Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255853 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#196228 Dec 26, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>It looks like you've got two choices.
You can affirm that you agree with the stated rationalization of Nazi policy,
or,
you can affirm that they erroneously expropriated science to their own ends.
Which is it?
I can do more than that.

The Nazi policy was correctly in accordance with Darwinism and science at the time.

Some of us do not subscribe to the purely materialistic scientific view, and therefore disagree with the rationale.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#196229 Dec 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You don't understand people like me at all. We're not programmed like you are. You are programmed to respond to authoritarian figures with submission and obedience, and to take claims on faith. I am the opposite.
Besides, I wouldn't wear a belt buckle with writing on it, and certainly not Gott Mit Uns. I find currency bearing "In God We Trust" on it objectionable.
Of course you do...

You are programmed to prefer "In Me I Trust" and I'm sure you would be perfectly happy if our national motto changed to that.

And if a politician like Hitler came to America, stood in front of crowds of secular humanists and swore to "Me" that he were remove the Christian influence in America, up to and including changing the national motto by whatever means necessary, you would vote for him.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196230 Dec 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What do you think it would have been like for him in a country populated mostly by secular humanists - say the ones actively posting in this thread? How do you think we would have responded to Hitler's demagoguery? Do you think we would have elected and empowered him?
Buck Crick wrote:
Yes, I think the secular humanists would have empowered him.
Please tell me what you see in us that justifies that opinion? How about in me or any other secular humanist posting in this thread? Which of us has posted something that makes you think that we would be susceptible to Hitler's demagoguing, or as susceptible as the theists posting?
Buck Crick wrote:
He would not have found it necessary to capture and mass murder people, so his worst potential would have been unknown. His Darwinism is virtually identical to most Topix atheists, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. I think Sam Harris might have been disappointed if Hitler didn't slaughter a lot of religious people, however many were to be found. In his book, Harris advocating killing people for religious thoughts, BEFORE they committed any infractions. Several Darwinists like Harris are Hitler-prone
Eugenie Scott is another one. Hitler tendencies are not limited to humanists. You should have met my grandfather. If he had been in the position of Hitler or Hussein, grandpa's killing would have made them look like nursery school workers. Scariest man I ever met.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#196231 Dec 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [i.e., most human-looking] apes -- will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Is that Darwin or Hitler?
I think you'll be surprised.
"Descent of Man", Charles Darwin.

He was a flaming racist.

"Hiding from You" used to spend 4000 words explaining to me how that is not racist.

It was a hoot.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#196232 Dec 26, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
It was motivated by a belief. If it wasn't, then it was pure insanity, and deserving of a modicum of compassion. Which do you prefer?
<quoted text>bin Laden didn't fly a plane.
I'm glad he's dead.
It's about that simple.
I think you may have misunderstood me.

A person cannot be condemned for their beliefs, but they can be condemned for their actions. Everyone that helped the terrorists complete their assault on 911 deserved to die for their actions, not their beliefs.

If we went by what you say, you would have to be put to death for your belief that another human should die.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#196234 Dec 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is no more of an ism in the ideological sense than metabolism, bruxism, botulism, alcoholism, or euphemism are. That's the root fallacy again, a type of semantic fallacy.
Atheism is in the ideological sense even without the "ism".

a - theos;... no god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#196235 Dec 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Descent of Man", Charles Darwin.
He was a flaming racist.
"Hiding from You" used to spend 4000 words explaining to me how that is not racist.
It was a hoot.
Correct.

Hitler read that shit ans was inspired to kill off every human and every race he thought wasn't good enough to be called human.

That's why he killed Jews, Christians, homosexuals, disabled people, gypsies, etc.

He wanted to build a master race, as he thought evolution should be.

Sick ass mofo...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#196236 Dec 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is no more of an ism in the ideological sense than metabolism, bruxism, botulism, alcoholism, or euphemism are. That's the root fallacy again, a type of semantic fallacy.
Ya, and it's just a technicality that Christianity ends in -ity...

o.O

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196237 Dec 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"Coming with a sword" means "coming with a sword to kill you with it"?
Kill or threaten. I understand that the sword was metaphorical - Christ had no literal sword a far as we know. But swords are symbols of power and the threat of lethal force. I don't use such metaphors.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
If he and I get an urge to kill some day, which of us will find support for our actions in our belief system? Which of us will expect to be forgiven by what we consider the highest moral authority, or possibly even rewarded?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Probably both of you. Beliefs are powerful that way.
Once again, I say that you don't understand me at all. If I kill, the highest moral authority in my life would never forgive me. Can you guess who or what that is? I'll bet Buck can.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't know. You go on and on about a murderous religion and a "quick to kill" God but you always ignore Islam, which is responsible for more crimes against humanity that Christianity. Far more. Why is that?
Islam is worse than Christianity, but not in my world. That matters.

I also don't spend as much energy writing about malaria as I do about AIDS, and for the same reason. Likewise with female circumcision, which also gets little of my attention. And Democrats and Republicans get a lot fewer words as well since my relocation to Mexico.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#196238 Dec 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Please tell me what you see in us that justifies that opinion? How about in me or any other secular humanist posting in this thread? Which of us has posted something that makes you think that we would be susceptible to Hitler's demagoguing, or as susceptible as the theists posting?
<quoted text>
You have the advantage of looking at him with hindsight.

In real time, I think he could have made a strong bid for support from the humanists, given his allegiance to science and his materialist thinking.

I think Sam Harris would have volunteered for the SS and goose-stepped his ass right down the road to take Poland.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#196239 Dec 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Please tell me what you see in us that justifies that opinion? How about in me or any other secular humanist posting in this thread? Which of us has posted something that makes you think that we would be susceptible to Hitler's demagoguing, or as susceptible as the theists posting?
<quoted text>
To be clear, I do not mean to imply you would be a follower Hitler.

Some other guy, before we know he's a Hitler, could attract humanists.

I think you would be a lot more sophisticated in choosing leaders, and less vulnerable.

I don't give that credit across the board.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#196240 Dec 26, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Shoot, that generic reference could have been written by Sun-Tzu, or Caesar, or a host of other military "philosophers".
Show a direct reference to Darwin by Hitler. Otherwise you got nada.
Nope. Find Sun-Tzu or General MacArthur saying that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196242 Dec 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I don't think the cause and effect case with Darwinism can be made for capitalism.
Just genocide and eugenics then?

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#196243 Dec 26, 2013
http://washingtonexaminer.com/be-prepared-wal...

http://nypost.com/2013/12/25/new-obamacare-fe...

All I have to say is it wasn't religion that led to these problems.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196244 Dec 26, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
Internet Atheists cannot come to terms with the fact that the claim of the nonexistence of deities is a belief.
The Good Lord knows we try.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196245 Dec 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I can see no justifiable reason to kill a person for a belief.
I'm not atheist.
How about damning them to an eternity of torture for it?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#196246 Dec 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Kill or threaten. I understand that the sword was metaphorical - Christ had no literal sword a far as we know. But swords are symbols of power and the threat of lethal force. I don't use such metaphors.
I'm glad you understand it's a metaphor.

But a sword does not simply imply power and a threat, they also symbolize protection, courage, strength, action, unity, justice and leadership.

Once again, I say that you don't understand me at all. If I kill, the highest moral authority in my life would never forgive me. Can you guess who or what that is? I'll bet Buck can.


Self? Ego?
Islam is worse than Christianity, but not in my world. That matters.
I also don't spend as much energy writing about malaria as I do about AIDS, and for the same reason. Likewise with female circumcision, which also gets little of my attention. And Democrats and Republicans get a lot fewer words as well since my relocation to Mexico.
Oh, I thought you cared about humanity, what with being a humanist and all.

I guess you only care about your immediate world and fuck everything else.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196247 Dec 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Hitler represented the Nazis, not the German people..
I see.

http://snipurl.com/skbbd
http://snipurl.com/skbal
http://snipurl.com/skbas

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#196248 Dec 26, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Shoot, that generic reference could have been written by Sun-Tzu, or Caesar, or a host of other military "philosophers".
Show a direct reference to Darwin by Hitler. Otherwise you got nada.
You don't understand the argument.

It is not necessary to have Hitler sayin, "Darwin says..."

The question is more exact than that. The question is whether there is a causal connection between Darwinian theory and Hitler's atrocities. I'll go ahead and give away the ending - the answer is yes.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#196249 Dec 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Just genocide and eugenics then?
Yeah, with a pinch of slavery thrown in.

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) 5 min Steve III 649,625
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 min Buck Crick 55,631
TRUTH about illegal aliens (Aug '14) 1 hr Knock off purse s... 12
Does anybody know Doctor REALITY'S race or nati... 1 hr Knock off purse s... 36
rajkot gey (Nov '15) 1 hr Hemant patel 77
TARABYA PROFILO TARABYA SERVIS 212) 202 62 35 P... 1 hr sertek 1
SARIYER Profilo Sariyer Tamir Servis 212 ) 202 ... 1 hr sertek 1
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 2 hr ImFree2Choose 2,281
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr DebraE 106,050
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 12 hr Hangman 972,378
More from around the web