Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258461 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217214 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
Just as none of your posts are evidence of anything except your extreme bigotry, egoism, hatred and overabundance of free time.
What a sad mix.
Bigotry for whom? The Christian church? Onegh I think they cannot be a bigot against an idea, institution, or other abstraction.

Egoism? I think you have the wrong word. You wanted egotism. And yes, I have an abundance of self-confidence and tend toward arrogance, but I'm working on it.

Hatred? I like, love, admire or respect most things, although Christianity is not one of them. My worldview is very constructive and life affirming. You, however, are a dismal, bitter person whose every post oozes bile. Psychologists call that phenomenon - attributing your own faults to others - projection

The free time thing I'll give you. My time is all free. And with my sleep habits, I get more hours a day than most. Yet there still isn't enough time in the day.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217215 Mar 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you. I don't like the comment. I think it is wrong, and that writing it was ill-advised. I wonder if the blow back from it has given him reason to reconsider those words, and if he would still agree with them today. True, using the word "may" gives him a little wiggle room in his own defense, but it's not much of a defense.
His argument had nothing to do with killing religious people, but killing people with the religious fervor and past actions of attacking those, especially innocents, who do not share those beliefs.

He never took it back, but rather explained that the criticism he faced was entirely missing the point - and it is. People like RR are too stupid to understand what Harris was saying, but b/c Harris wrote an atheist book, and b/c Harris attacked faith based religions, RR's leaders quote mined the book, searching for ways to vilify Harris.

It worked: look how thoughtlessly RR is a good little sheep.

I kind of see why Harris addressed such idiocy with trying to explain what he actually meant. However, I disagree with the entire premise. In his argument here, I see him as a supporter of the American status quo of attacking those who do not defer to your power. He entirely fails to understand how the exercise of American power is what is causing people to respond with force.

The irony is that the stupid religious actually support Harris' premise here. Buck quite clearly explained that bombing terrorists was ok, b/c the USA is engaged in "war." Harris speaks to this - his entire premise for the sentence in question is about that - yet people like Buck fail to realize this.

What could be more ironic than the religious attacking Harris for supporting their aggression?
Even so, I have read and heard so much inspired material from him that I consider him one of the best sources on the subject. His rebuttal to Craig at Notre Dame was very good. He assaulted both Divine Command theory and the double standard of saying how great the god is when the horse you bet on and pray, but that ed about wins, bu that his ways are beyond human understanding when your kid gets leukemia.
If you read Dennett on free will, your head will explode. Read Harris and its clear and easily assimilable.
In matters theistic and atheistic, Harris is brilliant, absolutely. His conceptions of morality aren't. They're simplistic. Yes, we need a moral discussion that strongly criticizes religious belief - no doubt! We're failing that in Anthropology - and we have no excuse. But Harris, coming from psychology, should be able to produce a better position. He can't b/c he's in neuroscience - I totally get that. But it's a truism that scientists who overstep their disciplines embarrass themselves. He needs to either learn the foundation of the scholarly disciplines he's engaging with or step back a bit and build up some theory with which to support his position.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217216 Mar 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
He is the perfect example for demonstrating the dunning kruger effect
hahaha!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217217 Mar 6, 2014
"Onegh I think they cannot be a bigot against an idea, institution, or other abstraction. "

should read

"One cannot be a bigot against an idea, institution, or other abstraction."

My computer has that little demon that makes your cursor jump around as if it had a mind of its own. The above is a typical result.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217218 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I thought of perhaps a better scenario for Harris' point. It goes like this:
Some guy comes into your house, with a gun, and tells you his is going to shoot your children. He hasn't done it yet and you don't know whether he has killed someone, but you have a gun that he cannot see. Is it acceptable for you to kill him for that proposition?
That's the clearest case that I can come up with supporting Harris' argument.
Tide with Beach wrote:
You'd added a lot to this discussion and moved it forward.
ns. It's so messy. We need to acknowledge how far from ideal our responses to threats are.
She's wrong, though. Harris is advocating killing for having a thought. Her hypothetical with the home invader is an action, not a thought. Harris' ideology would have a person killed just for thinking about the home invasion but not actually doing it.

That's sort of illegal, you know...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217219 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would like, I could take a short vacation from Topix so that you could argue and not be hopelessly out of your league, intellectually.
I'm a nice guy that way. Let me know.
It's funny. I came back yesterday and have utterly and totally destroyed your weak positions on every topic I've seen you post. I just came back to malinger b/c I had to craft a new syllabus and I'm finding you ... too easy.

I'm a bit sad. While I enjoy your humor, I'm wondering what's left of your intellect. Was it truly always this poor? Did some accident befall you while I was away?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217220 Mar 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
“George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.”– Sam Harris
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
One of my all-time favorite quotes. Why does the removal of the hair brush, suddenly make the religious nutter-- NOT insane?
He also said this, which is essentially the same comment creatively repackaged:

“If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you’re just a Catholic." - Sam Harris

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217221 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You've defined deities several times as being non-measurable, non-visible, out of our ability to know. I find that quite silly and childish, a very "god of the gaps" style of protecting cherished beliefs.
Sure, my statement is in the form of a definitive conclusion b/c it's what I have inferred from the available evidence. I've already agreed with you that atheism is a belief statement - no issues - and I have no issues accepting that my statement "there are no deities" is also a belief statement. And it's one based on all the evidence I can muster from the social sciences and hard sciences.
For me, that outweighs someone's encultured "I just know my religion is real because, well, I grew up in this culture. My religion, mind you, and not theirs - we all, over here, know their religion to be false" argument.
Your arguments have degraded to complete gibberish. You are admitting your conclusion is what I said it is, but simultaneously maintaining that it is not.

Again, I'm willing to take a break if you want your arguments to sustain an appearance of credibility.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217222 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.
ChristineM wrote:
It teaches that genocide and murder are acceptable ways to stamp your foot.
No it doesn't.
From genesis when your very own god gets a pique and commits world genocide
To Kings that teaches trickery and murder
To mathew who tells you to burn “bad fruit”. I,e, anyone who does not agree with you.
To Mark in which your worshipful JC criticise the Hebrews for not killing disobedient children.
Is this not teaching? Instruction?
The Bible does not instruct a Christian to kill.

I know you've been to the googlers about this....

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217223 Mar 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull shit.
The "proposition" in Harris' statement IS a belief, as he goes on to say that killing the person for "believing" it might be ethical. Plans are not something "believed".
You are trying to make a distinction between "believing a belief" and "believing a proposition". There is no distinction.
And it is Harris who put this quotation in the context of religious belief, not Christians who are criticizing him. Also, you are wrong again on the military killing terrorists for their beliefs.
The military does not accept that, and Harris did not say that, at least not in the passage provided.
It was easier for you before I came back, hey? I mean, the trash you are spouting above...wow, ok.

Shall I just get you some cheap whisky in a paperbag? Would that help?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217224 Mar 6, 2014
OG Kush wrote:
OG begs to differ double r.
The position of the atheist is that the theist has not successfully met his or her burden of proof.
Proof, with regard to gods rests solely with the side claiming their existence.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan
When phrased to focus on faith, the claim typically centers on a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of atheism.
They have erroneously convinced themselves that atheism means absolute certainty that no gods exist.
They reason that to be absolutely certain without proof is a form of faith.
Atheism is not about certainty at all; it is about doubt.
It isn't the theist's position or responsibility to provide any evidence to appease the mind of the atheist.

Theism is simply the rejection of athesitic claims.

:)

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#217225 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Hold on, let me get my school girl outfit on first.
Whatever turns you on

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217226 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Churches across America are as different and unique as the people across America.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Of course you think that all Americans are alike.
You're a nincompoop.

I JUST stated that Americans are unique and different and you respond with this?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#217227 Mar 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct.
Finally! Yes, I know.

Well, it took you a bit, but there you are. I'm glad, RR. I'm glad we reached this point. Now, you and I can have an honest and interesting discussion about what Harris meant regarding his argument in its entirely rather than just the sentence, taken out of context with the wording changed.

In fact, I know that you and I already agree with our conclusion. We don't think it's ok for military powers to kill people for potential actions in the future, even terrorist organizations. Or, at least, I do. Why do I?

Well, let's get into this first. Using Harris' paragraph, not just the sentence, do you think it's ok for the USA to bomb the masterminds of terrorist organizations? From all your writing, I'm guessing no - after all, you condemned Harris for condoning the killing of people for "beliefs" when you thought that's what he was talking about.

If you think it's ok, then, by all means, please state your reasons.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#217228 Mar 6, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Most breeds have had any aggression bred out of them. Dogs attack when provoked. A small child kicking and punching will bring out a self-preservation action, usually a bite. Most dogs end up being wonderful companions for the elderly, and many are used as therapy for cases of depression and serious illnesses. Dogs have served man for thousands of years, and most are only to willing to serve.
You're cherry picking rare instances to make your weak point, kind of a sad ass tactic, do better!!
BTW where is that evidence I asked for that supports the existence of your God thingy?
.. domesticated animals usually trust humans ..

.. we feed, house, even pet cows then we send them off to the slaughter house ..

.. feral animals know not to trust humans ..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217229 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Oh, is that Nano? hahaha! I'll stop bothering with her then..
You didn't recognize her venom? None of the handful of other posters as vile as that (porter, Loblah, etc.) are posting as a woman. The others are all posting as males except KiMare, who is posting as both.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217230 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
His argument had nothing to do with killing religious people, but killing people with the religious fervor and past actions of attacking those, especially innocents, who do not share those beliefs.
He never took it back, but rather explained that the criticism he faced was entirely missing the point - and it is. People like RR are too stupid to understand what Harris was saying, but b/c Harris wrote an atheist book, and b/c Harris attacked faith based religions, RR's leaders quote mined the book, searching for ways to vilify Harris.
It worked: look how thoughtlessly RR is a good little sheep.
I kind of see why Harris addressed such idiocy with trying to explain what he actually meant. However, I disagree with the entire premise. In his argument here, I see him as a supporter of the American status quo of attacking those who do not defer to your power. He entirely fails to understand how the exercise of American power is what is causing people to respond with force.
The irony is that the stupid religious actually support Harris' premise here. Buck quite clearly explained that bombing terrorists was ok, b/c the USA is engaged in "war." Harris speaks to this - his entire premise for the sentence in question is about that - yet people like Buck fail to realize this.
What could be more ironic than the religious attacking Harris for supporting their aggression?
<quoted text>
In matters theistic and atheistic, Harris is brilliant, absolutely. His conceptions of morality aren't. They're simplistic. Yes, we need a moral discussion that strongly criticizes religious belief - no doubt! We're failing that in Anthropology - and we have no excuse. But Harris, coming from psychology, should be able to produce a better position. He can't b/c he's in neuroscience - I totally get that. But it's a truism that scientists who overstep their disciplines embarrass themselves. He needs to either learn the foundation of the scholarly disciplines he's engaging with or step back a bit and build up some theory with which to support his position.
Gibberish. Harris is suggesting it may be ethical to kill some people for believing something. Terrorists are killed for actions, not for believing. This is taking place now. So if Harris was proposing something that is taking place now, and widely accepted across the world, why would he present it as a proposition to consider? It would not be a theoretical proposition as he offers it. So he's talking about something else.

As I said, I can take a break from Topix if you wish to appear more credible.

By the way, I browsed the web and found multiple citations of the Harris quote using "belief', not "proposition". It is likely RR relied on such a reference, rather than lying, as you accused him. You might want to apologize.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217231 Mar 6, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
killing those naughty "thought crimes" before they get "thought about".
You seem to be more worried about that than most.
virtuanna wrote:
It appears Harris lacks the fore-sight to even consider the overthrow of his own regime and the ensuing administration of the same law being used against his extreme hate filled thoughts.
You're projecting again.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#217232 Mar 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally! Yes, I know.
Well, it took you a bit, but there you are. I'm glad, RR. I'm glad we reached this point. Now, you and I can have an honest and interesting discussion about what Harris meant regarding his argument in its entirely rather than just the sentence, taken out of context with the wording changed.
In fact, I know that you and I already agree with our conclusion. We don't think it's ok for military powers to kill people for potential actions in the future, even terrorist organizations. Or, at least, I do. Why do I?
Well, let's get into this first. Using Harris' paragraph, not just the sentence, do you think it's ok for the USA to bomb the masterminds of terrorist organizations? From all your writing, I'm guessing no - after all, you condemned Harris for condoning the killing of people for "beliefs" when you thought that's what he was talking about.
If you think it's ok, then, by all means, please state your reasons.
Some gangsters are so well protected they cannot be brought to justice by conventional means. They will continue to operate above the law , committing murder, mayhem , piracy , kidnapping, extortion and terrorism until they are destroyed. The whole world is held hostage by such international criminals. There has to be a force they will answer too, lest the entire world become a completely lawless state of confusion and chaos where thugs like this can hide from justice.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217233 Mar 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Who is labeled 'Christian'? It is the difference between someone who says so, and someone who lives so, or, a parent who says they are a good parent, and a parent who is a good parent. Try again. Smile.
A Christian is anybody who says so and means it. The thoughts and behavior that defines a Christian include considering Jesus a god, voting for issues and candidates because you think Jesus wants you do, believing Christian mythology, talking up Christianity, tithing, etc.

Being Christlike has nothing to do with it.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min confrinting with ... 667,660
Good looking 18yo Male snap for hella nude swap 3 min Flower6063 3
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Buck Crick 92,467
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 7 min Rubs6085 70,222
Proof Donald Trump Never Mocked A Handicap 11 min Grinder1373 3
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 12 min RADEKT 285,994
Get More Than 140 Paid-Up Courses For Free 20 min Stars273 2
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr trifecta1 979,343
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr Lickz8951 183,615
More from around the web