Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255305 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191115 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I would say that it you who has been co-opted to serve a master. You say exactly what they would want you to say - things like "class-envy" and "fake compassion."
Buck Crick wrote:
I don't know who "they" is, but I say what I think. I think individual liberty is superior to central government control. I'm weird that way.
In my opinion, you now say what "they" think. And "they" refers to the source of the money that. From "Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics" at http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/...

"There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say,'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that."

Do you think that he is making that up? This is from Wiki:

"The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense". The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States."

That's their message, and now it's yours as well.

And don't be fooled. They don't care about your freedoms or even whether you eat. They're talking about the freedom to make money without government regulation. That's what they mean by limited government: no regulation, no taxation, no redistribution of wealth. How do you think that is going to work out?

The only thing they need government for is to generate infrastructure, defend them from you and from foreigners, to educate people enough to go to work, and to tax workers and send their money upstairs in the form of payments to banks and defense contractors. Notice that limited government doesn't limit military spending, police, prisons, or domestic spying.

"They" exist, they are NOT your friends, and you say exactly what their think tanks have conditioned you to say. How is this so difficult to see even when it is spelled out for you like this?

But the fact that it is - I am rock solid certain that there is zero way to penetrate your head or reach you - is what is so distressing to me. I look at what they can do, how ineffective people like me are at countering or resisting it, and I weep for my nation as I walk away from it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191116 Dec 10, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. there it is ..
.. why do people need silly laws to regulate industry? Surely we can trust Pfizer, McDonald's and Halliburton to do the right thing. I mean, we've got their word that they won't shaft the public, right? Isn't that good enough? After all, they're providing jobs ..
You're being sarcastic, but that is exactly what the people conditioned by conservative think tanks believe. They want the government to stay out the affairs of these corporations, which, coincidentally, is exactly what the corporations want, and not so that they can help America or its citizens.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. most everyone knows financial advisers, insurance companies, banks and mortgage brokers totally screwed the market with derivatives and swaps after the crash of 2008. But, Big Biz learnt their lesson, right? And, they'll never ever do it again so there's no need for regulation ..
There are as many people or more that think like that than that think like you and me. America has become a nation of followers, about half of which have their thinking done for them and injected into their heads through their favorite conservative media outlets and commentators. Rush Limbaugh was the first prominent one, but now there are dozens.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191117 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The government is without any moral or constitutional basis for determining wages. You and I have no right to say how much money someone "deserves".
I disagree.
Buck Crick wrote:
A person's labor, brains, and industriousness is worth EXACTLY what he can convince someone to pay for it. No more, no less.
And how much do you think you will be able to convince ownership to pay you when it has finished concentrating wealth, power and privilege? Have you ever read any Dickens?
Buck Crick wrote:
A free market based on each person's self-interest is the best and only method of achieving prosperity.
Unregulated capitalism does NOT produce the best society. It produces sweatshops with unthinkable working conditions and widespread poverty and misery. Mankind lived in that cesspool for its entire civilized history until enlightened progressives insisted on public health, workplace safety, universal education, decent wages and working conditions, and the like. The result was the wealthiest nation with the strongest economy and highest standard of living ever - the nation I was born into.

But you and the other conservatives have a better idea.
Buck Crick wrote:
There are too few people remaining who understand this, and the results are openly observed. And it's getting worse.
It's getting worse all right, and has been for nearly two generations as this type of thinking has gained ascendance. What is amazing is how you cannot be made to see that. You just keep on singing their mantra.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191118 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I'm re-thinking it. I might conclude he [Dave] has a high aptitude for the transcendent. Analytically, no so much.
How much aptitude do you need to believe in airy fairy stuff?

You call him a great thinker - second only to yourself - except for his ability to think analytically. By that measure, a cat can be a great thinker.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191119 Dec 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.[4] This represented a more regressive tax regime, with more revenue derived from the flat payroll tax versus the progressive income tax."
"The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure, an average national budget deficit per year of $237.5 billion, as compared to an average national budget deficit per year of $56.9 billion during Carter's tenure. The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 2.65% of GDP in 1980, Carter's final budget year, to 3.04% of GDP in 1988, Reagan's final budget year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Fede...
Smoke, mirrors, bullshit, and creative accounting.
There was a lot of that in government and with the mergers of large corporations and fleecing of investors. A house of cards was created that is still being propped up with smoke, mirrors, bullshit, and creative accounting.
There was no manufacturing growth, Buck. That was moved overseas. That is the real wealth. It was replaced by parasitic industries and suckering in foreign investors with those artificial numbers. Hence the propping up of the house of cards still going on.
I was a poor working class schmuck struggling to make a living while those players were running wild. I saw what was going on even then.
Greed, selfishness, and ambition to get rich quick was the order of the day. Ethics, morality, and the long term were set aside.
REAGAN AND HIS HANDLERS WERE ASSHOLES. PERIOD.
I am pleasantly surprised to see you arguing this position, and am happy to give credit where credit is due.

And notwithstanding Buck's comments to the contrary, this is analysis - political analysis. You have looked at data bit by bit and understood its implications. Somehow, "they" have not reached you in this department. You are supposed to adore Reagan and despise liberals.

In this arena, Dave, you outshine Buck by orders of magnitude.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191120 Dec 10, 2013
River Tam wrote:
I don't know the answer, IANS. Should a high school student on summer break be paid as much as a single mother of two? The minimum wage proponents say they should be paid the same.
I don't think that those of us supporting a higher minimum wage are too interested in high school students earning as much as single mothers of two. We're interested in seeing that she and her children live decently if she is willing and able to work. If high school students benefit from that for a few months, terrific.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#191121 Dec 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, because "love your enemy" is such a nasty ideal.
If only.

If only you Genuine Christians™ actually practiced this.

If only you did...

... I'll await your horrid comments back to me.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191122 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
It makes no sense that you fear or blame conservatives. Conservatives haven't elected a president in 29 years
Are you disowning Bush?

I don't hate all conservatism, just this despicable new brand, neoconservatism. It's code for old world values, where dynasties concentrated wealth and power. It's un-American as I once understood America.
Buck Crick wrote:
during the last 6 years, liberals had the presidency and both houses of Congress, or the presidency and the Senate for the entire period.
The Democrats are not liberals. They are corporatists just like the Republicans.

I am a liberal, and they did not represent me.
Buck Crick wrote:
In a country where Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid Senate President, and the guy with the most liberal voting record in the Senate elected president - twice - and you fear conservatism?
As I said elsewhere, we are so far apart in these areas - so few shared assumptions - that communication is impossible. Pelosi and the Democratic Congress that was established in 2006 betrayed the liberals that elected them on a mandate to get out of Iraq and rein in the White House. Impeachment was the remedy the founders conceived as protection from a rogue president like Bush, not something to be used trivially to shame a man like Clinton. There was no other way to stop Bush.

So what did Pelosi do? First thing: impeachment is off the table? And shortly thereafter, rather than cutting off funding for the Iraqi debacle - the only way that Congress could stop the war - the new Democratic Congress approved every nickel of Bush's war budget.

Obama was no different. When we were hoping for justice, he told us to look forward, not back. And he continued Bush's wars.

This is what I meant when I said that the Democrats don't represent this liberal at all. People like me have almost no effective representation in American government.
Buck Crick wrote:
Demographically, conservatives have lost ground, and will continue to do so as democrats won't allow ID for democrat precincts to limit votes to the person voting, successfully portray conservatives as against birth control, and are busy trying to get Mexicans to vote in our elections. The "conservative" Chief Justice of the Supreme Court spins Obamacare as a "tax", in order to get around its obvious unconstitutionality, ignoring that tax bills have to originate in the House, under Article I of the Constitution, and this one originated in the Senate? Why would anyone fear conservatives?
As I said, my friend, we are too far apart and have too few shared assumptions to communicate beyond explaining what we believe. When you post something like, "conservatives have lost ground," I know that my words to you will be wasted. And by "you," I really mean the half of the country that thinks the same way you do.

I still commend you for your good cheer, and your willingness to not confuse criticism of your ideas with criticism of your person. I realize that you are just as sincere and interested in what is best for America as I am.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191123 Dec 10, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Aerobatty wrote:
Sad, isn't it? So much wasted potential.
Very sad - the saddest thing in my life.

But, life goes on. We can't grieve forever. There is nothing to do but adapt to the new reality, and to be grateful for the good things in our lives.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#191124 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pleasantly surprised to see you arguing this position, and am happy to give credit where credit is due.
And notwithstanding Buck's comments to the contrary, this is analysis - political analysis. You have looked at data bit by bit and understood its implications. Somehow, "they" have not reached you in this department. You are supposed to adore Reagan and despise liberals.
In this arena, Dave, you outshine Buck by orders of magnitude.
Don't get carried away with your approval. I know it makes you feel good.

Reagan was a reaction to prior evils, as were those conservative think tanks.

I'm a few years ahead of you so I witnessed things you couldn't. There was a lot of rabble rousing to get votes starting with LBJ. He should be burning in hell, too. The opportunists flocked under that banner, and then under Reagan when the winds shifted.

You were the one reached, IANS. You are a herd follower.

Life looks a lot different when you live during the time versus reading about it. "Scholars" and "experts" have a way of skewing things.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#191125 Dec 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
If only.
If only you Genuine Christians™ actually practiced this.
If only you did...
... I'll await your horrid comments back to me.
The only "prophesy" of Jesus that has come true time and time again is:

"Many are called but few are chosen."

Most are a disgrace to the Jesus they claim to believe in.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191126 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The media ... ridiculed W. saying he talks to God.
What's wrong with that? Some people found that ridiculous and said so. Do you think that such people should censor themselves and be silent?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#191127 Dec 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>What's that supposed to mean?
My apologies. I read that too quick.

I agree that SOME unions are greedy, but unions are NOT the problem.

I would say unions are needed now more than ever, but knowing how bad it was for labor before unions, that would be hard to justify.

But the need for labor unions is heading back to that. We can not count on employers to treat us fairly or consider our safety any more.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191128 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong with that? Some people found that ridiculous and said so. Do you think that such people should censor themselves and be silent?
Yes.

A media that claims to be unbiased, yet chose to ridicule a president for talking to God, which is not uncommon, but not ridicule a president for saying he was attacked on a lake by a giant white rabbit - should at least pretend.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#191129 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Raising the minimum wage IS a transfer.

A mandated added cost to production with no benefit to payer.
Sucker.

It benefits the payer by creating more customers.

Hook, line and sinker baby. You're a republican wet dream.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#191130 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>My understanding of what little we know about Jesus was his emphasis on love, not ordering people to do it.

Jesus wasn't big on rules, as he emphatically illustrated to the church members who brought before him a woman caught in "the act".

Their exercise was to test him. They said the law of Moses (knowing Jesus was a Jew and a scholar) says that she must be stoned. But Jesus preached love. So what now, Jesus?

Jesus, as the story goes, said (paraphrasing)

"Yes. You have Moses. You have the woman. Let me tell you hypocrites what I have. I have what I know is in your hearts. And you have been with her yourself, or you want to be. So which ever one of you bastards is better than her, throw the first stone".

They walked away, thinking there was more he could tell.

Welcome to Buck Bible School.(BBC)
That would be BBS, the "BS" being particularly appropriate.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191131 Dec 10, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Reagan also never raised the minimum wage. Not only that, he took the credit for ending the Cold War but in reality, he had nothing to do with it. It was because of Reagan that we were right on the precipice of all out global nuclear warfare in late 1983. He called Russia the "evil empire". The Messiah ended the Cold War thirty years ago. Shortly afterwards we had Glastnost and Perastroika. The Messiah also restored pride to the military and got the Jews out of Russia.
You are a pathetic liar.

Gorbachev's cabinet and the CIA and Nato and Thatcher concur with me.

But you have Dave and a few liberals.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191132 Dec 10, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. tell me, what does patriotism mean to you ??..
Patriotism is "love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it."
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. does it mean loving your country right or wrong ??
Yes, love doesn't depend on making no mistakes.

But that doesn't mean that the love is unconditional or immortal. Unlike the love for a young child, it does depend on reciprocation. In that sense, it is more like the love of a spouse. We don't stop loving a country or a spouse because they make mistakes, but because they stop loving us back.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191133 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
OK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =bs4y5si8DGsXX
LOL. I guess it's been done.

Incidentally, there isn't much that ol' Charlie could get on his own. He needs an environment that supports him in his pursuit of happiness, without which he's pretty much busy just staying alive,as was once the case.

And it could be that way again for his great-grandchildren. I suspect that it will be.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191134 Dec 10, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. how do I say this? My lawn lady isn't the brightest candle? She's learnt how to handle a mower, how to fix a sprinkler system and how to manipulate the bureaucracy ..
.. she could never be an engineer, attorney or even a nurse. Her options are limited to entry level jobs that pay minimum wage ..
.. you're suggesting she return to school, learn a new skill, right? How can she do that when her learning ability is limited ??..
P.S. Please don't call me an elitist. Today's high-paying jobs require advanced specialized training. My lawn lady is incapable of grasping such an education. That's reality.
Rider on the Storm wrote:
I was going to stay out of this but your lawn lady has a couple solvable problems. Fixing #1 will take care of #2 unless of course #2 is her REAL business.......
1. She doesnt charge enough. If she does good work, she could and should charge more. If you cant make a living in your business, your not doing something right. She needs to figure out what that is and fix it. It could be as simple as charging more or recruiting more business.
2. Shes a common criminal.......
Rider on the Storm wrote:
I'll just add this, by your lawnlady undercharging she brings the whole industry down. There are people like her in every market. They skimp. Some may go w/o insurance, some w/o an office or whatever, they charge less then the going rate and screw themselves and the legitimate businesses. Shes screwing herself because she invests the time but cant survive on her income, she screws her competitors by taking potential customers and giving out the impression THEY are overcharging.
This might be a good time to repost Lakoff's words on the worldview being promoted by neoconservatives framing thought:

"The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

"So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent ... In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline."

People are being taught to despise people like this woman. They are being taught that her situation is caused by her character flaws and immoral choices, and that she deserves no sympathy or support.

And it's quite obvious how this serves the monied interests, who have no need for a social safety net, and no interest in being made to contribute to one.

So, they teach people to despise the weak, the untalented, the sick, the unlucky, and the needy. They are taught that their situation is evidence that they are bad people.

And it's working.

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) 1 hr mdbuilder 1,383,526
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr cpeter1313 311,215
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 5 hr IB DaMann 9,636
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Thu Financial Consult... 6
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Thu Trojan 32,267
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) May 23 Ceren 39
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) May 22 01niner 201,860
More from around the web