Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256546 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

#186000 Nov 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
1. There are no mistakes, so the premise of your question is flawed.
2. I believe it, and it's the only book to have endured as long as it has and adopted so many followers.
3. I don't disregard any parts of it, so again the premise of your question is flawed.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>**PORTIONS SNIPPED**Your first three comments are demonstrably incorrect, but there is no realistic hope of disabusing you of them.
.. why is RR's first statement incorrect ??..

.. if aware, we learn from our mistakes and progress ..

.. for me, everything happens for a reason and staying conscious is the key to a life well lived ..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186001 Nov 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Faith = trust.
Trust = faith.
They are absolutely interchangeable.
Atheist just shun at using the word.....
Thank you for sharing your religious education. Now I will share what I have learned with you:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Since you don't know the airline pilot, all you have is his flight record, you're taking his skills on faith - you trust him.
We have good reason to believe that the airline pilot can fly by virtue of him having been given an airplane by people that have a huge stake in him flying competently.

Do you think that that trust is essentially the same as religious faith? Religious faith is more like trusting somebody to pilot you in an airplane that he found who has no certification and no known piloting experience.

Trust based on experience, reason and visible evidence is nothing like blind religious faith.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186002 Nov 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Just not letting you redefine yet another word. Faith is complete trust or confidence in something.
I am not redefining faith. I referred to two of several well known definitions of faith present in most or all dictionaries. What I am doing is not allowing you to blur their distinction and treat them as the same thing.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Since love cannot be quantified, all you have to prove your wife's love is her actions, her words and your intuition - you trust her and you have faith in yourself.
Those things you named comprise half a lifetime's worth of concrete evidence to support my belief and trust in her.

I gave your god the chance to do the same once. It was as if there was no such god. That experience combined with reason is why I am still with the one but not the other. For me to still have faith in your god would require blind trust not only not supported by evidence, but contradicted by it.

You and I may not be able to teach or learn from one another, but perhaps our words will help others reading them to clarify their own thoughts about what faith is, and what religious faith can do to the quality of intellectual and moral thought.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186003 Nov 20, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>edneck
I don't do that. I say that faith is an error, not a virtue.
"Science wants to know the mechanism of the universe, religion the meaning. The two cannot be separated. Many scientists feel there is no place in research for discussion of anything that sounds mystical. But it is unreasonable to think we already know enough about the natural world to be confident about the totality of forces".

-- Charles Townes, Nobel physics laureate

"It is the sense of mystery that, in my opinion, drives the true scientist; the same blind force, blindly seeing, deafly hearing, unconsciously remembering, that drives the larva into the butterfly. If the scientist has not experienced, at least a few times in his life, this cold shudder down his spine, this confrontation with an immense invisible face whose breath moves him to tears, he is not a scientist".

-- Erwin Chargaff, biologist

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186004 Nov 20, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is a future after death, I will try to enjoy it as much as I have this life. For now, this one is rich and robust enough to command my attention. I don't need to dream.
==========
You like to take cheap shots at me - lusting for me to be harmed, demeaning my education and philosophy, openly resenting my past and present. I have not earned any of that. You do it because you resent me. I make you feel bad about yourself just by being who I am. I understand that.
But you might care to reexamine that behavior. It demeans you, not me, and it's kind of foolish given the two of us.
You never miss the opportunity to misrepresent yourself and others in a way that polishes your self-image, or more rightly, puts a shine on the fake image you wish to portray.

Dave doesn't resent you for any of those things you chirp about.

He resents you because you are exceptionally arrogant, and you convey a self-appropriated authority through pronouncements of what is true, wholly derived from the limits of how you see things.

And if facts do not support those pronouncements, you will fudge the facts, subtly mis-state them, deflect to better facts, and in some cases, simply lie.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186005 Nov 20, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a simple disbelief in religious liars like you.
You got the meaning of "atheism" wrong again, and even more wrong this time.

Atheism is a state relative to gods or deities, not religion.

If you plan to communicate ideas, you might begin by learning the meaning of words you might choose for such a task.

Alternatively, you can continue to look like the slobbering, lap-lipped fool you are, Septic.

I'm personally betting on the latter.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#186006 Nov 20, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I saw bill maher briefly on a news clip. He has a really punchable face.
You must be a really good christian, almost as devout as buck

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#186007 Nov 20, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I saw bill maher briefly on a news clip. He has a really punchable face.

A Bongo has a really beatable head, so what? lol

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186008 Nov 20, 2013
Thinking wrote:
To a simpleton like you, a yoghurt could be god.
WTF is a yoghurt?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186009 Nov 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
The greater the discrepancy in wealth between the haves and have-nots, the less the have-not can contribute in taxes, and the greater fraction of the total the haves are paying even when their tax rates are lower.

Thus, if your tax rate drops from 30% of a million dollars ($200,000) to 20% of ten million ($2 million), you will be paying more taxes and a greater fraction of the total paid. If I am the only other tax payer, and I'm paying $50,000 in each case because my income has stagnated while yours has gone through the roof, we go from you paying 80% of the total to 97.6%.

And if I complain about, you can just show me that in a chart and hope that it appeases me.

If the super-rich have their way, the trends will continue as they have, the discrepancy between the upper and lower class will become even greater (the middle class will be gone), the wealthy be paying at an even lower tax rate, and that will be even closer to 100% of the total taxes paid, although that total will likely be much less in absolute dollars than the 70% of the total they pay now.

Such are statistics.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186010 Nov 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
1. There are no mistakes, so the premise of your question is flawed.
2. I believe it, and it's the only book to have endured as long as it has and adopted so many followers.
3. I don't disregard any parts of it, so again the premise of your question is flawed.
4. Because He trusts man. He knows that humans can understand human concepts. Perhaps Hid concepts are for too difficult for us to understand so it needed to be 'dumbed down' for human literacy.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
This is faith speaking.
Did you ever read about Morton's Demon? I linked you to it twice. He's the fictional device imagined to guard the entrance to your mind and control what gets into it. Your first three comments are demonstrably incorrect, but there is no realistic hope of disabusing you of them.
Why are they incorrect, because you say so?

If they are demonstrably incorrect then get to demonstrating.

Otherwise I call bullshit on you.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186011 Nov 20, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Have you peer reviewed sources to back up that claim?
If you don't, it wasn't science.
Aristotle had no peer reviews for spontaneous generation.

But that was taught as fact for nearly 2,000 years.

Your science is wrought with failure.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186012 Nov 20, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
This is what I've grown accustomed to with you, and why I say that conversation with you is too much work. We'd have to spend another half dozen posts to get past this, and even then, I suspect that no progress would be made.
Dialectic is a give and take process wherein two reasonable people of good faith attempt to exchange information, clarify their own thoughts, identify their shared premises and where they part ways, reason together and attempt to discover which has the better idea, and in so doing, learn form one another and reach new insights.
To do that requires a certain philosophical temperament, a data base of accumulated knowledge and experience, assorted skills and habits of thought, and the ability to cooperate in this process.
Look at how far from that we are.
==========
@ Buck - Please show me where Jesus said anything like this - something which hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of people could have written, but unlike anything attributed to him. Why do you find somebody whose words were limited to common knowledge (love one another) and the trivial (blessed are the meek) impressive? The secular humanists here are running circles around Jesus' intellectual and moral output. And Jehovah is worse.
What?

I have no idea what your question refers to.

We have established it - you find Mary Tyler Moore impressive; whereas I find Jesus impressive.

What I provided to justify finding him impressive is not what you are offering here.

Did you forget, or are you pretending again?

I agree with you that secular humanists are running in circles.

Perhaps we could call them "Circular humanists".

You love humanism so much, and hate Jesus so much, you will make up anything if it serves the bias of your faith.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186013 Nov 20, 2013
"Thus, if your tax rate drops from 30% of a million dollars ($200,000) to 20% of ten million ($2 million), you will be paying more taxes and a greater fraction of the total paid. If I am the only other tax payer, and I'm paying $50,000 in each case because my income has stagnated while yours has gone through the roof, we go from you paying 80% of the total to 97.6%."

Oops! Change the initial income to $666,667 (2/3 of a million) dollars, and the rest will be correct:

Thus, if your tax rate drops from 30% of 2/3 of a million dollars ($200,000) to 20% of ten million ($2 million), you will be paying more taxes and a greater fraction of the total paid. If I am the only other tax payer, and I'm paying $50,000 in each case because my income has stagnated while yours has gone through the roof, we go from you paying 80% of the total to 97.6%.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186014 Nov 20, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:

I cannot prove anything to you. I've just demonstrated that with a few proofs your full rebuttal of which was, "That's your opinion."
You cannot make a man understand anything without his cooperation - without his willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument - especially that which he has a stake in not understanding.
lol

You still think you've offered a compelling argument.

This all started after you said that 'Jehovah can be disproven' and you already have.

Now you say that you can't prove anything.

Imagine that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186015 Nov 20, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
It's a double whammy, too. We'd have to spend eternity with Dave Nelson.
Or something like that. EM = eternal moonbeamery.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186016 Nov 20, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I saw bill maher briefly on a news clip. He has a really punchable face.
Yes. Maher's face has exceptional punchability.

I would give $50 to see him call Palin's child a "retard" in front of Todd Palin.

I'd give $100 to see him say it in front of me.

Neither will happen. Do you know why, Bongo?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186017 Nov 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a really good christian, almost as devout as buck
Buck is not a christian, honey.

But if "a laying on of hands is needed", I have some experience there.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186022 Nov 20, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The greater the discrepancy in wealth between the haves and have-nots, the less the have-not can contribute in taxes, and the greater fraction of the total the haves are paying even when their tax rates are lower.
Thus, if your tax rate drops from 30% of a million dollars ($200,000) to 20% of ten million ($2 million), you will be paying more taxes and a greater fraction of the total paid. If I am the only other tax payer, and I'm paying $50,000 in each case because my income has stagnated while yours has gone through the roof, we go from you paying 80% of the total to 97.6%.
And if I complain about, you can just show me that in a chart and hope that it appeases me.
You are confusing two different things.

You could complain about your income, but you would be off-base to complain about your portion of taxes, or to complain that the system of taxation favors the rich.

A second flaw in your analysis is that the non-rich outnumber the rich by a high multiple. The tax load is carried by a small sub-section of people.

That is why "raise taxes on the rich" is an absurd remedy for deficits.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#186024 Nov 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF is a yoghurt?
A quick google gave me this definition

“Yogurt or yoghurt or yoghourt is a fermented milk product produced by bacterial fermentation of milk.

You could have done the same an so not looked so foolish

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) 2 min Chimney1 43,157
A Universe from Nothing? 3 min u196533dm 488
News New Jersey woman will get to use '8THEIST' lice... 10 min Eagle 12 6
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 19 min Eagle 12 5,686
Good arguments against Christianity 26 min Eagle 12 180
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 33 min Eagle 12 18,497
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 56 min Chazofsaints 3,841
More from around the web