins agrees with my definition, not yours.

You blithering goof.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184748 Nov 16, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. thanks for the clarification ..
.. indeed, you present a clear, convincing argument ..
.. now, I await IAN's rebuttal ..
.. but, PLEASE, no infinite donuts ..
I don't intend to rebut the same issues with Buck repeatedly, but in case you missed it, this is my position:

"I'm advocating the actual meaning of words both historically ... "

The meaning of words is what the people discussing them agree they are. Dictionaries don't determine what that is (prescriptivism), they merely report how people are actually using language (descriptivism), generally about ten years after the fact.

"... and by the consensus of academic usage."

Academic usage is only of interest in academic contexts. In a medical school lecture or a paper in a professional journal - academic settings - the word "stomach" refers to the organ in the abdomen that connects the esophagus to the bowel. On Topix, if you want to call your abdomen your stomach, as when saying that your stomach is flat, I will understand you, and not quibble with you or demand like Buck that you adhere to some academic standard. Technical language from being constrained to be effective, but informal language need to be allowed to evolve.

"We don't get to make up meanings for words"

Yes we do, as described above.

"skepticism is a suspended judgement."

Skepticism is the requirement for evidence and or reason to believe. Skeptics judge that evidence and argument as part of skepticism, as I did when I rejected flawed and/or unsupported god claims.

"Atheism is a belief that no god exists - judgement rendered."

Atheism is the rejection of god claims, and requires that judgement to be made if one considers the claims.

"An atheist cannot be a skeptic on the issue"

The two are not on not incompatible as Buck suggests, a rational skeptic - somebody that requires compelling evidence and argument before believing - cannot be anything but an atheist until the theists produce an argument that is not fallacious.

But I've said all of this to him, and though I would repeat it for you or anybody just entering the discussion, as I said, I have no interest in emulating Buck with endless repetition of exactly the same ideas.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184749 Nov 16, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see...
God created the universe and everything in it.
God created the Earth for humans to dwell on.
God created Adam and Eve.
God took that same hand that created all this, the hand that wields unlimited power, power beyond the understanding of mere mortals; he took that same hand and
touched you on the head with it.
Why weren't you fundamentally changed? You don't have enough sense to quit smoking.
My relationship with God was fundamentally changed.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#184750 Nov 16, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a simple disbelief in the lies that religious people tell.
Atheism is equivalent to single negative pole to ground. Without the adjacent positive pole. A forever disconnected and open circuit.

Always asking for proof of the positive pole. All they have to do is reach over and touch it. Closing the gap and completing the circuit.

They won’t bother to close the circuit because they believe there’s no such thing as positive pole.

Ephesians 1

19.“And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,”

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184751 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you imagine the relevance of this to be? Why would this matter to anybody but a lexicographical prescriptionist like yourself? We define ourselves, and use words according to our current understanding of things, which is a dynamic and evolving process. If we choose to modify the meaning of a word to better conform to a newer understanding, we will and do. If Flew did that once, it is his right. If his ideas were embraced, then they became current usage when they were.
Incidentally, I couldn't find this material anywhere on the Internet except from you.
The relevance of the passage is precise, on point, and powerful.

...

If you did not find it relevant,...why would you have searched to find it elsewhere on the internet?

You're kidding me again.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184752 Nov 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No he doesn't.
Dawkins disagrees with you about himself.
Dawkins prefers to call himself an agnostic, as he says on this public forum.
He shies away from "atheist", since he is not sure God does not exist.
So Dawkins agrees with my definition, not yours.
You blithering goof.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102...
Nice.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,”-Dick Dawkins.

NOT an atheist.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184753 Nov 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Welcome back, friend.
Thanks, silky pants.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#184754 Nov 16, 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25080...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

The afterlife seems to be the only real difference between them and a lot of these Topix atheists.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#184755 Nov 16, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see...
God created the universe and everything in it.
God created the Earth for humans to dwell on.
God created Adam and Eve.
God took that same hand that created all this, the hand that wields unlimited power, power beyond the understanding of mere mortals; he took that same hand and
touched you on the head with it.
Why weren't you fundamentally changed? You don't have enough sense to quit smoking.
Smoking is not a sin.

Unbelief, now that’s a sin.

Smoking causes cancer and heart disease.

Unbelief causes hopelessness and despondency.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184756 Nov 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't intend to rebut the same issues with Buck repeatedly, but in case you missed it, this is my position:
"I'm advocating the actual meaning of words both historically ... "
The meaning of words is what the people discussing them agree they are. Dictionaries don't determine what that is (prescriptivism), they merely report how people are actually using language (descriptivism), generally about ten years after the fact.
"... and by the consensus of academic usage."
Academic usage is only of interest in academic contexts. In a medical school lecture or a paper in a professional journal - academic settings - the word "stomach" refers to the organ in the abdomen that connects the esophagus to the bowel. On Topix, if you want to call your abdomen your stomach, as when saying that your stomach is flat, I will understand you, and not quibble with you or demand like Buck that you adhere to some academic standard. Technical language from being constrained to be effective, but informal language need to be allowed to evolve.
"We don't get to make up meanings for words"
Yes we do, as described above.
"skepticism is a suspended judgement."
Skepticism is the requirement for evidence and or reason to believe. Skeptics judge that evidence and argument as part of skepticism, as I did when I rejected flawed and/or unsupported god claims.
"Atheism is a belief that no god exists - judgement rendered."
Atheism is the rejection of god claims, and requires that judgement to be made if one considers the claims.
"An atheist cannot be a skeptic on the issue"
The two are not on not incompatible as Buck suggests, a rational skeptic - somebody that requires compelling evidence and argument before believing - cannot be anything but an atheist until the theists produce an argument that is not fallacious.
But I've said all of this to him, and though I would repeat it for you or anybody just entering the discussion, as I said, I have no interest in emulating Buck with endless repetition of exactly the same ideas.
If you don't wanna be mocked for your silly beliefs, don't shove them down out throats.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184757 Nov 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
you have never heard me say a god was undesigned and uncreated. All I have said is there is a higher intelligent force behind this scenario.
Perhaps you haven't.

I notice that you chose to withhold your position on the matter.

So let me ask: Was your created, or does do you claim that it exists uncreated? I need to know what your requirements are for things that exist before we can proceed to discuss cells.

I should probably warn you in advance that if you invoke special pleading, we will have no further basis for discussion. My argument for abiogenesis is essentially that cells exist, and if nothing designed them, they must have organized themselves. There is no legitimate argument that that is impossible acceptable from somebody that makes an exception for his god.

If we are using reason as our basis, your argument is fallacious by virtue of special pleading. If we are arguing by faith, then just accept my claim. If those terms aren't acceptable, then we have an insufficient number of shared assumptions for a meaningful exchange of information to proceed.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min nanoanomaly 32,612
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min Science 80,105
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 1 hr Amused 176
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 2 hr Amused 70
what science will NEVER be able to prove Mon Eagle 12 - 10
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Mon Eagle 12 - 106
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
More from around the web