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

#185191 Nov 17, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
WOW!
The Buck Crick Show is back!
Too bad it's all reruns.
Seen these same episodes two years ago.
Not interesting then, less so now.
Then it won't take you long to not listen, BenAssFucked.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#185192 Nov 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism definitely requires faith.
Atheists cannot prove that deities don't exist, they simply believe that they don't.
That is faith.
When you write things like this, do you actually legitimately not remember all the times you have been corrected?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185193 Nov 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell, you lost at least 4 or 5 to me.
The U.S. Constitution, remember?
I can understand why you can't bring yourself around to recall.
What? I wiped the floor with you on the Constitution.

It's not difficult. You are a liberal.

Which means you don't even like the Constitution.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

San Clemente, CA

#185194 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen closely next time.
They were calling you "Cadaver Shit"
No, that's what they call the victim.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185195 Nov 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Idjit.
Religious commentators have become so excited at the thought of his conversion that I almost don’t have the heart to break it to them that he said nothing in Thursday’s discussion that he hadn’t already said six years ago in "The God Delusion". You’ll find the relevant section in Chapter 2, including the seven-point scale where one represents total certainty that there is a God and seven represents total certainty that there is not. Right there Richard writes,
“I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
And how did he describe himself to the archbishop on Thursday, in his supposedly stunning retreat from atheism?“I’d put myself at 6.9.”
Concession? Conversion? The answer to Christian prayers? Hardly! It was as clear a restatement of the position he took in "The God Delusion" as you could wish for.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voi...
He said he preferred to call himself an agnostic.

I don't give a shit whether he converts, or ever converted, from anything to anything.

But the point is, Darwin's DogShit is wrong, and I am right.

Bongo

United States

#185196 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it won't take you long to not listen, BenAssFucked.
Bwhahahahahahahha and its the truth

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185197 Nov 17, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong.
I may not have his stature, but I identify with Prof Dawkins.
Non-believers need not care if we're clasified as atheist or agnostic and at various times he has accepted both labels. According to some they aren't mutually exclusive. One person on the Atheist Threads describes himself as an 'agnostic atheist'.
Perhaps like me Prof Dawkins cares little how religionists label him. He makes his views plain enough and you make plain you cannot comprehend them.
Religion = superstition
Get over it
Dawkins said he prefers to call himself an agnostic.

If you don't like that, take it up with him.

Obviously, by naming a preference, he thinks it makes a difference.

I don't really care what Dawkins calls himself, since he is a liar and an ass hole.

But when I reference him, and someone calls me a liar, I will complete the point.
Bongo

United States

#185198 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How does it feel, Dagwood, to have your little ass nailed to the wall, clearly and convincingly, by someone who,...
...let's see, how did you say it...
...whose "ideas are so idiotic".
Can you imagine what a fool a smart person would make of you?
Dodpile is contradicting, what rules his he using?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185199 Nov 17, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>When you write things like this, do you actually legitimately not remember all the times you have been corrected?
No, because he has not been corrected.

Atheism is an affirmative belief, no more or less than theism.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#185200 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
How about belief based on evidence? Belief in this sense is partial knowledge - what is possibly or probably true - based on what is known to be true.
I am making a distinction between belief, by which I mean evidence based partial knowledge, and belief in, by which I mean faith based belief grounded in nothing. Using that language, you can say that you believe many things, such as that there is intelligent life in the universe based on local evidence of the nature of life and celestial bodies, but that you believe in nothing, such as lizard people already hear on earth.
And I offer this for your consideration: You used the word intellect with reference to your cat. I would reserve that word for human minds. Cats, like people, have intelligence in the sense that they can learn and solve problems. But I reserve the word intellect for referring to the strictly human capacity to manipulate abstract symbols - to think and speak in language, and to calculate.
And as always, I apologize to the theists present, especially Eagle, for repeatedly referring to such matters - the philosophical examination of ideas - which you have indicated bores you to tears with your recent complaint about our endless repetition.
And out of respect for Dave Nelson and his form of freethinking, I left out any links to outside references and gave only my own thoughts here, although I confess that I did corrupt Bob's ability to freethink as you and Riverside Redneck conceive the word when I shared them with him, something you both equate with lockstep thinking just before tittering about it.
Thanks, guys, for helping me keep it real.
:)

I have, in the past, often spoke of evidence-suggested or evidence-based faith.

Such as faith that the sun will rise in the morning. This has to be faith, as I am far from 100% certain it will rise-- it may well not rise. We know from observation, that stars sometimes explode, or that there are dark bodies roaming the cosmos, and one such could easily rip the earth away from our sun, removing the daily cycle of solar energy.

So I hardly know for 100% sure the sun will come up again.

But I have a kind of experience-based faith that it will.

I seldom use that word, though-- because--you know--godbots and shyt.

These poor non-thinking individuals seem to think that **all** words have but a **single** meaning--for **everything**.

It goes with their inability to process the subtle shades of grey that you and I both know exist within the framework of morality and ethics.

They are all or nothing sort of folk-- which is why they are so easy to fool, and why they are the main source of income for the lottery people. <laughing>

I take your meaning on the word intelligence, too.

I'll add this: I think intelligence is a kind of continuum, starting at one end, with the most primitive nerve systems that some plants appear to possess (pure chemical responses to stimulus) on trough the hydrae and the flatworms on up to mammals, wherein the brain is highly developed and takes the bulk of the nutrients to even maintain.

I am far from certain that humans are at the theoretical pinnacle, though-- too many variables, for one thing. And too many examples of really massive brains (bigger in mass, than our own) in other animals.

For what if it is simply a matter of total mass of the neurons? Then both elephants and whales have us beat by a country mile, in raw processing power.

As Sam Clemens once quipped in an essay? "The evidence ain't all in yet, to make a certain determination."

And yes--he was speaking about mankind's role in things.

:)
virtuanna

Texarkana, TX

#185201 Nov 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tough litigators.
Yay, for lots of T's! Alliteration is one of my favorites. Here's some more just for you.

Bongo

United States

#185202 Nov 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are hereby granted an exemption.
But no firearms, please.
Indulge me briefly. Have you changed your mind about Buck not being Joe King? Have you considered the evidence?
virtuanna

Texarkana, TX

#185203 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Dawkins said he prefers to call himself an agnostic.
If you don't like that, take it up with him.
Obviously, by naming a preference, he thinks it makes a difference.
I don't really care what Dawkins calls himself, since he is a liar and an ass hole.
But when I reference him, and someone calls me a liar, I will complete the point.
Dawkins is a liar, he KNEW Mrs. Garrison was a man. He knew that wasn't kitteh he was poking.
>:}

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185204 Nov 17, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Dodpile is contradicting, what rules his he using?
He doesn't contradict himself unless he uses the same rules.

So he is safe, since he is using the same rules.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#185205 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I've got another argument ruling out the perfect god of Christianity for Riverside Redneck to reject: such a creature couldn't create or change anything without going from perfection to a lesser state.
Consider a perfect circle. What could you change about it apart from moving it, rotating it or changing its diameter without losing perfect circularity?(This comment should also get Buck going)
This is why ideas like drowning all of life save a handful of each kind or making new covenants is impossible for a perfect god. Either a former state of perfection is lost, or the former state wasn't perfect.
This argument not only precludes any action on the part of a perfect god, it's couldn't even think, which would constitute a change in its mental state.
I notice that a few Christians have begun saying that their god is not perfect. Smart move. This is why. Look at how many of the arguments against the existence of this god are based on the claims of its perfect knowledge and perfect love. This is an area that is in sore need of your revisionism, just like the creation myth and the status of Old Testament ethics.
I have been advocating for **years** that the moderate and liberal (theologically-speaking) believers **must** edit their bibles to actually reflect what they claim to believe.

My latest idea? Color coding of the bible's text.

Leave in classic black, all the words they are certain should be taken as-is, with little or no interpretive thoughts. I.e. whichever they think is historical (or mostly so).

Then, they could put in, say, blue, any words that are purely allegorical, parables or morality-lessons. The reader would instantly know not to take it literally, but to look for the moral lesson therein.

They could even put in grey, any passages over which there is strong doubt as to the authenticity of, say much of Paul's stuff.

For the studious? Little reference numbers, every time a passage isn't in black-- pointing to a back reference, which explains **why** the think it's blue, grey or green(whatever that may turn out to be-- poetry, perhaps?).

Imagine this as a Ebook or an App on a smart device.

Then? They could easily update it weekly, to keep up with the latest theological decisions!

A truly interactive bible.

One suitable for the 22nd century, even..

(Oh! Words in **orange** should be studiously ignored-- as they no longer apply to the modern world, and are kept in purely for sentimental and historical value)

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#185206 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good job, you two.
thanks.

You were correct... she's interesting.

:)
Bongo

United States

#185207 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I dissent.
Physical violence has kept me housed and fed.
And people who know of me give a wide swath.
Id still square off with you just for the experience. Btw my 2 eldest sons are state champions in their sport and are both playing on notable ivy league teams. They are 6'7 and growing. Not yet as tall as me or able to beat me in an arm wrestle, much to their chagrin.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#185208 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If the old crappy policy requires paying more, why are we asked to spend an additional 1.6 trillion dollars over 10 years on the new one?
We are not. That is a flat lie, perpetuated by Faux SNooze-- the Lying All The Time channel of the filthy rich.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#185209 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He said he preferred to call himself an agnostic......
You ignore other occasions when Dawkins accepted some other label religionists might give him such as atheist. Or perhaps your own silly 'faith' requires you to believe that Professor Dawkins thinks it is simply a matter of choice and that both options are equally reasonable. As I have pointed out, if you take his comments overall and in context he doesn't feel that belief in any Abrahamic gods or any of these...
godchecker.com
are defencible. He has referred to them as delusional and there are pictures to illustrate that...
https://www.google.co.uk/search...
Additionally, there's ludicrous practices like flagellation and exhorcism.

Dawkins takes a rational view and doesn't credit religious faith with much more than delusional behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_thei...
"Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate."

I think that gives a clearer picture of Professor Dawkins stand, but in any case it seems clear that religion and gods are man-made and often in man's image, not god-given.

Religion = superstition
Get over it

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#185210 Nov 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
This post is just another exhibition of your very poor comprehension skills. Your knowledge on new age religions, is nil.
It's enough to dismiss them all with equal aplomb.

Until and if they produce the gods in question?

They are liars-- just like **you** are.
Robert Stevens wrote:
Instead of not responding or studying prior to posting on this, you proudly display your ignorance. You also fail miserably to keep up with science, yet claim to be knowledgeable.
Far more knowledgeable than **you**-- who demonstrates time and again, your near-total ignorance about science.

You have **never** tripped me up even **one** time, in science.

You cannot--because you are an idiot.
Robert Stevens wrote:
You interpretation of Quantum Physics is beyond backwards. Every scientist I have seen or read discussing Quantum Physics sooner or later states. There is a God and he is genius.
Name **one** such ... ahem... "scientist".

Can you do it? If you do? I will bet you he is a nutjob, and **not** a physicist at all!

You do seem to like the insane and terminally stupid.

Just as you are, I suppose.

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 Simon 79,956
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 34 min blacklagoon 3 62
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Eagle 12 - 32,581
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Sep 16 blacklagoon 3 91
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Sep 15 xfrodobagginsx 101
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
what science will NEVER be able to prove Sep 15 Me _ Myself _ I 8
More from around the web