Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258047 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

#213712 Feb 21, 2014
scaritual wrote:
Yeah, I remember when Ar aR made the claim about the Satans! influence becoming stronger from 1960 forward.
I presented the argument that it was due to Alaska and Hawaii being added as states and the failure of the Christian Church, "leadership", and even provided visuals.
"Eh, I don't keep up with your blather too much" -the scar

LMAO!!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#213713 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
< click >
End of discussion.
You should probably think about the liberties you take with others. Yes, I know that you are at war with most of the thread, but not me. I was not part of that. And I don't want to return to that.
But I also will not tolerate being called a liar by you. I am always honest, even when I am mistaken. Please do not project your loathsome Christian values onto me.
Anyone having the cheek to call you a liar is at least delusional.
"Lie" is not a word I use often or lightly, although I did so just yesterday. Some idiot (mighta been RR) tried running the "It's only a theory" argument, despite repeated explanations of the proper use of the word "theory".
When you know better, and proceed to repeat your error, that's not an error any more.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213714 Feb 21, 2014
ChristINSANITY is EVIL wrote:
IF god made ALL then it's ALL gods fault,even the bad sh!t,
You may comprehend this eventualy,,if you keep trying to THINK
Nope.

God's warned us not to be sexually promiscuous.

Those that are risk the ultimate price.

That's your choice to make, God doesn't make it for you.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213715 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
< click >
End of discussion.
Super.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213716 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Again?
Yeah, I'm a freethinker, and you're Christian. And I'm a better person than you because of it.
HAHA!!!

Keep tellin yourself that, Martha.

You're starting to really, really believe it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213718 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I don't anything about any real gods, but I do know that the god of the Christian bible is a hoax. making your religion a fraud.
Uh-huh....

What's the difference between real gods and God?

How have you come to your conclusion that God isn't real while saying you don't know anything about real gods?
Shall I call you a liar for claiming otherwise?
You can say what you will.

But remember that just because you say it does not make it true.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#213719 Feb 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A very Clearwaterian post.
Melancholic really.
Woe is you.
Bit noisy in here today, innit?

Hi, Catcher.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213720 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Your religion had nothing to do with your marriage.
Bullshit.

I made a vow to God.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213721 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
That is one definition of the word, but not the one I had in mind. Try this
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/denigrate
There is nothing about unfairness on that page.
My denigration of Christianity is fair. It is based on the evidence of its fruit, some of which is you.
Hey, look at that! you said "Christianity", not "the church".

I'm so very proud of you.

*pats head*

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213722 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I have great compassion for people that have AIDS not through their own choices, like babies born with it or medical mishaps .. I don't consider someone contracting AIDS because of sexual immorality to be a victim. it.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Your compassion ends where submission to your faith based values does.
We really don't need your religion in the world. We really don't need people to be taught like you were.
You chopped up my post again. I didn't type in two periods in between the sentences and I did not write "it." as a sentence.

I'll call you out on your intellectual dishonesty again.

That way you can claim I called you a liar...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213723 Feb 21, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Anyone having the cheek to call you a liar is at least delusional.
"Lie" is not a word I use often or lightly, although I did so just yesterday. Some idiot (mighta been RR) tried running the "It's only a theory" argument, despite repeated explanations of the proper use of the word "theory".
When you know better, and proceed to repeat your error, that's not an error any more.
Yes, mac that was me, on PTAG.

I said something about an "educated guess" and your response what that I said "wild guess".

You lied. I called you on it.

boo friggin hoo

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213724 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:

No, I don't note that. I note the opposite. It's the Christians that are most immoral. Look at the god you worship. Look at the Christian standard for moral truth. Look at your own behavior in your life and on this thread.
What about my behavior? You got a problem with honesty and integrity? Or is the problem only that you disagree with some of the things I write?
You are likely referring to the immorality in government.
No. I'm referring to the immorality of the American people, the gluttony, thievery, promiscuity, lying, greed ans selfishness.

As Christianity declines in America, all those rise. Go figure.
That correlated with the rise of evangelical Christianity in Congress during the same time period in which religiosity was decreasing in the general population. The government is more immoral than ever, as are the captains of industry that it caters to, but not the people.
HA HA!

You're a wee bit delusional, my man. The people elect most of those in government. Without corrupt people, our government wouldn't be as corrupt.
As the number under the influence of your church continues to diminish and are replaced with people embodying humanist principles, moral behavior among typical citizens will increase. That's always been true.
Right. That's why rapes and murders rise? Home invasions, identity theft, teenage pregnancy, divorce rates, etc ALL rise while Christianity fades.

But hey, you know what goes up? The number of unemployed and hungry.

Imagine that.
And as long as Americans keep electing religious zealots, the American government will continue to decay.
Riii-iiiight.....

Zealots like Hussein and Clinton? naw.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#213725 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Woe to the nation.
Hey, have you followed the liberal democrat response to the CBO numbers saying Obamacare will cost jobs and allow people to work less?(Never mind their promise it would create jobs)
Chuckie Shumer and Dick Turbin are saying that's a good thing, because people can work fewer hours and still have health insurance, due to the government subsidies.
But wait guys....who pays for those subsidies? PEOPLE WHO WORK AND DON'T GET SUBSIDIES.
More wealth transfer, more people on government aid, more democrat votes.
You realize there's a stopping point for that,...somewhere.
It's unavoidable that, in order to ensure coverage for everybody, there are prices to be paid.

The first priority is to ensure coverage. We all have to bite the bullet.

But if I may change the subject--what do you think of Ted Nugent's characterization of Obama, calling him a chimpanzee?

Has Ted been getting advice from the Redneck?

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#213726 Feb 21, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Bit noisy in here today, innit?
Hi, Catcher.
Hey mac.

Still making moving plans?

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213727 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:

Your religion had nothing to do with your marriage.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit.
I made a vow to God.
Incorrect.

You made a vow to your spouse and you signed a contract with the state you live in.

Religion plays no part in the act of being married.
Where your religion plays a part is in the ceremony you choose to have performed.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213728 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron. Did the truth offend you again??? Snicker.
Nope.

At it's most basic and ancient essence, marriage was an exchange of property.

Marriage is not required for procreation and procreation is not required for marriage.

The modern purpose of marriage is to create a legal family unit where one does not already exist. For this purpose all marriages between non-related adults should be treated equal.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213729 Feb 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's unavoidable that, in order to ensure coverage for everybody, there are prices to be paid.
The first priority is to ensure coverage. We all have to bite the bullet.
But if I may change the subject--what do you think of Ted Nugent's characterization of Obama, calling him a chimpanzee?
Has Ted been getting advice from the Redneck?
Ensure coverage?

There are 30 million uninsured.

The CBO says after 10 years of Obamacare, there will be...31 million uninsured.

50% of those presently uninsured are uninsured by choice.

The result is coverage is not provided for everyone, half of those added to coverage did not want it, and the cost to those paying for coverage skyrockets.

Only a liberal could devise such an absurd, transparent wealth transfer.

The language of Obamacare, which is now statute, specifies when the mandates begin. It is restrictive language, not permissive language. It is written as "MUST", not "MAY".

Obama changed that. How does that square with your Constitution and Separation of Powers? Are you aware that the President cannot legislate law?

Do you recall when the government shutdown over de-funding or delaying Obamacare, Obama and all the dems shouted, "IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND !!!"

Guess it wasn't, huh?

You Obama voters need to apologize and make restitution.

My health insurance went up $700 a month because of ACA. Are you going to start sending me a check each month, or what?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#213730 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, mac that was me, on PTAG.
I said something about an "educated guess" and your response what that I said "wild guess".
You lied. I called you on it.
boo friggin hoo
Nope.

What I said was, and I paraphrase, that you know perfectly well what a scientific theory is, and knowing that, you keep misusing it. That was a lie.

I said nothing whatever about "guesses".

Now, it's perfectly possible that you simply misremembered, or confused me with some other poster who handed you your hat - there's enough of a data sample to make that quite possible.

So I will do you a charity, and NOT call that a whole new lie.

(Do you want me to go find my post?'Cos I can.)

.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213731 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
Nope.
At it's most basic and ancient essence, marriage was an exchange of property.
LOL. That's a new one.
Marriage is not required for procreation and procreation is not required for marriage.
Yeah and sex does not require intimacy nor does intimacy require sex. If there is to be offspring marriage is overall the best if child rights are involved. Marriage is basically a license to have children.
The modern purpose of marriage is to create a legal family unit where one does not already exist.
Children optional between male and female. Children biologically impossible between male and male or female and female.
For this purpose all marriages between non-related adults should be treated equal.
BS.. They are not equal. OSM generally means offspring which is a real family unit and in line with compatible reproductive organs which are there for a reason. SSM is non compatible with physical make-up and never naturally produces children. That means they are no way in hell equal.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213732 Feb 21, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
LOL. That's a new one.
Actually, it is a very old one.
It is even still included in the Christian marriage ceremony.

"Who gives this woman to this man"
The answer traditionally is the father.
The reason for this is that the daughter was the property of the father and is being given (actually sold via the dowry) to her husband.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Yeah and sex does not require intimacy nor does intimacy require sex. If there is to be offspring marriage is overall the best if child rights are involved. Marriage is basically a license to have children.
There is no dispute that the optimal arrangement for raising a child is that they are in a safe and loving home with both of their biological parents.

But, that is irrelevant when it comes to marriage.
Marriage is a license to become a family. The license is issued to the people getting married so that they may become a family. Anything that happens after that is incidental.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Children optional between male and female. Children biologically impossible between male and male or female and female.
And completely irrelevant to the legal status called marriage.
lightbeamrider wrote:
BS.. They are not equal. OSM generally means offspring which is a real family unit and in line with compatible reproductive organs which are there for a reason. SSM is non compatible with physical make-up and never naturally produces children. That means they are no way in hell equal.
You really do seem to be hung up on sex.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Aquarius-wy 1,460,379
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Pee Pee Pete 32,619
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 8 hr ThomasA 312,873
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Dec 7 Go Blue Forever 59
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Dec 5 Yin 17
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Nov 28 Local Warming 10,371
Should child beauty pageants be banned? (Sep '14) Nov 22 Heatherfeather 780
More from around the web