Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256029 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.

Anon

Lakewood, OH

#186497 Nov 21, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> If there was you can bet it will be north of akron.
I take it you enjoy squalor?
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#186498 Nov 21, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it you enjoy squalor?
well, only if its the destitute variety.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#186499 Nov 21, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is a FACT, how could I "ditch" it?
Very good, you're coming around, you finally realize that evolution is responsible and not you demon God. Took long enough!!!
Sit and chant evoluuuuuuuuuuuuuuution slowly.

It's a cult following that I'm not into.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#186500 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in clinics or on strangers. I am not licenced here.
But I do give opinions to friends that ask for them, including second opinions on the meanings of lab tests and X-rays, diagnoses, prognoses, and therapeutic options just as I did with Riverside Redneck and his parotid, submandibular or sunlingual stones.
I do this at no charge, with no exam, and keeping no records. I also tell them that I have not studied medicine or examined a patient in four years.
I was at the top of my game, however, when I bowed out four years ago. Would you find it improbable if I told you that I used to study medicine diligently and was a very good student of it until I stopped? I have been blessed with an insatiable curiosity, the ability to learn just about anything, and a strong sense of duty - exactly the opposite of what the theists who accuse me of being a corner cutting, insurance defrauding, law avoiding hack on the run imagine.
Why do you ask.
I find people interesting especially people that have history and experience.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#186501 Nov 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Old news.
The Einstein stuff that works will last forever. e.g. E=mc^2.
The Einstain stuff thst doesn't work has already been discounted. e.g. steady state universe, quantum physics.
If only you lot of of fuctards could treat your buybull as dispassionately.
<quoted text>
Are you bitter because you lost a close love one to leukemia?
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#186502 Nov 21, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sit and chant evoluuuuuuuuuuuuuuution slowly.
It's a cult following that I'm not into.
So you think evolution is a CULT?....ha ha ha ha, really now pop's ....Cult----"A "system" of "religious" veneration and devotion directed toward a particular "figure" or "object." Were's the figure or object in evolution?

Of course your "Into" it, either that or you lied. You admitted to accepting "micro-evolution" so you accept evolution period, since there is NO DIFFERENCE between miro, and macro evolution. If you believe in micro-evolution you are now officially a member of the *cult* LOL

"The really nice thing about evolution is that's it's true whether or not you believe it"

I think you are confusing your death cult with a scientific fact. It's your death cult that chants..Glooooory to Gooooood, aaaaaaamen. Praissssse the loooooord, my looooord and savvvvior. See, now don't you feel really foolish!!!

So, are you changing your tune now and saying you do not accept micro-evolution? Personally I don't think you have any idea what constitutes evolution. Reading that creationists shit WILL rot your brain.
Siro

Sydney, Australia

#186503 Nov 21, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>So you think evolution is a CULT?....ha ha ha ha, really now pop's ....Cult----"A "system" of "religious" veneration and devotion directed toward a particular "figure" or "object." Were's the figure or object in evolution?
Richard Dawkins
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#186504 Nov 21, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Richard Dawkins
Another assclown that has no idea what evolution means.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186505 Nov 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
You can cut the cord on a preemie and it becomes a baby. In a prior post you made the distinction between a baby and a fetus as being that cord. If the cord existed you felt justified in killing it. It was just a growth within the mother. You made absolutely no distinction regarding the age of your "fetus". Someone is on life support? No problem for you to shut it off, is there? Once they go on it they lose their human identity. Secular humanist, huh?

You have the mind of a murderer.
You got all of that from my making a distinction between a fetus and a baby, and my support of abortion rights? Then you have the mind of a Christian. It's not a good one, but it's been trained by example to harshly and demeaningly judge others according to Christian memes, and continues to do so long after leaving the faith.

That is why I say that you are functionally a Christian. You bear the scars of your Christian training. Notwithstanding your continual carping about others not thinking outside of the box, you continue to promote the Christian church's meme for it.

You understand that they consider you a hell-bound heretic even though you are willing to angrily point the finger for them, do you not?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186506 Nov 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Which category does a protestant Catholic fit in?
The same one as a married bachelor and a perfect god that makes mistakes.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186508 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It's been remarkably difficult to find anything on the Internet that clearly defines hip, valley, ridge, gable, rake, gable end, gable rake, or rake end in a way that a novice could look at a diagram and say "this is that."
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/ portal/server.pt/community/arc hitectural_field_guide/2370/di ctionary_of_architectural_term s/445407
http://www.classicist.org/workspace/pdf/Ident... A start.
Thanks, but those links didn't answer my questions about roof nomenclature.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186509 Nov 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Go to school or work and get an education.


That's strange advice from a guy who mocks books and links, and who contemptuously calls learning what is known thinking in the box.

One thing I learned from my education was how to keep on learning independently. I do it mostly through the Internet these days. Here's how I would approach this problem: I Googled "roof glossary" and looked at three of them (named as sources at the bottom). I picked out the terms of interest and merged them so that I could review a few of them simultaneously and hope to learn more about each term than any single definition would allow. Here is that:

Hip:[1] the inclined external angle formed by the intersection of two sloping roof planes.[2] an external angle formed by the meeting of two sloping ends of the roof, from the ridge to the eaves; also, a type of roof.

Valley:[1] the internal angle formed by the intersection of two sloping roof planes.[2] area where two adjoining sloped roof planes intersect on a roof creating a "V" shaped depression.[3] an internal angle or water runway formed by the intersection of two slopes in a roof.

Ridge:[1] highest point on the roof, represented by a horizontal line where two roof areas intersect, running the length of the area.[2] the apex of the angle formed by a roof, or the peak, where the common rafters meet.

Gable:[1] a triangular portion of the endwall of a building directly under the sloping roof and above the eave line.[2] the end wall of a building which comes to a triangular point under a sloping roof; also, a type of roof.

Rake:[1] the sloped edge of a roof at or adjacent to the first or last rafter.[2] the inclined edge of a pitched roof over an end wall.

Rake Edge: the vertical edge of gable style roof planes.

Gable Roof:[1] traditional roof style; two peaked roof planes meeting at a ridge line of equal size.[2] a single-ridge roof that terminates at gable end(s).

Hip Roof:[1] a roof with four roof planes coming together at a peak and four separate hip legs.[2] a roof that rises by inclined planes to form one or more hips.

Mansard Roof:[1] a steeper roof that terminates into a flat roof at its high point.[2] A roof design with a nearly vertical roof plane that ties into a roof plane of less slope at its peak.

Roof Plane: a roofing area defined by having four separate edges. One side of a gable, hip or mansard roof.

Sources:
http://godfreyroofing.com/residential/educati...
http://www.genesisroofinginc.com/roofing-term...
http://www.gaf.com/Roofing/Residential/Glossa...

=========

Now I can tell you that there are three major types of roof. The kind we all learned to draw as children is the gable roof, with two down-sloping surfaces that meet at a peak. The lowest edge is the eave, the highest the ridge. The line connecting them is the rake end or end, and the triangular part of the end walls is the gable.

If this is modified so that another sloping surface is built perpendicular to these two - perhaps over the gable - there will be two sloping edges called hips coming down from the ridge connecting it to the eaves. If this is done on both sides, it becomes a hip roof, the top of which may be a ridge or a point.

If the roof planes are especially steep with a less steep or flat apes, it is a mansard roof.

If the roof turns 90°, this will create another line from the ridge to the eaves called a valley.

Presumably, you boys all knew this, but you were unable to share you knowledge because you didn't clearly and succinctly articulate what these terms mean. I don't fault you for that. It's a skill that one develops with practice, one you haven't needed. As a physician, part of my job was to do this for patients. Learning and teaching - they go together.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186510 Nov 22, 2013
"less steep or flat apes"

should read

"less steep or flat APEX"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186511 Nov 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The precise terms are liberal and conservative.
No, those terms are not precise. They are too broad, and contain too many subtypes.

Describing one of the subtypes of conservative is more precise. Thus, in America, conservatives range from moderate Goldwater style conservatives to extremists like the Tea Party and beyond: the Dominionists. You can go even further right to absolute monarchies and fascist dictatorships. All of these descriptions are far more precise than the term you offered, conservative - a hypernym ("a word with a broad meaning constituting a category into which words with more specific meanings fall")

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186512 Nov 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I don't care what his faith is or says. I have watched him employ reason and logic to mow down the vaunted Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and other luminaries.
What a faith based thinker does is begin with an unsupported premise - the existence of a god - and reverse engineers arguments that appear to lead unavoidably to his premise, which he presents as a conclusion. Paradoxically, the ideas he presents as premises were the last part of the argument he contrived working backward. From this perspective, they are pseudopremises, and his actual faith based premises offered as a conclusion is a pseudoconclusion. This is a common form of sophistry, one I call it a reverse argument.

The trick is to make the forward progression from pseudopremise to pseudoconclusion appear valid, that is to avoid obvious fallacies, using only subtle one. This is what Craig does better than most, aided by advanced degrees and titles (doctor of philosophy and intellectual), and the vocabulary and polish of an academician. It's an effective package, and it is exactly what somebody who wants to believe what Craig believes would be drawn to.

You say you "don't care what his faith is or says," but you do. You wouldn't be singing his praises now if he wasn't arguing for a god.

I care, too. His faith undermines his credibility. I'm sorry, but when you begin with a god as a premise, nothing that follows is sound. And he lets us know that he doesn't really respect the reasoning process when he candidly admits that faith trumps reason for him:

"If in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that contraverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." . William Lane Craig

This is why I care what his faith is. Not the specific brand - Christianity - just the fact of faith based thought. It makes sound reasoning impossible.

==========

I have used the terms valid argument and sound argument. Now, let's look at them more closely. From http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ :

"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid ... In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

"A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."

Once again, in the light of this, the faith based thinker begins with an invalid premise - an unsupported god belief - meaning that all of the thinking he does for the rest of his life that is based in this invalid premise is unsound.

If he is also an apologist reverse engineering arguments, he will try to draw a line from his pseudopremises to his pseudoconclusion - his faith based premise - with an argument that appears valid.

The Kalam cosmological argument, which Craig famously champions, is a prime example, which any interested reader can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmo... see refuted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmo...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186513 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No, those terms are not precise. They are too broad, and contain too many subtypes.
Describing one of the subtypes of conservative is more precise. Thus, in America, conservatives range from moderate Goldwater style conservatives to extremists like the Tea Party and beyond: the Dominionists. You can go even further right to absolute monarchies and fascist dictatorships. All of these descriptions are far more precise than the term you offered, conservative - a hypernym ("a word with a broad meaning constituting a category into which words with more specific meanings fall")
Too broad for what?

Certainly not for this discussion.

Being a conservative means being rational.

Being a liberal means being willing to give someone else's shirt right off his back.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186514 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What a faith based thinker does is begin with an unsupported premise - the existence of a god - and reverse engineers arguments that appear to lead unavoidably to his premise, which he presents as a conclusion. Paradoxically, the ideas he presents as premises were the last part of the argument he contrived working backward. From this perspective, they are pseudopremises, and his actual faith based premises offered as a conclusion is a pseudoconclusion. This is a common form of sophistry, one I call it a reverse argument.
The trick is to make the forward progression from pseudopremise to pseudoconclusion appear valid, that is to avoid obvious fallacies, using only subtle one. This is what Craig does better than most, aided by advanced degrees and titles (doctor of philosophy and intellectual), and the vocabulary and polish of an academician. It's an effective package, and it is exactly what somebody who wants to believe what Craig believes would be drawn to.
You say you "don't care what his faith is or says," but you do. You wouldn't be singing his praises now if he wasn't arguing for a god.
I care, too. His faith undermines his credibility. I'm sorry, but when you begin with a god as a premise, nothing that follows is sound. And he lets us know that he doesn't really respect the reasoning process when he candidly admits that faith trumps reason for him:
"If in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that contraverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." . William Lane Craig
This is why I care what his faith is. Not the specific brand - Christianity - just the fact of faith based thought. It makes sound reasoning impossible.
==========
I have used the terms valid argument and sound argument. Now, let's look at them more closely. From http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ :
"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid ... In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
"A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."
Once again, in the light of this, the faith based thinker begins with an invalid premise - an unsupported god belief - meaning that all of the thinking he does for the rest of his life that is based in this invalid premise is unsound.
If he is also an apologist reverse engineering arguments, he will try to draw a line from his pseudopremises to his pseudoconclusion - his faith based premise - with an argument that appears valid.
The Kalam cosmological argument, which Craig famously champions, is a prime example, which any interested reader can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmo... see refuted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmo...
If I had known you would back up this dumptruck load of bullshit, I would have never mentioned it.

Your premise is made up of whole cloth.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186515 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It's very possible that life formed on earth repeatedly between a series of sterilization catastrophes that were likely common in the earlier eons of earth's history.
Buck Crick wrote:
That is only remotely possible - possible only to the extent that we cannot say any event is absolutely impossible. It is possible in the same sense that it is possible for me to shit a grandfather clock. Or possible for a billy goat to fly.
Thank you for sharing yet another faith based, unsupported opinion. Most theists share it.
Buck Crick wrote:
And earth is not and was not hospitable to life forming spontaneously. So far, it cannot be done now, even in a laboratory under ideal controlled conditions. You are operating on pure faith.
You're offering your faith based preferences as proven facts. Notice the difference in our demeanors:

You: "Earth is not and was not hospitable to life forming spontaneously"
Me: "It's very possible that life formed on earth repeatedly"

As for the ideal conditions for abiogenesis, these appear to include both the absence of competing life, and the addition of deep time. We do not expect abiogenesis to occur in the presence of other life, which is presumably why all life appears to have derived from a single primordial unicellular species with no extant competing lines, nor in the laboratory over a few years.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186516 Nov 22, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
See?
You cite reason, logic, enjoyment.
I require EVIDENCE.
I need an evidentiary basis for a god, in order to consider the possibility there is one or more.
Can you provide any evidence?
I just did.(I'm sure you have them law books - look up the term "evidence")

You're welcome, Counselor.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186517 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
So you say.
Do you have any evidence to support that "Baptiste" did valid scientific experimentation, or even invalid experimentation? If so, will you offer it, or should we just accept your pronouncements on faith?
And do you think that if you were correct, that it would have ramification for the reliability of science, or are you just being argumentative and hoping that somehow it undermines the validity of modern science anyway?
My point was not to undermine science.

It was to show how, to support science, you say shit that is not true.

I succeeded 100%.

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) 3 min One way or another 40,677
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 min woodtick57 20,605
Who Is Satan The Devil? Is He Real? (Jan '16) 15 min Reason Personified 20
A Universe from Nothing? 30 min ilovedesigirls 76
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 47 min Reason Personified 255
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr ChristineM 16,157
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 4 hr Thinking 4,676
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr ChristineM 24,079
More from around the web