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.

UidiotRacemakeWo rldpeace

United States

#207363 Jan 25, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I like where your head's at. Let's discard the most effective knowledge increasing tool humanity has ever known because certain people (usually governments or business interests) misuse said knowledge.
I think we'd all be better off if we followed our guts.
Those knowingly know about hazards not informing the public and still sell it on the market , in name of greed or for a ill cause,.. actually what we call it criminal negligent in nature , doing harm to society, these are what we call predatory entities who careless about society, or to make quick buck...., should be held liable/ responsible for their actions!

"Serial killers ruin families. Corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies and societies."
Robert Hare , criminal psychologist/researcher

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207364 Jan 25, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
They all think(?) Atheists are "angry", I see it as classic projection ... Atheists and ex cultists are worse than "demons" and witches to them, because we do not accept their illusions or behaviour anymore.
The church tends to teach the faithful that unbelievers have defective characters. Besides being taught that we actually believe in their god but are irresponsible and undisciplined people looking to have a good time wile hoping to escape accountability - I'm sure you've seen that many times - we are also angry at that god. When we are critical of the church, it is virtually never seen as a sincere criticism, but as an unwarranted and angry attack. I am only just now starting to see the faintest glimmer of some believers looking to the church as the source of any of its modern problems. But mostly, it's all our fault.

Look at how this discussion of homophobia has been playing out in this thread. How much acknowledgement do you see that the church may actually have a problem, or that there is any validity to our criticisms of its doctrine in this area? Zero.

Instead, we are cast as people angrily and unfairly trying to smear the church without cause by manufacturing a complaint that has no merit.
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
christians are angry because they are being exposed and confronted, all over the globe and they can't do anything other than foam at the mouth about it.
You, like many Europeans, live in a place where the church has already been humbled somewhat by the reality of its weakened social status. But the American church has always enjoyed the role as judge of others,and has been instructing the faithful that it and they possess the moral high ground. It is not accustomed to having its own values and behavior called immoral, and seems unprepared to be the target of the same argument.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#207365 Jan 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>The church tends to teach the faithful that unbelievers have defective characters. Besides being taught that we actually believe in their god but are irresponsible and undisciplined people looking to have a good time wile hoping to escape accountability - I'm sure you've seen that many times - we are also angry at that god. When we are critical of the church, it is virtually never seen as a sincere criticism, but as an unwarranted and angry attack. I am only just now starting to see the faintest glimmer of some believers looking to the church as the source of any of its modern problems. But mostly, it's all our fault.

Look at how this discussion of homophobia has been playing out in this thread. How much acknowledgement do you see that the church may actually have a problem, or that there is any validity to our criticisms of its doctrine in this area? Zero.

Instead, we are cast as people angrily and unfairly trying to smear the church without cause by manufacturing a complaint that has no merit.

Divinity Surgeon wrote, " christians are angry because they are being exposed and confronted, all over the globe and they can't do anything other than foam at the mouth about it."

You, like many Europeans, live in a place where the church has already been humbled somewhat by the reality of its weakened social status. But the American church has always enjoyed the role as judge of others,and has been instructing the faithful that it and they possess the moral high ground. It is not accustomed to having its own values and behavior called immoral, and seems unprepared to be the target of the same argument.
I can understand why you left.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207366 Jan 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The buck stops with Adam and Eve. It's the human's fault, not the omniscient, omnipotent deity that made him as he was.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That is correct. Take responsibility for you own actions, and all that that entails.
Thanks, but I'm way ahead of you on that one.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207367 Jan 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Was there any specific part of Harris' thesis that you wanted to critique?
Buck Crick wrote:
I find it presumptuous, exaggerated, and creepy.
Proposing a race of zombies.
No, then. Your critique is a gestalt.
Buck Crick wrote:
Material reductionism to the extreme.
You've gone too far. Materialism is not reducing the universe to tiny billiard balls. That is only one level of inspection. All the best parts are seen at larger scales - the one of native experience. where ants and grains of sand are the small things and mountains and oceans are the large things. Obviously, there as scales much smaller and larger than those, where the actors are atoms or galaxies. Those are indeed each apparently empty of everything we hold precious. If that is your argument, you're arguing against the wrong thing.

It is in the gap between these scales that matter comes alive and knows itself. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of matter at this scale, with no evidence of consciousness at the much larger and smaller scales. If consciousness and its emergent phenomena like reason and compassion were due to some exogenous disembodied spiritual principle imbuing matter from outside, we ought to see it manifest at all scales.

The fallacy of the criticism of materialism is the reductionist fallacy: "[S]omeone who objects to technology may argue against the usefulness of a computer by referring to it as nothing but a box of wires." http://www.thinking-christianly.com/... You seem to be making a similar argument on our behalf, and then rejecting it.

But that is not our understanding. Our understanding of material reality is far more robust than the caricature of it that our critics imagine. For starters, materialism isn't just about matter. It's also about energy, force, form, motion, space and time. It is more properly called physicalism or naturalism (cf. supernaturalism).

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#207368 Jan 25, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
I like Abbadon of Azeroth.
Hi scar, great post :-)
You should try Azathoth, the blind mad god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207369 Jan 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Prejudice?! If what he or I spout is prejudice, then it's prejudice against all sin. Stop focusing so much on homosexuals.

G'head, judge away.
Which is it then?

The fact is that we judge the church now just as it has always judged us, and we have a voice.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I certainly wouldn't be bitching and whining that some people think Christians are abominable.
Isn't what you are doing now essentially that? You don't like the secular community's criticism of church homophobia.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#207370 Jan 25, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can tell you hair-raising stories of what it was like as a non-Christian child growing up in South America a few decades ago.
The "challenges" did make me a stronger person in the long run, but I wouldn't wish them on anybody.
In the news...

In a Louisiana public school, a science teacher is teaching creationism and proselytizing. The teacher gives extra credit on homework and exams for quoting Bible verses One of her students was Buddhist and the teacher was continually berating the student for her religion. The Buddhist student complained to the principle.

The principle told her she had two options...convert to Christianity or go to another school.

The student and her parents decided to try the latter option. Things were almost as bad there.

The ACLU is now suing on behalf of the family.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aclu...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#207371 Jan 25, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>You should try Azathoth, the blind mad god.
Lol. Do you think if I asked nicely, Dave would change his user name?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#207372 Jan 25, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Sure a methodology centered around facts is going to be much more likely to lead to a provable truth.
Agreed
Skombolis wrote:
Faith doesn't claim to be using the same methodology
I didn't say it did. I don't know of anyone that does say it uses the same methodology.
Skombolis wrote:
And just because it may lead to less truth or truth that can't be proved doesn't mean it can't lead to truth
But being faith, believing without evidence, means it has no objective measure of whether it is true or not. Yet so many people insist their faith is the TRUTH(tm).
Skombolis wrote:
But because it can't be proven is specifically why it is faith. To oversimplify it, faith deals with the heart while science deals with the mind. More of a feeling than a fact. But nobody should be claiming they are the sand thing. And if nobody is, there is no need for the comparison
sand thing???

But there are a great many people who DO claim that their faith is the truth. Just look at many of the theists on this thread. They aren't saying "I have faith in this, and let's just leave it at that." No, they insist they have the 100% guaranteed truth and not only do they believe it, but everyone else should too.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207373 Jan 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Stop focusing so much on homosexuals.
That would have been good advice for Clearwater's character reference for David Barton, pastor Scott Lively, who Clearwater quoted and I critiqued < http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... >

It seems that the good pastor was actively campaigning for Uganda's failed kill-the-queers legislation, and will now be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

"Conservative American Pastor to Be Charged With Crimes Against Humanity"
http://thegaychristian.com/scott-lively-crime...

========

In any event, it's little insincere to be pretending that it is the critics of the church that are the ones "focusing so much on homosexuals." or that Christian homophobia doesn't exist. Pastor Lively went half way around the world to help execute gays.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#207374 Jan 25, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>Tedium, thy name is mtimber.
As hominem reflects on you, not anyone else...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#207375 Jan 25, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>Do you get some bible prize if you ask the same question 1,000 times?
Answer it once and I will stop asking...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#207376 Jan 25, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>Did anyone on this thread read any of the above?
Yes

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#207377 Jan 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It seems that the good pastor was actively campaigning for Uganda's failed kill-the-queers legislation, and will now be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
"Conservative American Pastor to Be Charged With Crimes Against Humanity"
http://thegaychristian.com/scott-lively-crime...
I had not seen that. Thanx.

Lively is a real piece of work.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207378 Jan 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
How do you do that? Using blame, guilt or shame?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Actually, all three sound good.
It aint necessarily so wrote:

What is it that you object to about seeing addicts as victims rather than perps?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
They're not victims unless they're drugged by someone else Usually, that isn't the case. What difference does it make except in the way that people feel about them? It might help with less tolerance towards their drug habits.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
One mindset leads to empathy, the other to harsh judgment. Do you think that there is a good reason to prefer the latter?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Absolutely. Being a doc, haven't you seen the horrific results of people using drugs like meth or cocaine after just a few years? Wouldn't it make sense to catch these people and lock them away for a time until their addiction breaks?
I find the psychology of shame, guilt, harsh judgment, and punishment pretty repulsive and ineffectual, as the failed War on Drugs amply illustrates. Such a psychology is fundamental to Christian theology, which is all about free will, sin, judgment and punishment.

As you just read, I think that there is a more rational, a more compassionate, and a more effective way of framing and dealing with an issue like this. Your Christian orientation and my humanist orientation undoubtedly account for our differences here.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#207379 Jan 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That would have been good advice for Clearwater's character reference for David Barton, pastor Scott Lively, who Clearwater quoted and I critiqued < http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... >
It seems that the good pastor was actively campaigning for Uganda's failed kill-the-queers legislation, and will now be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
"Conservative American Pastor to Be Charged With Crimes Against Humanity"
http://thegaychristian.com/scott-lively-crime...
========
In any event, it's little insincere to be pretending that it is the critics of the church that are the ones "focusing so much on homosexuals." or that Christian homophobia doesn't exist. Pastor Lively went half way around the world to help execute gays.
It would be goo advice for whoever decided to hijack my name, I didn't write the above and have nothing to do with it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207380 Jan 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Is sunlight evidence of sunlight or of a sun?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Sunlight.
It's remarkable to see what faith does to reason.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Is a wake evidence of a boat or a wake?
Both, assuming that you mean the tracks left by an object moving through water and not a ritual observance for the dead. Wake is evidence, but not proof. Some such tracks may be due other things, like perhaps a whale or a school of fish, Other evidence may help us decide which, like the shape of the trail, where we are (wake in a lake is probably not a whale), or seeing or hearing the craft or whale that left the wake.

You have a very deformed understanding of what evidence is and how to interpret it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#207381 Jan 25, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>But a phrase often used to describe Adam and Eve before the Fall is that they were like babes. And you don't hand out strict punishment to babes, because they don't know what is right or wrong.

But this God of yours smacked them down...hard.

As for your last sentence...precisely. Eve was an unwitting victim. At the time of the "crime" she didn't know any better. And God delivered a smack-down anyway. So, yes, he was the cruel overlord.

The only reason you interpret it differently is that is how you have always been taught to read it, and you have been taught never to question it. Sad, really.
I have given you an explanation and shown you that your biased interpretation of the text is not the absolute interpretation that is required.

What is interesting however is that you are making moral judgements about God, yet you deny God.

Without God, as revealed in Christ, you have no basis for morality, you have no basis where you can account for morality.

You are in fact arguing from a Christian moral position, which shows that you are in fact fully aware of Gods existence.

If not, as an atheist, please account for absolute moral standards.

No?

Didn't think so...

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#207382 Jan 25, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>The thing is though is that they are trying to question methodology and say if it doesn't lead to truth for everyone that uses it then it must be flawed or of no value and that's just stupid.
The methodology may be sound but there isn't enough information
The methodology may be sound but someone is not doing it correctly
The methodology may be sound but they are using the wrong information
The methodology may be sound but they can't be objective
And so and so on
Look how many sociologists may have different beliefs regarding root causes for behavior despite testing the same things
Look how many different opinions there are concerning a psychological diagnosis
Or a medical diagnosis
Of scientific theory such as how life began
People are so desperate to discredit faith that they start making just silly claims. And lose sight of what is they are even talking about. It's called faith for a reason. I personally have never seen anyone claim a belief is a fact. Sure some people express it in a way that could lead someone to conclude they do. I guess there is a fine line between confident and knowing for a fact
But either way, there are dozens of reasons why different people may follow the same process yet not get the same results. And just because nobody can prove which faith is true is certainly no proof that none of them are
But you are almost always pretty reasonable in your approach when you and I discuss things and that's appreciated
(T) Peace
Psychology is a scam. It's not even pseudo science. Frustrating "Doctors" to the point of physical violence was my hobby 5 and 6 years ago.

It was a game to me. I diagnosed one of them with Tourette's.

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) 9 min Eagle 12 - 79,886
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 3 hr Eagle 12 - 58
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 21 hr 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