Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#183700 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
..Christianity, which teaches that man is worthless and dependent - that he has no meaning or purpose except in terms of submitting to and worshiping a god - is also toxic to that.
I remember it well.

Religion brainwashes you to believe you are a worthless POS unless you submit to the teachings of a saviour person Jesus/Muhammed/etc.

It teaches we are all sinners due to the fall of man, from the fable of adam and eve disobeying God in the garden of Eden.

You endlessly repeat you lack of self worth in prayer and in church, over and over.

As the story goes all humans are worthless and destined for eternal fire unless they believe in Jesus, eat his flesh at mass in the form of a wafer, pray fervently, pay tithes. That last bit most important of all! I wonder why?

Then you as one of the lucky few, the elect, will enjoy the company of angels singing eternal praises to Gawd in heaven or if Muslim the sensual pleasures of 72 virgins in paradise. Comforted in the knowledge that the 99% in hell or purgatory have willingly chosen their eternal punishment.

So kind, so loving, this "God". You could imagine that it was just made up by priests to scare the living daylights out of people!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183701 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Faith is a weak appeal, and rationality is superior. The success of rational skepticism has been stunning in the understanding of nature and in political philosophy, which is evidence for its validity. By contrast, there are no analogous successes for faith based thought, which has been sterile. This is evidence against such a way of thinking. But this is not surprising. There is nothing that cannot be believed or asserted by faith, including its opposite. I'm not sure who is an idiot, but being unable to distinguish between these radically different ways of thinking would be a good start.
Buck Crick wrote:
THAT'S IT! Nothing could illustrate my point better than what you just said. In your analysis, atheism is based on "rationality", and theism is based on "faith". There's the cheat. Both are based on faith. Both infer an unknowable conclusion. And that is precisely the reason for the attempts to dilute the meaning of "atheism" - so that a person can be an atheist and feel superiorly rational, or at least make the claim. One side defines the terms to fashion their position and themselves into a sphere of intellect, knowledge, science, reason. While delegating the other to "faith", as you just demonstrated. It's perfect. The perfect example of the glaring fraud of this whole debate. It is the fraud of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, etc. I feel affirmed.
It seems that you didn't understand what I wrote. Let me repeat:

The validity of rational skepticism is confirmed by evidence, which is is what makes it radically different from faith. Rational skepticism has taught us to reject the claims of kings and priests about our world and our place in it. As a result, we have replaced the sterile and stifling systems of the Middle Ages - the Age of Faith - with such powerful innovations as empirical science and the rights of men. The results have been stunningly successful and have made lives better.

What are the comparable fruits of religious faith? Equating the two is the fraud, Buck.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183702 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
As I said, if one is satisfied with the present trajectory of the Christian church in America, there is no burden to act, and hence no burden of proof. Those who feel otherwise have their work cut out for them.
Buck Crick wrote:
Error #1: The future is yet to be. For what you call "trajectory" to continue, there has to be "change" from the present status. Thus, one who is satisfied with "trajectory" is not necessarily subscribing to a "status quo", but to change.


You have a predilection for linguistic sophistry. Here you are getting tangled up in whether continued change is continuation or change. It's both. Do you really want to expend any more energy on that?
Buck Crick wrote:
Error #2: To be "satisfied" with the trajectory is to prefer that course to alternative courses available. If there is opposition to that particular course, and there is, the one who prefers it is no less encumbered with a burden to support his position than the one who prefers the alternative.
There may be opposition, but I am not part it. I support the present trend, and expect it to continue without additional effort until Christianity assumes minority status in America and the Christian church loses its influence on law, public policy and social mores. It is in that sense that I mean I have no burden of proof.

Those that don't want to see that trend continue into the future and are willing to work to see that it doesn't have the burden to convince others of that. I have no such burden. Is that not obviously true to you?

Is there any point too trivial or self-evident for you to argue, Buck? It's an amazing thing to behold. I can only speculate about what need of yours it serves.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183703 Nov 13, 2013
Bongo wrote:
Damn, I wish I had Ians organizational and filing skills.
Hey there, Bongo, old friend. Good to see you here. And thanks for the nod.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#183704 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi IANS, I can see you have debated theists here for a while. I have a question.

Do most Christians you have debated with think they are "saved", or do they think merely they have upped their chances of being saved?

Cheers

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183705 Nov 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.thinkatheist.com/fo rum/topics/atheist-dog-tags-vs -no?id=1982180%3ATopic%3A42512 7&page=1#comments
This is a good example of how most new "atheism" is a socio-political movement and not a "non-belief".
Whatever else it is, atheism remains skepticism for unsupported god claims.

And who is saying that the decline of Christianity in America isn't a social phenomenon with political ramifications?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183706 Nov 13, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
Let’s all interlock our fingers and sit down and chant,
“evoluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuution.“
“evoluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuution.“
“evoluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuution.“
"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." – Dan Barker

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183707 Nov 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The only devil is the ego.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Be different just to be different. Makes you feel better. Feeds the ego.
This is your Christian upbringing shining through. It was the church that taught you that the self is evil. You were taught that free will is to be subordinated to others, and that failure to do so is due to an inflated, rebellious ego. The model for that was a woman daring to eat an apple.

You have it backwards:

Refusing to submit to the authority of priests speaking for an imaginary god is not a problem with the ego. Seeing oneself as having meaning, purpose and value apart from the worship of a god is not a problem with the ego. Placing value in autonomy, freedom, self-respect, self-pride, self-confidence and self-actualization is not a problem with the ego.

Seeing yourself as being defective and worthy of punishment for having been born human IS a problem with the ego. Falling to your knees and lowering your head and eyes to beg forgiveness for that IS a problem with the ego.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183708 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your unsupported opinions. You know how much I treasure them and your generosity of spirit.
<quoted text>
I'm afraid that that's incorrect, Dave.
Rational skepticism is the cardinal philosophical tenet that transformed the magical, faith based practices of the Middle Ages such as alchemy and astrology into the empirical sciences of chemistry and astronomy. It required skepticism for the claims of magicians, priests, and wizards, and the application of reason to evidence to transform those sterile products of faith into the robust sciences you see today.
Rational skepticism is the best idea man ever had, and faith the worst:
"Humanity's first sin was faith. The first virtue was doubt.”- Mike Huben
<quoted text>
This bitterness and envy are unbecoming, Dave. Plus, they are unhealthy. You're projecting your own sense of inferiority when you use the word "elite" in reference to me. I don't think of myself that way. Nor do I think of you as low class. You do.
And no, Dave, I am not frustrated at all. I am happy. It would be ungrateful of me to be otherwise given the advantages and opportunities I was born into. I was born at an excellent time in an excellent place to good parents with the health, temperament, and aptitude necessary to take advantage of those opportunities, and I did.
I don't really understand your resentment at who I am. Weren't you also born into mid-twentieth century America with those same advantages and opportunities? If so, you should be happy, too, not resentful. I don't resent you.
You received those benefits because of faith.

You were born in a nation conceived on the faith that men are created equal by a creator, and that creator gave an endowment to you.

The endowment, they reasoned, was the special-ness that entitles you to pursuit of the things you pursued.

You might not agree with their reasoning, but that was their reasoning, and it was "reason".

So if you are happy, you owe it to people of faith.

Not to mention the faith to fight off challenges to your endowment from rational skeptics, particularly nasty ones, around the world.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183709 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is your preferred definition. By that definition, I am not an atheist, since I believe that there probably is no god.
But I am an atheist. The full definition of the word, which includes me, is bigger than the numbered entry to which you struggle to limit the word. It is in that sense that I mean that I think that you're telling me that I'm not an atheist unless I meet the definition for atheist that you prefer.
Give it up, Buck. You can't control how others think or use language however often or however emphatically you repeat yourself.
I would not want to control how others use language.

People use language to deceive. It happens frequently.

You just provided an example.

What I do attempt to do with language is point out the deceit.

I think it helps for as many as possible to recognize there is an effort to deceive them afoot, and also to know the goals of the movement.

I also do not believe your qualifier "probably". I think your many comments make clear you believe there is no god.

That part is just my opinion.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183710 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Classy as always, Buck.
What would you know about spirituality?
Likely more than a guy who believes there is no such thing as "spirit", but claims to experience it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183711 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
It seems that you didn't understand what I wrote. Let me repeat:
The validity of rational skepticism is confirmed by evidence, which is is what makes it radically different from faith. Rational skepticism has taught us to reject the claims of kings and priests about our world and our place in it. As a result, we have replaced the sterile and stifling systems of the Middle Ages - the Age of Faith - with such powerful innovations as empirical science and the rights of men. The results have been stunningly successful and have made lives better.
What are the comparable fruits of religious faith? Equating the two is the fraud, Buck.
Nice try.

Your contrast was really contrasting faith with non-faith, or more specifically, theism with atheism.

"Rational skepticism" is only a tool, your scriptural text for your faith position.

You can fool some. The rebuttal stands.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#183712 Nov 13, 2013
oneear69 wrote:
<quoted text>Most Chinese believe in Taoism,I don't include agnostics,, they do not believe in a god as written by christians, jews or muslims , but they usually believe in a higher force of creation, and a life after death.I have even talked to some atheists , who think there is a devil or still think there is an after life. For me I simply do not believe in any kind of god,no afterlife, no ghosts, not even aliens,lol. Sadly christianity although still small in China is on the rise, as well as in Russia.It would seem when times are tough, people tend to put the responsibility of change on a false deity,rather than face it head on.
More than 50% of Chinese follow no religion

Not necessarily so, the very definition says agnostics believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Not the same as believing in a creator. The majority of agnostics I know tell me they don’t believe in a god because there is no proof of a god but should proof be offered then they will evaluate that proof. They also don’t believe that chocolate teapots inhabit Venus either but should evidence be provided then…

I’m with you up to the aliens, my view is that the universe is so huge with billions of galaxies each with billions of suns. Recent observations tell us that a considerable percentage of those suns must hold planets and a percentage of those planets are in what is known as the goldilocks zone and some even contain water. Then if at least a small percentage of those planets do not contains alien live of some sort then the universe is a huge waste of space.

Christianity has always been strong is Russia, it currently accounts for about 45% of the population

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183713 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You have a predilection for linguistic sophistry. Here you are getting tangled up in whether continued change is continuation or change. It's both. Do you really want to expend any more energy on that?
<quoted text>
There may be opposition, but I am not part it. I support the present trend, and expect it to continue without additional effort until Christianity assumes minority status in America and the Christian church loses its influence on law, public policy and social mores. It is in that sense that I mean I have no burden of proof.
Those that don't want to see that trend continue into the future and are willing to work to see that it doesn't have the burden to convince others of that. I have no such burden. Is that not obviously true to you?
Is there any point too trivial or self-evident for you to argue, Buck? It's an amazing thing to behold. I can only speculate about what need of yours it serves.
Your argument is absurd.

You are trying to claim that a continuum of change is "status quo", and to advocate it entails no burden.

First, it is not status quo. Second, even if it were, that confers no escape from the advocates' burden of proof.

Your logic is self-refuting.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183714 Nov 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
Any of them who are against SNAP (food stamps), welfare or ACA?
Are fakes. At the end of Matthew, in their own silly book, they are given a commission: to feed the hungry, to house the homeless and to help the sick.
Fakes, the entire lot.
It's a personal call.

No government was given any such commission.

Taking someone else's money (taxes) and giving it to someone else is not personal generosity or charity.

You blithering idiot.
Thinking

UK

#183715 Nov 13, 2013
Not to mention the possibility there is life that can develop outside of the Goldilocks zone, or in higher dimensions, or in dark matter or parallel universes or... I could just say "god dunnit" but that seems so very unimaginative.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
More than 50% of Chinese follow no religion
Not necessarily so, the very definition says agnostics believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Not the same as believing in a creator. The majority of agnostics I know tell me they don’t believe in a god because there is no proof of a god but should proof be offered then they will evaluate that proof. They also don’t believe that chocolate teapots inhabit Venus either but should evidence be provided then…
I’m with you up to the aliens, my view is that the universe is so huge with billions of galaxies each with billions of suns. Recent observations tell us that a considerable percentage of those suns must hold planets and a percentage of those planets are in what is known as the goldilocks zone and some even contain water. Then if at least a small percentage of those planets do not contains alien live of some sort then the universe is a huge waste of space.
Christianity has always been strong is Russia, it currently accounts for about 45% of the population

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183716 Nov 13, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Very disappointing Buck. Your little aphorism here is exceedingly lame, even by your standards.
"Oh yeah, you couldn't show water to a fish." See what I mean? Nothing. No impact.
Honestly, if your humor has slipped to a "Gilligan's Island" level, maybe you should take a sabbatical.
You couldn't recommend a sabbatical to a fish.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183717 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

Whatever else it is, atheism remains skepticism for unsupported god claims.
No, it isn't.

"Skepticism" concerning a god-claim would be to doubt or suspend judgement.

The atheist believes all god-claims have to be false.

Atheism has nothing to do with skepticism.

Thinking

UK

#183718 Nov 13, 2013
Why would you?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't recommend a sabbatical to a fish.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183719 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
This is your Christian upbringing shining through. It was the church that taught you that the self is evil. You were taught that free will is to be subordinated to others, and that failure to do so is due to an inflated, rebellious ego. The model for that was a woman daring to eat an apple.
You have it backwards:
Refusing to submit to the authority of priests speaking for an imaginary god is not a problem with the ego. Seeing oneself as having meaning, purpose and value apart from the worship of a god is not a problem with the ego. Placing value in autonomy, freedom, self-respect, self-pride, self-confidence and self-actualization is not a problem with the ego.
Seeing yourself as being defective and worthy of punishment for having been born human IS a problem with the ego. Falling to your knees and lowering your head and eyes to beg forgiveness for that IS a problem with the ego.
The "ego" is not the "self".

That error invalidates your post.

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min June VanDerMark 573,429
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min Stilgar Fifrawi 808,318
VERIFIED TRADER - Verified Trader Review - Any ... (Jan '13) 14 min verifiedtrade 13
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 16 min waaasssuuup 608,063
Whatsapp group Hot n Sexy for guys and girls 30 min kis69ore 32
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 48 min Rick in Kansas 268,741
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 52 min Rosa_Winkel 97,834
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 11 hr same 199
More from around the web