Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
178,801 - 178,820 of 224,558 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186355
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the area where theistic antiscientism is the most threatening to the rest of us. We really need to start taking this matter seriously. We need people to listen to the experts.
But science undermines faith, and so the church selfishly and irresponsibly undermines confidence in science and scientists. Evolutionary science is its principle target, but the work the church does there makes Americans more susceptible to the disinformation coming from the fossil fuel industry.
And yes, Buck, we all know that you disagree.
Science undermines faith?

That's not the problem here.

The problem here is science undermining truth, not to mention the U.S. economy, jobs, and free thought.

Those of us who maintained for years that such hoaxes as global warming are, well, hoaxes are being proven prescient.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186356
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the hip and ridge are not the same thing.
A ridge can be the junction of two sides of a gabled roof.
A hip is only the junction of side slope with end slope.
But you cover it with the same type of shingle.
We used to cut them from regular shingles. Some brands sell a special hip shingle.
They are virtually the same thing, the "peak" on a roof.

On three-tab shingle roofing, you can cut the shingle into it's own ridge shingle, but on dimensional, tile & cement shingles, you must purchase the hip & ridge shingle separately.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186357
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a suggestion - how about return to your creationist cave whence you came, never to return ever again?
You're cults had enough of a beating these past few months I am sure you will agree...
Says the dumb ass atheist troll that thinks writing "whence" will make him seem smarter.....

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186358
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, Christine.
Is there any way I can ever repay for this huge favor?
Not really, consider it a gift

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186359
Nov 21, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
He said babies, not fetuses. Babies are those terrestrial, air breathing, and food eating creatures that you see in strollers and cribs. You're confusing them with creatures that live in an aqueous milieu in a uterus and take oxygen and nutrition through an umbilical cord. Those aren't babies.
Your use of the term "creatures" is intentionally vague.

That's a "tell".

You suspended your preference here for word-meanings being personal matters, and switched on your requirement for precision.

But within the same post, in one sentence you demand accuracy; in another sentence you are intentionally vague with your terminology, as in referring to a human being as "creature".

My brain analytics, which are considerable, sense something going on with this post.

There is more going on here than simply a preference for accurate terms.

The "tell" tips it off.

An unborn human must not be called a "baby", but someone who has no position on the existence of god can be called an "atheist".

And Hitler says "I am a Christian".

Definitions as propaganda.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186360
Nov 21, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They are virtually the same thing, the "peak" on a roof.
On three-tab shingle roofing, you can cut the shingle into it's own ridge shingle, but on dimensional, tile & cement shingles, you must purchase the hip & ridge shingle separately.
Or you can do what a previous owner of this house I live in did. He poured concrete on a steep pitched roof. One and a quarter inches deep on a wood frame house. But it was braced real well. Great protection against hail damage. Not so good for maintenance by old men. Plus he didn't figure the sag in the sheathing caused by the dampness while drying.

Took six Mexicans two days to remove and replace with an additional layer of sheath and shingles. They did a great job. But I do miss that protection against hail damage and crashing 747's. However, the insurance company didn't give a break for it. This roof is much more attractive.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186361
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
Not all of us think in medicinal terms, IANS. I'm not used to seeing a woman rubbing her preggo belly and saying; "OH! My fetus just kicked!"
You're used to the language that the sources you trust choose to use.

The use of words like "baby" and "murder" in the context of abortion is not an accident. They are the result of a persuasive technique called framing, which concerns itself with the unstated assumptions, implications and value judgements that a phrase carries - what you might call "baggage."

Those words were chosen by others - the assorted think tanks and policy centers where such strategies are conceived and delivered to the echo chamber of assorted media outlets - in this case to gain sympathy for the fetus by calling it a baby, since the more clinical and less sympathetic word fetus connotes a shrimp-like thing, and the latter something cute, cuddly and irresistible, and also to vilify abortion by calling it murder, a charged term, rather than the more clinical and accurate feticide.

Framing is something we should all be aware of. It occurs commonly. For example, suppose I favor giving the mother the choice to continue or terminate her pregnancy, and you don't. I might say that I am pro-choice regarding abortion, and that you by virtue of being the opposite are anti-choice.

Anti-choice is not a very sympathetic word in a culture that values freedom, and the movement recognized that. So,it called itself pro-life instead - a happier sounding term. Who could oppose people that support life?

Joseph Goebbels is considered the father of using this and similar subtle persuasive techniques, and George Lakoff has written the most about it in the context of American political and religious culture wars:

"George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff. The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive."

"The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing."
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/...

Other famous examples of this technique include "death tax" for inheritance tax and "family values" for Christian priorities, How could you possibly be a death tax or against families, which of course is the point?

Also, "taxpayers money" for public funds. If I'm against taxes, I want to emphasize that the money is the taxpayer's, not the government's. Buck can tell you how well that has worked.

If you're against them, you call them "entitlements" to bring out negative feelings that people that think they're entitled to something evoke, rather than phrases like "Social security," "veterans benefits," or "aid to dependent children." What kind of monster would object to security for society, benefits for our veterans, or aid to dependent children?

It should be noted that the latter phrases are also examples of framing and propaganda. Neutral terms would be things like retiree income or veterans' payments.

If you weren't already aware of this, now you are. Forewarned is forearmed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186362
Nov 21, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
He said babies, not fetuses. Babies are those terrestrial, air breathing, and food eating creatures that you see in strollers and cribs. You're confusing them with creatures that live in an aqueous milieu in a uterus and take oxygen and nutrition through an umbilical cord. Those aren't babies.
I want to get this straight.

If medical terminology were revised to call fetuses "babies", then you would be opposed to abortion?

You have only two possible answers: Yes or No.

If you answer "Yes", you are absurd.

If you answer "No", then your above contention is absurd.

Do you want your next statement to be absurd, or your previous statement to be absurd?

There is a way to be both absurd and cowardly - choose neither option.

I predict this will be your choice.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186363
Nov 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You should know better than this by now. I don't accept your unsupported claims. The little bit I found on this subject doesn't support your claim that what he did was science.
Your answer is bull shit, but it is the exact guess I gave as your excuse for being wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186364
Nov 21, 2013
 
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not suggesting that a whole group of people, due to their religious background, or their mental disabilities might not be as evolved, but rather the certain persons that I was referring to (but I have now forgotten my original point) might not be as evolved. Hitler and Mengele advocated using or misusing these people for evil reasons. I would not support the thinking of either of them.
But that's exactly what you did, and you just did it again.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186365
Nov 21, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you can do what a previous owner of this house I live in did. He poured concrete on a steep pitched roof. One and a quarter inches deep on a wood frame house. But it was braced real well. Great protection against hail damage. Not so good for maintenance by old men. Plus he didn't figure the sag in the sheathing caused by the dampness while drying.
Took six Mexicans two days to remove and replace with an additional layer of sheath and shingles. They did a great job. But I do miss that protection against hail damage and crashing 747's. However, the insurance company didn't give a break for it. This roof is much more attractive.
Holy shit. An 1-1/2" thick concrete slab roof?! That's a first.

Since concrete is porous, that's not a very good idea.

Also the sheer weight of it would require a substantial structure to hold it.

I did an apartment once that had 1-1/2" of concrete on the second floor. The first floor structure was massive. In the end, it paid off because the footfalls from upstairs were virtually nonexistent because of the slab.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186366
Nov 21, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're used to the language that the sources you trust choose to use.
The use of words like "baby" and "murder" in the context of abortion is not an accident. They are the result of a persuasive technique called framing, which concerns itself with the unstated assumptions, implications and value judgements that a phrase carries - what you might call "baggage."
Those words were chosen by others - the assorted think tanks and policy centers where such strategies are conceived and delivered to the echo chamber of assorted media outlets - in this case to gain sympathy for the fetus by calling it a baby, since the more clinical and less sympathetic word fetus connotes a shrimp-like thing, and the latter something cute, cuddly and irresistible, and also to vilify abortion by calling it murder, a charged term, rather than the more clinical and accurate feticide.
Framing is something we should all be aware of. It occurs commonly. For example, suppose I favor giving the mother the choice to continue or terminate her pregnancy, and you don't. I might say that I am pro-choice regarding abortion, and that you by virtue of being the opposite are anti-choice.
Anti-choice is not a very sympathetic word in a culture that values freedom, and the movement recognized that. So,it called itself pro-life instead - a happier sounding term. Who could oppose people that support life?
You & I speak slightly different languages.

I am not anti-choice, IANS. I've stated plenty of times that I am pro-choice for abortion. I don't agree with it, but it isn't my call to make , it's the parent's call.

You didn't even ask me what my position on it was, why did you just assume?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186367
Nov 21, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It is my sincere wish for all of you ingrates who express opinions such as this one that they someday get a taste of a world free of liberal innovations. Not forever - just for a year. You would be singing a different tune if you survived it. I'd like to see Limbaugh in the Tower of London weeping over the skeletons of Richard III's nephews about his rights.
You don't have a clue as to what liberalism and conservatism mean in the context of modern politics and government.

You liberals live your own lives and raise your children by the principles of conservatism, and publicly recommend liberalism for everyone else.

Diane Fienstien having a concealed carry permit - case in point.

Warren Buffet promoting higher taxes on the wealthy, and paying a full-time staff of tax accountants working to minimize his tax burden - case in point #2.

I could go on all day and not repeat one example.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186368
Nov 21, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're used to the language that the sources you trust choose to use.
The use of words like "baby" and "murder" in the context of abortion is not an accident. They are the result of a persuasive technique called framing, which concerns itself with the unstated assumptions, implications and value judgements that a phrase carries - what you might call "baggage."
Those words were chosen by others - the assorted think tanks and policy centers where such strategies are conceived and delivered to the echo chamber of assorted media outlets - in this case to gain sympathy for the fetus by calling it a baby, since the more clinical and less sympathetic word fetus connotes a shrimp-like thing, and the latter something cute, cuddly and irresistible, and also to vilify abortion by calling it murder, a charged term, rather than the more clinical and accurate feticide.
Framing is something we should all be aware of. It occurs commonly. For example, suppose I favor giving the mother the choice to continue or terminate her pregnancy, and you don't. I might say that I am pro-choice regarding abortion, and that you by virtue of being the opposite are anti-choice.
Anti-choice is not a very sympathetic word in a culture that values freedom, and the movement recognized that. So,it called itself pro-life instead - a happier sounding term. Who could oppose people that support life?
Joseph Goebbels is considered the father of using this and similar subtle persuasive techniques, and George Lakoff has written the most about it in the context of American political and religious culture wars:
"George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff. The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive."
"The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing."
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/...
Other famous examples of this technique include "death tax" for inheritance tax and "family values" for Christian priorities, How could you possibly be a death tax or against families, which of course is the point?
Also, "taxpayers money" for public funds. If I'm against taxes, I want to emphasize that the money is the taxpayer's, not the government's. Buck can tell you how well that has worked.
If you're against them, you call them "entitlements" to bring out negative feelings that people that think they're entitled to something evoke, rather than phrases like "Social security," "veterans benefits," or "aid to dependent children." What kind of monster would object to security for society, benefits for our veterans, or aid to dependent children?
It should be noted that the latter phrases are also examples of framing and propaganda. Neutral terms would be things like retiree income or veterans' payments.
If you weren't already aware of this, now you are. Forewarned is forearmed.
Disregard my last, you were just making an example. Sorry.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186369
Nov 21, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They are virtually the same thing, the "peak" on a roof.
On three-tab shingle roofing, you can cut the shingle into it's own ridge shingle, but on dimensional, tile & cement shingles, you must purchase the hip & ridge shingle separately.
Correct.

Putting on shingles is both the hottest and the coldest job there is.

I have had my ass melted stuck to shingles.

I mean the shingles melting, not my ass. I don't think,...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186370
Nov 21, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy shit. An 1-1/2" thick concrete slab roof?! That's a first.
Since concrete is porous, that's not a very good idea.
Also the sheer weight of it would require a substantial structure to hold it.
I did an apartment once that had 1-1/2" of concrete on the second floor. The first floor structure was massive. In the end, it paid off because the footfalls from upstairs were virtually nonexistent because of the slab.
It took some getting used to sleeping under. But it was about 20 years old. Porous is the issue, and minute cracks, though it didn't leak. Every time the wind blew the old sealant flapped and flew. But I was not about to go up there and reseal it again. Got a USDA grant to replace it. Still have the garage, spa, and a big shed covered like that.

The guys that built those were very good. Standard lumber and sheathing and they are solid as rocks. We get 70 mph winds and nothing shakes. I have some steel siding soffit that flaps a bit in one spot, and that is really the only indication of a strong wind blowing. One day I may crawl up there and fix it.

You should have seen that crew groan when they arrived. They were subcontractors who made the deal with the contractor without knowing it was a concrete roof. They drove a hundred miles out here.

Six guys up there chiseling concrete and putting new roof on and not a shake. Didn't even bother my skittish kitty.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186371
Nov 21, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
Would you speculate that a man had distinguished himself a bit if he had the following published and marketed about him:
Albright, William F. Yahweh and ...
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Yes, I would, although I'm being charitable here. Strictly speaking, it was others that distinguished Jesus, beginning with Paul and the Gospel writers, and continuing through Constantine to the many authors you cited. Jesus the legend is well known today, but I can't say that Jesus himself had much to do with it. I think he was a fairly undistinguished person made into an icon after his death. My position has never been that the man's life didn't become distinguished by others. It was and is that he was not as wise as you imply, and that his life's words and deeds including those you cited were unimpressive.
Buck Crick wrote:
I see your sticking with your story, evidence be damned.
What story am I telling, and what evidence have you offered against it?

I say that Jesus was not particularly wise, does not impress me as somebody that was likely better than tens of thousands of other people in his time or before, and is notable (distinguished from others) not because of what he said and did, but because of what others that came later said and did. Is that a story?

What evidence have you offered apart from examples of Jesus' words and deeds that you but not I found wise and/or impressive, and a long list of people that helped distinguish the Jesus icon with their books?

[@ Riverside Redneck - note the framing. My position is a "story" that requires that "evidence be damned" to tell. Now that you are alerted to its existence, you'll be prepared to see just how much of this charged language Buck uses, albeit not always as subtly as with framing. He'll often do your thinking for you overtly, such as when he announces that he is the victor and his disputant is an idiot. Even when you can't identify it explicitly and overtly, you can feel it. You can sense the difference between an argument delivered relatively dispassionately and comprising principally statements of fact - one intended to persuade with evidence and reason - and one intended to persuade with charged language.]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186372
Nov 21, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
Much of the body of published tomes about Jesus' life is not derived from Paul, Constantine, or the Gospels.
I know. Those are also some of tomes that helped promote (distinguish) Jesus along with the words and deeds of Paul, the Gospel writers, and Constantine, who also marketed the Jesus brand.
Buck Crick wrote:
Having admitted your knowledge basis is the King James, you are admitting an errant knowledge basis,(as you often highlight yourself), and giving verification to my low assessment of your acumen on the subject.
Look at how much you packed into just this one sentence. You make a false claim that I admitted something about a bible translation that I have not mentioned in this thread in 2013 if ever, then you admit errors for me and tell your audience that I have a low acumen and have verified it myself. You tell your audience what they should think without bothering to give them the argument and its supporting evidence that justifies those conclusions.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186373
Nov 21, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
Lastly, to credit people coming after Jesus for how his own life is distinguished by history and literature is, well,...abzurd. I would have used the word "stupid", but refrained out of respect.'Cause that's the kind of guy I am.
Thanks. Respect is the word that comes to mind when I think about how you write. And thanks for telling us what kind of a guy you are.

But back to the discussion, how distinguished do you suppose the life of Jesus would be today without the people who wrote about him?
Buck Crick wrote:
As an afterthought, I don't believe you. Religion aside, any man who can attract a following for a life-approach that gives upheaval to the powers of religion and government, knowing he will likely die for it, which is an irrefutable fact, is objectively impressive.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

The reader should note how Buck defines his his own judgments not as opinions, but as objective truth, an implying that those who disagree are wrong. Impressive does not refer to a psychological state caused by an experience, but an objective truth floating in space.

Note also that he doesn't merely disagree with me. He disbelieves me, implying that I am lying.

This is Buck demeaning his disputant, reifying his opinions, and telling his audience how to think with verbal sleight of hand.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186374
Nov 21, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy shit. An 1-1/2" thick concrete slab roof?! That's a first.
Since concrete is porous, that's not a very good idea.
Also the sheer weight of it would require a substantial structure to hold it.
I did an apartment once that had 1-1/2" of concrete on the second floor. The first floor structure was massive. In the end, it paid off because the footfalls from upstairs were virtually nonexistent because of the slab.
Oh, the roof is pitched. Don't know the proper description, but the peak is about a 45 degree angle, maybe less. There was a lot of cross bracing in the attic to handle the load.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

15 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 40 min Gillette 253
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 48 min CunningLinguist 70,960
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 1 hr Gillette 24
Introducing The Universal Religion 1 hr Patrick 737
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 1 hr Patrick 397
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr fadu singh 21,406
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr Electrical Engineer 842
•••
•••