Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239089 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

#185839 Nov 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Prove I haven't been donating blood for years.
<quoted text>
Because they screen it.

Can I help you with anything else?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#185840 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you elites call your balls?
Shuttlecocks?
See this?

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/tv/mcac_rhian_...

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#185841 Nov 19, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Not necessarily, He can only deduct on money he already made that is subject to tax. A legit business meeting ideally produces legit profits, taxable. Meal was used in producing the profit. The guy laughing is the one who sold you the 12 dollar baked potato and over priced wine. Hes making a profit that is taxed. The tax payer you refer to having a joke on funds nothing.
Oh, yeah, the restauranteurs love it too.

But come on, it's a hoax.

The meal is not in any way the proximate cause of "legit profits."

It's a night out on the town, at the taxpayers' expense. I am compelled to attend many of these "business" dinners.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#185842 Nov 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Prove I haven't been donating blood for years.
<quoted text>
If true that's outstanding.[tipping hat]

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#185843 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is truly dumb, even for a California liberal.
First of all, the guy buying dinner earned all the money. 100%. The he spends some on a meal. It's all his. He spent his money. What he does then, if he writes the meal off, is avoid spending additional money, in this case, to the tax collectors in D.C.
He paid 100% of the meal. And later, he pays an additional expenditure of X minus the writeoff, to Big Brother.
What is collected in taxes by Big Brother is not a static amount. Just because the payer manages to reduce his tax liability, there is absolutely no concomitant balance owed by another taxpayer.
It is not a zero sum equation.
You could only be correct if the businessman paid for his meal, then recieved a subsidy check from the federal government to pay for business meals, and that check being funded by taxpayers.
But you would still be wrong on the proportion, because it would not be 50%.
The two are not the same thing.
Buck, to me the sad thing is that there are so many people who buy into your sham argument. And some of these people sit at home eating beans and rice while they figure out how to pay the rent, and in the meantime the rich guys drink 25-year-old bottles of French wine while they talk golf.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185844 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, yeah, the restauranteurs love it too.
But come on, it's a hoax.
The meal is not in any way the proximate cause of "legit profits."
It's a night out on the town, at the taxpayers' expense. I am compelled to attend many of these "business" dinners.
Bull Shit.

Doesn't cost a taxpayer a dime.

Except the taxpayer who pays the check.
Bongo

Brentwood, NY

#185845 Nov 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you tired of government flunkies dictating to you how you MAY use your own property? Not that that crap does not exist elsewhere but it was a happy day I left L.I. behind and all my own issues with commercial property and the local harpies of compliance.
So you , got out of New York state before its to late.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185846 Nov 19, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Well, I said that a little Buck is highly amusing, and it is. But a lot of Buck begins to get annoying, so I think I will take off for a while.
Cya all.
Bye Dagwood.

We hope to miss you.

Mean that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185847 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, to me the sad thing is that there are so many people who buy into your sham argument. And some of these people sit at home eating beans and rice while they figure out how to pay the rent, and in the meantime the rich guys drink 25-year-old bottles of French wine while they talk golf.
My argument is not a sham, it is entirely correct.

Your argument is a socialist one - it assumes the taxpaying public owes the government a fixed amount of money, and if one owes less, the other owes more.

It's not true. And accounting does not work that way.

It's also none of your business what wine someone drinks unless you are paying for it, or you are asked your opinion.

You are a good example of why nobody should ever elect liberals to run tax policy, or any policy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185848 Nov 19, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> So you , got out of New York state before its to late.
According to Catch, the people remaining in New York are financing your move to New Jersey.

By his calculus, the NY taxes you don't pay have to be made up by some poor dupe, thus you are not even spending your own money; you're spending theirs.

I bet you thought your money was yours, huh?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185849 Nov 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
In post 185738 you said your god is not omnipotent.
That's an unusual claim for a christian so I then asked if you thought your god could be damaged.
<quoted text>
Omnipotent and all powerful not the same things, dude.

If one is omnipotent, that means it can do anything. Since there are things God cant do, that negates His omnipotence.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#185850 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect you are making a dime off Gates' wealth.
Do you ever save money by purchasing on the internet, using your windows platform?
Gates is paying more, both in percentage of income, and in real dollars.
With a flat tax, he would also be paying a heck of a lot more, in real dollars.
I have never seen a credible argument opposing a flat tax.
An easier argument can be made that higher earners should pay a lower tax rate.
I use Linux.

There is no fair and equitable tax system in our economic system. There are no Horatio Alger stories anymore. The big boys kill any competition or innovation threatening their product. We live in an ogliarchy the crooks seized 30 years ago. That's right, Ronald Reagan and the cabal he fronted.
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#185851 Nov 19, 2013
Thanks, but it's not outstanding, more people should do it.
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
If true that's outstanding.[tipping hat]

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185852 Nov 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
No think about it
Was that a complete sentence?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#185853 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull Shit.
Doesn't cost a taxpayer a dime.
Except the taxpayer who pays the check.
Looks like we've hit an impasse on this one.

Let's discuss the Constitution instead.

Do you agree with G.W. Bush that it's just a lousy piece of paper?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185854 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not any god's fault, as I see it.
That's because I don't believe in your god or any other ones.
I'm just pointing out the flaws in your own beliefs.
Your silly response points out those flaws very clearly: You believe your god gave those poor Filipinos "the sense" to move to Beverly Hills. But he forgot to give them even the air fare.
Some god you've got. He answers "no" to prayers, and sits idly by while thousands die and hundreds of thousands lose their homes.
I see you're not using the common sense that God gave you.

What sense does it make to move from an area add that's at risk for typhoons, hurricanes and tornadoes for a place that's at risk from massive earthquakes?

Dumbass typical Californian.
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#185855 Nov 19, 2013
Buck doesn't even get infinity.
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Well, I said that a little Buck is highly amusing, and it is. But a lot of Buck begins to get annoying, so I think I will take off for a while.
Cya all.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#185856 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is not a sham, it is entirely correct.
Your argument is a socialist one - it assumes the taxpaying public owes the government a fixed amount of money, and if one owes less, the other owes more.
It's not true. And accounting does not work that way.
It's also none of your business what wine someone drinks unless you are paying for it, or you are asked your opinion.
You are a good example of why nobody should ever elect liberals to run tax policy, or any policy.
I am often asked for my opinion on the wine.

Catcher is a gustatory connoisseur on matters oenological.

I'm a mean soccer player, too.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185857 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you have said your god isn't all powerful.
This isn't a ping pong game.
Actually, we elites call it table tennis.
OMG I get believe you just said that.

HA HA!!!

Back in high school I had this super fat, super slobby teacher that slept in class all day. He also said he was an elitist and I would cause intentional arguments with him because he also called ping-pong "table tennis".

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#185858 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, to me the sad thing is that there are so many people who buy into your sham argument. And some of these people sit at home eating beans and rice while they figure out how to pay the rent, and in the meantime the rich guys drink 25-year-old bottles of French wine while they talk golf.
Your point? Being successful should require feelings of guilt?
I am well acquainted with people who rice and bean it and for some nothing changes during economic booms or recessions.

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) 11 min Realtime 1,232,717
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Martin 29,762
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 4 hr Pietro Armando 201,810
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr I Am No One_ 309,866
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... 8 hr Timotion 7
Jayhawks dance team #1 13 hr Jeff 1
News Festus Ezeli and the long, strange trip to the NBA 13 hr tom wingo 2
More from around the web