Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239524 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: Oct 10

Location hidden

#185015 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Statement of flat untruth - knowingly and willfully.
I am forcing myself to be polite.
This is why you lose credibility.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I am forcing myself to be polite.
That's so fuckincool.

Can you force your fingers to stop typing again?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185016 Nov 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
It's good that you are balanced or at least you think you are.Cowboy, the trail ride will come to an end one day. It always does. I know you live in Mexico and there’s a lot of cowboys in Mexico. Have as much fun as you can because one day you’ll get off the saddle and not get back on.
Thanks for the advice. Same to you.

There are not only cowboys here - vaquero, they're called - I once saw a herd of steer walking down my street, horns and all, with parked cars on either side. LOL. Wouldn't that be nice if one scratched or gored a car.

I also saw a runaway horse galloping down my street collide into a car at the intersection. The horse glanced of the car and turned right onto the cross street - no blood. The car had a big dent.

Horses are still transportation for some people in Mexico. I pet the muzzle of one yesterday.

I love this life, which is nothing like what I left. It's the first non-American culture I've lived in. It's 6AM, and I hear church bells rung by hand from a tower in the background announcing the first mass of the day.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185017 Nov 17, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is "sure" that God does not exist, Buck, because that is something that is impossible. We cannot prove something does not exist. Dawkins has explained that many times, and I am sure that he, like I, would be the first to become a believer, if someone could come up with some good solid proof, but both he and I (but he is more astute since he is a well educated scientist and speaker) know that there is no evidence to support any beliefs in a God which makes it a very strong possibility that a God does not, in fact, exist. The knowledge that the source from which believers draw their information about God is greatly flawed by proven lies, tends to throw a lot of suspicion on all of that information, for which there is still no information that has been proved to be true.
Kind of like a fishing hole where humans have thrown in their fishing lines for 4000 years, and to today not one of them has had a single nibble to suggest there might be fish there. They haven't proved there are no fish, but the total absence of any fish being caught or even nibbling on the bait, in all that time, does make it highly unlikely that any fish will be caught in the next 4000 years. That does not prove it though; just offers a very strong suggestion. Man has believed in the Abrahamic God for 4000 years give or take a thousand or two, and up to today not one has ever proved this existence. Insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and keep getting the same results.
Perhaps it is time for the fishermen to stop fishing at that spot, and time for humans to stop looking for a God that has never been known to exist.
I wonder what this world would be like to day, if humans based all of their actions and interactions of known facts, rather than on believed myths.
Can you imagine the impact it might have made to society today if all people in the past 4000 years, had worked with strictly what they knew, or if they didn't know, they discovered, and spent no time at all following things that were only mythical in nature.
Since it didn't happen that way, and we do know some of the horrors that the negative parts of these beliefs have brought to many, we can only imagine what might have happened.
My point to Dogpile stands - Dawkins does not define "atheism" as simply a lack of belief. The cited conversation is proof positive. Also, the idea of being "sure" was Dawkins' choice of words, not mine. Perhaps your comments should be addressed to him, which, by the way, cuts against your admiration for his astuteness.

Further, belief in deity, as it relates to the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" is not limited to the Abrahamic god.

On your assertion of "no evidence", you are either ignorant or lying.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185018 Nov 17, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
The only arguments you have are based on a 2,000 year old copy of thousands of copies. Have you considered using any new material?
Pot meet kettle;0)
Your figures are off, Albert.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#185019 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That's why I chastised you for your answer. I didn't ask you what you would have done. I asked you "is there a way to decide when a group of people claim to see something whether they actually do or not? How can you decide which one is describing reality?"
<quoted text>
Like I said, this is why I don't take discussion with you seriously, and why I say that they're a waste of time.
<quoted text>
You're an idiot twice over, once for each paragraph. You think you have a supple mind, but you don't. It's concrete notwithstanding your aimless moonbeamery. You seem to be oblivious to the point of the exercise despite it having been given in its opening statement:
IANS wrote: "You seem to be making the argument that the people who disagree with one another have a better handle on what the authentic nature of reality is than those who agree. Here's a question ... "
Then came, "Both groups swear that they have seen water, but it's very hot out, they're dehydrated, and you realize that one or both groups might be seeing things - a mirage. Which will you follow, and how can you decide?"
Recall that my comment was in response to yours:
Dave Nelson wrote: "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. The theists on here at least show some originality of thought and uniqueness of personality. Real people versus mass media clones."
Look at how bad your answer is in the light of that, which, once again, is what makes you a waste of time. You took so long providing a good faith answer that you forgot what we were discussion.
Your vegetation comment is the only part that comes close to a responsive answer, and it not only wouldn't be useful - mirages may contain green, and genuine oases might not - it avoids the stated purpose of the exercise.
You "chastised" me.

For not dancing to your tune.

I feel so mortified.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#185020 Nov 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You "chastised" me.
For not dancing to your tune.
I feel so mortified.
Why do you have Wally Cleaver as your avatar?

I'm just curious.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185021 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been through all of that already. Will it be necessary to repeat it? Let me cut to the chase for you: you and the Christians consider intelligent design feasible, the courts and mainstream science consider it pseudoscience, you think Judge Jones was an ass, I think Michael Behe was humiliated, and none of that will likely ever change. Can we move on?
For anybody not familiar with this court case that challenged a Pennsylvania school board in its decision to teach intelligent design in its schools, this is a pretty interesting story. The following is a two hour documentary about the events leading up to the trial, the trial preparation, the amazing testimony given, and the Judge's unexpected but heroic decision. Is it worth 2 hours to watch? It was for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =x2xyrel-2vIXX
Buck is as tenacious about this topic as he is about everything else, and will become very irritated if the subject is raised again and he doesn't get to control the discussion and which ideas will be permitted without a tantrum being thrown.
Who wants us to go there? It'll be a scene.
No, the discussion does not irritate me.

What irritates me is when people lie about the case, as you just did.

Lie #1: "Christians consider intelligent design feasible".

Many non-christians consider it feasible. To characterize it as something christians believe is an attempt to deceive.

Lie #2: "The courts and mainstream science consider it pseudoscience"

One judge in one court in one district in Pennsylvania declared it unconstitutional, and did not declare it pseudoscience, since he had zero expertise and conflicting testimony to aid him in such a declaration.

Lie #3: "Judge's unexpected but heroic decision"

One could quibble whether this is technically a lie, but it is such a blatant mischaracterization, and intentionally so, I am compelled to place it in the category of a lie.

Judge Jones' decision was predictable due to the nature of his rulings in the trial. He improperly allowed evidence favoring the anti-ID side, and disallowed the same on the other side.

It was clearly not "heroic" for a number of reasons. First, it was consistent with the judicial supra-constitutional encroachment of-the-day on First Amendment issues. Second, he plagiarized large portions of his written ruling, word for word, and passed it off as his own work. Thirdly, his written ruling contained multiple mis-statements of factual evidence presented before him.

Having ruled as expected, Judge Jones heroically trotted to TV interviews to discuss what a hero he is.

Here in one brief post, IAnus lied at least 3 times on the subject.

Yes, I find that irritating.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185022 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't have to be ad rem for me to want to investigate it. I Google almost everything I'm unfamiliar with. You should already know that. I wanted to know more about Uri Nodelman and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as well as the particular article you cited. Why is it that I couldn't find it in the Encyclopedia or anywhere else except in two other Topix posts left by you, both over a year ago.
Your dissembling is not convincing.

1. You argue forcefully for a fraudulent definition of atheism.

2. I provide the chronology of how the fraudulent definition of the term, which you support, is contrived to serve an agenda. And I provide such from a prestigious academic source.

3. Left with no defense, you call it "irrelevant".

4. While calling it irrelevant, you simultaneously let it slip that you researched the cited statement, proving you do consider it relevant.

5. And now we are supposed to believe that it's simply habit.

No, not convincing at all. Learn to lose with integrity.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#185023 Nov 17, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you have Wally Cleaver as your avatar?
I'm just curious.
Cute.

That was old Dave when he was a tender innocent. The full head of hair is the only thing that remains.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185024 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with him, and am just as much of an atheist as Dawkins is. Will you dispute any of that?
And what do you care which word he or I uses to describe ourselves and people who agree with that idea? How does it serve you to fight this meaningless battle with Buck. Do you know?
No, you do not agree with him.

He says he prefers not to call himself an atheist, but an agnostic.

You call yourself an atheist, and just say it doesn't matter, because words mean whatever a person wants them to mean.

He thinks it matters.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185025 Nov 17, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
God gets tired, god gets cranky, got it. Some god you got there, maybe he needs a nap and a diaper change???
Maybe God doesn't want to tell you how he feels.

Or maybe he thinks you're too stupid to understand if he told you.

If so, I could easily agree with Him.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185026 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. You remind me of my buddy Henry's doberman that will chase after the same ball for at least three hours if you'll keep throwing it for him. Nobody knows the dog's tiring point, or yours.
Seems like the thrower would also tire.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185027 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Who could kid you? You and you alone understand this atheism semantic conspiracy, and it will be you that saves the world from bad usage.
Deflection.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185028 Nov 17, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps they are just humans who have not quite evolved to the same extent that the rest of us have.
Interesting theory, but not new.

Hitler was an enthusiast for your preferred theory.

Mengele even did scientific studies for you.
truth

Australia

#185029 Nov 17, 2013
truth

Australia

#185030 Nov 17, 2013
i don't prefer nothing

many many will come in my name

its not me
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo
truth

Australia

#185031 Nov 17, 2013
love your evil satanic
corupt deceivers and possessors

love your liars
love your satanik killers too

by

in this city noting exist

asked your father vatra

not me

evil is so long in matrix

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185032 Nov 17, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of like those people in Dover that tried to slip mythical teachings into a school curriculum by calling it Intelligent Design, is it not?
Anyway, atheism simply means that a person has no beliefs in any deity. It implies absolutely no other information about that person.
ID has no mythical teachings.

You are simply a liar.

On the other hand:

The Peppered Moth Hoax

"The staging of the photos was first raised as an issue by intelligent-design advocate Jonathan Wells in his 2000 work 'Icons of Evolution'. But the controversy reached a more mainstream audience in 2002 when science writer Judith Hopper discussed it..."
truth

Australia

#185033 Nov 17, 2013

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185034 Nov 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What's with this worship crap?
Pastor Catcher worships no gods and no man.
"Worshipping man" is too general.

It is an inherent dysfunction in all of mankind.

It involves greed, fear, and desire for power.

The underlying cause of the dysfunction is a subtle desire for self-enhancement, of strengthening the self-image.

This is original sin.(to place it in religious terms)

It's not as the religions describe it, but it is the dysfunction.

It can only be changed by a change in the state of consciousness, or change in perception, if you will.

This was the message of the wise man they called Jesus.

He offered the Samarian woman at the well "a well of everlasting life springing up within her".

Yet, he offered her no sacrifice, no atonement - only a change in perception.

This occurs in a number of ways. Often, it requires a physical disruption of life.

If the person is not ready for it, my words here are simply noise.

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) 26 min Aura Mytha 19,101
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 1 hr Pete-o 7,504
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr woodtick57 7,500
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr Pahu 2,219
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 11 hr Rosa_Winkel 134
News New Atheism's fatal arrogance: The glaring inte... 18 hr Knowledge- 6
News Richard Dawkins insists he's not an angry athei... Fri Thinking 2
More from around the web