Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256062 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#122974 Sep 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
A three-dimensional plane? Did you mean a three-dimensional space or volume? You're like lightbeamrider and his nonphysical light, and my wife with her points scored in baseball. We know what you meant. But we also know that you are speaking from relative ignorance.
BTW, "dipshit" was a nice touch. Next time, tell him to get a brain: http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/mor...
Nah, I think I'll keep calling it dipshit.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#122975 Sep 17, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
ooohhhhhh........ Now humans are apes......
uh-huh.....
Ape: "A large primate (families Pongidae and Hylobatidae) that lacks a tail, including the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbons."
This is inadequate. There are multiple conflicting taxonomic systems offered, but they all include man with the other apes:

[1] Here's one such schema, which calls the apes a superfamily of greater and lesser ape families called the HOMINOIDEA. The rightward pointing arrows represent a fraction splitting off and leaving the remnant below. Thus the superfamily is called HOMINOIDEA, and removing the family of lesser apes - the HYLOBATIDAE - leaves the HOMINIDAE family. Remove the PONGINAE subfamily, and you have the HOMININAE subfamily of chimps, gorillas and man. And so on.

Superfamily HOMINOIDEA (“hominoids”) the apes -> lesser apes (Family HYLOBATIDAE) Gibbons Genus Hylobates
|
Family HOMINIDAE (“hominids”) great apes -> (Subfamily PONGINAE) Orangutans Genus Pongo
|
Subfamily HOMININAE (“hominines”) Gorilla, Pan and Homo -> Tribe GORILLINI Genus Gorilla
|
Tribe HOMININI (“hominins”) Pan, Homo, Australopithecoids -> Subtribe PANINA: Chimps and bonobos (Genus Pan)
|
Subtribe HOMININA (Homo and Australopithecus)-> Austrlopithecoids (Australopithecus, Ardipithicus, Paranthropus)
|
Genus Homo

[2] Here's a similar schema. which calls Gorilla a subfamily rather than a tribe:

Superfamily Hominoidea (hominoids)
**Family Hylobatidae
**********Genus Hylobates
**Family Hominidae (hominids)
****Subfamily Ponginae
**********Genus Pongo (pongines)
****Subfamily Gorillinae
**********Genus Gorilla (gorillines)
****Subfamily Homininae (hominines)
******Tribe Panini
**********Genus Pan (panins)
******Tribe Hominini (hominin)
********Subtribe Australopithecina (australopiths)
**********Genus Ardipithecus
**********Genus Australopithecus
**********Genus Paranthropus
********Subtribe Hominina (hominans)
**********Genus Homo

[3] And another, which separates the pongidae from the hominidae and makes them a third family of HOMINOIDEA. It also makes no mention of Paranthropus or Ardipithecus. but includes Ramapithecus:

HOMINOIDEA superfamily – no tail, non-arboreal

· HYLOBATIDAE family – siamang, gibbon
§ Hylobates sp.– genus of gibbons
§ Symphalangus sp.– genus of siamangs

· PONGIDAE family - orangutan, chimp, gorilla
§ Pongo sp.– genus of orangutans
§ Pan gorilla, P. chimpansis - genus

· HOMINIDAE family – bipedal (man)
§ Ramapithecus punjabicus, R. wickeri - genus
§ Austalopithecus africanis, A. robustus, A. boisei- genus
§ Homo habilis, H. erectus, H. sapiens – genus

Taxonomy is a work in progress, and there is no general agreement on how to classify the apes. But they all include genus Homo and its extinct ancestors.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#122976 Sep 17, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And he is relatively mild in this forum. Go to the 'Prove there's a god' in the Top Stories forum to see how vile this person can be.
Yeah, I'm quite familiar with it. It's a warped individual.

It uses multiple socks and employs about 3 or so, here.

It's best to not engage it on any level, except to highlight its idiocy, point and laugh.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#122977 Sep 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you have. Your comment in belied by your antiscientific posturing here.
Not antiscientific, anti-scientist....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#122978 Sep 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This is inadequate. There are multiple conflicting taxonomic systems offered, but they all include man with the other apes:
[1] Here's one such schema, which calls the apes a superfamily of greater and lesser ape families called the HOMINOIDEA. The rightward pointing arrows represent a fraction splitting off and leaving the remnant below. Thus the superfamily is called HOMINOIDEA, and removing the family of lesser apes - the HYLOBATIDAE - leaves the HOMINIDAE family. Remove the PONGINAE subfamily, and you have the HOMININAE subfamily of chimps, gorillas and man. And so on.
Superfamily HOMINOIDEA (“hominoids”) the apes -> lesser apes (Family HYLOBATIDAE) Gibbons Genus Hylobates
|
Family HOMINIDAE (“hominids”) great apes -> (Subfamily PONGINAE) Orangutans Genus Pongo
|
Subfamily HOMININAE (“hominines”) Gorilla, Pan and Homo -> Tribe GORILLINI Genus Gorilla
|
Tribe HOMININI (“hominins”) Pan, Homo, Australopithecoids -> Subtribe PANINA: Chimps and bonobos (Genus Pan)
|
Subtribe HOMININA (Homo and Australopithecus)-> Austrlopithecoids (Australopithecus, Ardipithicus, Paranthropus)
|
Genus Homo
[2] Here's a similar schema. which calls Gorilla a subfamily rather than a tribe:
Superfamily Hominoidea (hominoids)
**Family Hylobatidae
**********Genus Hylobates
**Family Hominidae (hominids)
****Subfamily Ponginae
**********Genus Pongo (pongines)
****Subfamily Gorillinae
**********Genus Gorilla (gorillines)
****Subfamily Homininae (hominines)
******Tribe Panini
**********Genus Pan (panins)
******Tribe Hominini (hominin)
********Subtribe Australopithecina (australopiths)
**********Genus Ardipithecus
**********Genus Australopithecus
**********Genus Paranthropus
********Subtribe Hominina (hominans)
**********Genus Homo
[3] And another, which separates the pongidae from the hominidae and makes them a third family of HOMINOIDEA. It also makes no mention of Paranthropus or Ardipithecus. but includes Ramapithecus:
HOMINOIDEA superfamily – no tail, non-arboreal
· HYLOBATIDAE family – siamang, gibbon
§ Hylobates sp.– genus of gibbons
§ Symphalangus sp.– genus of siamangs
· PONGIDAE family - orangutan, chimp, gorilla
§ Pongo sp.– genus of orangutans
§ Pan gorilla, P. chimpansis - genus
· HOMINIDAE family – bipedal (man)
§ Ramapithecus punjabicus, R. wickeri - genus
§ Austalopithecus africanis, A. robustus, A. boisei- genus
§ Homo habilis, H. erectus, H. sapiens – genus
Taxonomy is a work in progress, and there is no general agreement on how to classify the apes. But they all include genus Homo and its extinct ancestors.
Alrighty then.

Well, my dear, he said that humans are apes. He did NOT say that humans are classified in the same taxonomic classification as apes. Humans are humans. Apes are apes.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#122979 Sep 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice observation.
The spectrum from psychosis to major religion through cult is continuous. Evidence defeats them all except in the minds of the afflicted.
The overwhelming majority of human beings have this "god need" you like to ridicule.

You speak of psychosis including religion.

You have no use for religion. The overwhelming majority does. The majority dictates what is "normal" and what is "abnormal", including "psychotic".

IANS, you will never admit that you are "different" from the majority of people in your mental perceptions of reality. Of course you wouldn't. Part of your makeup.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#122980 Sep 17, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't yet. The way I see it. If evolution ever becomes fact, not theory, I look at it as, "Oh, that's how God did it".
Evolution is already both a fact AND a theory: https://www.google.com/search...

And this is yet another shibboleth of the science rube arguing from ignorance - failing to understand the difference between a hypothesis, a fact, and a scientific theory.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#122981 Sep 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound like Jethro Bodine speaking of that fancy third grade cipherin' and book learnin'
just how.
3 Venetians 4:11-12 - 11) I looked, and mine eye saw Jethro of Bodine. He was crouched and cowering, of great sorrow, and muttering; "why!, oh why, OH WHY?". Now, Granny, of stern measure and temper, shouted; "DAGNABBIT!" and sought to strike Jethro with a heavy iron skillet. 12)It was then Jed saw, and spake these words; "Now boy, ya hadn'ta oughta gone and done that" - Parable of Lye Soap and The Cement Pond - NHE(New Hathaway Edition - With "Wellll doggies!" illustrations)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#122982 Sep 17, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't assume that the word "faith" is limited to religion. Faith is not a religious or spiritual term. It refers to the relationship we all have with knowledge.
examples of faith might:
* faith in my partner's fidelity
* faith in myself
* faith in justice
* faith in the truth
* faith in the pilot of a plane
* faith that you'll wake up tomorrow morning
Faith in religion is radically different from all of the examples you named. Faith in my partner's fidelity is based on experience. Evidence tells me that she has probably been faithful. In 22 years, I have never found a reason to think that she has been unfaithful or is even interested in such a thing.

In contrast to that, you have no evidence to support your faith in Jesus rising from the dead or of a heaven, for example. There is nothing but your choice to believe.

Furthermore, my faith in her is tentative, unlike your faith in your god. I acknowledge that I can be deceived, and that I might be wrong about both the past and the future. This conclusion is also evidence based - it has happened to others.

By contrast, your faith is certain.

And finally, my faith in my wife is amenable to evidence. Finding a suspicious email might weaken that trust. And catching her in flagrante delicto falsifies it.

By contrast, nothing can falsify your faith.

And you know all of this, but don't care, which is what makes it intellectually dishonest to yoke these two radically different ways of thinking together by calling them the same thing - evidence based thought and religious based thought.

One flew is to the moon, the other into buildings.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#122983 Sep 17, 2012
So people can't have experiences that they thought were real at the time but later turned out to be imaginary?
<quoted text>
Are you familiar with the logical fallacy known as "Special pleading"?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
It's a fallacy where you attempt to claim that some specific situation (in this particular case, one involving yourself) is different from that of other situations (in this case, those involving other people), without providing any actual evidence as to why they should be considered as different.

So in this case your claim is that, while other people may imagine spiritual experiences, that cannot, for some unknown reason, apply to you. Special pleading. It's a fallacy.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#122984 Sep 17, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Not antiscientific, anti-scientist....
So a cristard that wants to reinvent science. You apply disparity where there is none.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#122986 Sep 17, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Alrighty then.
Well, my dear, he said that humans are apes. He did NOT say that humans are classified in the same taxonomic classification as apes. Humans are humans. Apes are apes.
We are in the same super family , family , sub family , and tribe with chimps being our closest relative. Hominini = chimps and humans.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#122987 Sep 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is already both a fact AND a theory: https://www.google.com/search...
And this is yet another shibboleth of the science rube arguing from ignorance - failing to understand the difference between a hypothesis, a fact, and a scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theor...

Spin put on an intuitive belief to "prove" it, essentially,

BTW, this is a noted foundation layer for atomic theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalton

He was a Quaker. May have been gay, who knows. But he kept his religion and laid the groundwork for modern physics.

OMIGOD, IANS!!!! Do you realize those Christians could be pulling a fast one on you? Giving you false scientific evidence that will eventually lead to the existence of a deity?

Poor boy? You are doomed. No one to trust in. Except yourself.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#122988 Sep 17, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You have no faith? None? At all? Are you sure?
No religious faith. I'm sure.

Everything I believe is evidence based and tentative - less than certain, and amenable to new evidence. EVERYTHING.

That's what rational skepticism requires.

Because of that requirement, I am an atheist. Nobody has made a compelling or even an interesting case for any god, or even the possibility of a god. The more I think about such ideas as the supernatural, or existence out of time, or omniscience, the more I begin to suspect that they are logically impossible. Jehovah-Jesus - the perfect god that also makes mistakes - certainly is.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#122989 Sep 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith in religion is radically different from all of the examples you named. Faith in my partner's fidelity is based on experience. Evidence tells me that she has probably been faithful. In 22 years, I have never found a reason to think that she has been unfaithful or is even interested in such a thing.
Very good. So you have faith in your partner....

You see? There are many types of faith, not just a faith in a deity.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#122990 Sep 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
So people can't have experiences that they thought were real at the time but later turned out to be imaginary?
<quoted text>
Are you familiar with the logical fallacy known as "Special pleading"?
<quoted text>
It's a fallacy where you attempt to claim that some specific situation (in this particular case, one involving yourself) is different from that of other situations (in this case, those involving other people), without providing any actual evidence as to why they should be considered as different.
So in this case your claim is that, while other people may imagine spiritual experiences, that cannot, for some unknown reason, apply to you. Special pleading. It's a fallacy.
So. I'm not "claiming" anything so your point is moot.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#122991 Sep 17, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
You apply disparity where there is none.
Star Trek: First Contact. Nice.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#122992 Sep 17, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, I can't differentiate my experience with some phantom people you're talking about. All I can discuss & all I will discuss is my own experience.
And how shall we judge whether to consider that relevant to ourselves, or just you private, subjective fantasy? Do you recall the water on the desert analogy - we go test the claim to decide of what you are seeing is in the world - exteroception - or only in your head - interoception. I ask you to show me the water. H

But how do we decide between a report based on exteroception and one based on interoception if we can't test the water - when the water represents a god? I'll show you how with an extended mirage allegory:

You and the rest of your ten man detail are on maneuvers in an Afghani desert when an explosion kills three of your squad, and leaves you blind and limping. Two three-man details go in opposite directions in search of water. They each return to you claiming that they have seen water in the distance, are planning to go to the water. and will help you get there with them, since you are not expected to survive long enough for them to return with water for you.

Both groups swear that they have seen real water. Which will you follow? How can you decide?

The answer is easy. You interview the soldiers separately. With one group, all three report an oasis about 500 ft in diameter about three miles away, with two palms on the right side, three on the left, a blue-green color to the water, and a sand dune with the profile resembling George Washington behind it.

The other group of three each give you a different report, and when questioned a second time, not only continue to contradict one another, but begin to contradicting themselves. Who saw water and who saw a mirage?

Incidentally, this is the same technique the police use when interviewing suspects. They interview them separately and compare stories to judge if their stories are based on experience - exteroception - or lies - interoception. The latter is subjective.

Ask Christians about the god they see some time, and you can solve this mystery for yourself as well.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#122993 Sep 17, 2012
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
running ammuck
LOL. Buy a real book and read it some time.

BTW, I'm adding "running ammuck" to Fundie Hall of Shame that includes such mind numbingly inane words and phrases as "bonified," "O contraire," "the Marine Core," and "Wallah!"

I doubt that any of us would mock your ignorance if you weren't also presenting yourselves as people with special insight and knowledge. It's obvious that you don't know anything that you haven't heard out loud.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#122994 Sep 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No religious faith. I'm sure.
Everything I believe is evidence based and tentative - less than certain, and amenable to new evidence. EVERYTHING.
That's what rational skepticism requires.
Because of that requirement, I am an atheist. Nobody has made a compelling or even an interesting case for any god, or even the possibility of a god. The more I think about such ideas as the supernatural, or existence out of time, or omniscience, the more I begin to suspect that they are logically impossible. Jehovah-Jesus - the perfect god that also makes mistakes - certainly is.
Skepticism can get irrational if you practice it too hard.

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) 3 min atemcowboy 650,404
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 12 min ChristineM 445,925
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 13 min trifecta1 971,806
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 19 min Rider on the Storm 3,734
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 25 min X Pendable 182,947
UK Phone Numbers for Fun 48 min brits are pants 3
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 50 min Happy Lesbo 56,086
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 6 hr kobechi3 71
More from around the web