Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202173 Jan 12, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Nor am I.
And neither are you.
See? Something in common after all!
I saw a drawing of the planned statue of Satan.

It's a pretty good depiction, from what I have heard about Satan's appearance.

But it doesn't have a tail, and they didn't make it red.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202174 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it. What does it say? Who is restricted by the amendment?
Secondly, there is nothing in it that disallows Congress, or any governmental body, from prefering one religion over another.
All that is prohibited is Congress legislating an official national religion. That is why they drafted it - at the insistence of legislators that states be free to handle the issue.
That's the history. You can like it or lump it.
Speaking of monuments, look up at the entrance of the Supreme Court building.
Look at the Washington monument. Read the words chiseled in stone.
There was no need to include "Praise be to Satan". And they did not.
It doesn't matter how I interpret it. And it doesn't matter how YOU interpret it.

What matters is how SCOTUS interprets it and SCOTUS has determined that it applies not only to Congress but to all of government.

I suppose you think it would be just fine and dandy if a state passed a law saying you couldn't say anything. That a state COULD infringe upon your freedom of speech, because that state is not Congress?

That seems to be your interpretation of the !st Amendment.

SCOTUS expanded the ban on the actions of Congress to include all of government. Largely, I think likely, because without that expansion we would have none of the rights listed in the 1st Amendment. If the ban applies only to Congress, then any other government agency COULD deny you those rights.

I swear Buck, you are one of the shallowest thinkers I know. Barring Dave, but that goes without saying. You are so obsessed with the meaning of words that the rest of your brain just shuts down.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202175 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If we follow the Constitution, the 10 Commandments monument will be allowed and the Satanic monument prohibited.
First Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States, Joseph Story:
"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects".
U.S. Supreme Court, Zorach v. Clauson, 1952:
"For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no relgion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence".
<Not a word of the First Amendment has been changed since these statements>
Stare decisis, anyone?
1952??

A paltry 27 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial?

Are you feckin' serious?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202176 Jan 12, 2014
Buck is very busy, doing research in order to respond to my latest posts on Constitutional issues.

Take your time, Buck, I'm calling it a day.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202177 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw a drawing of the planned statue of Satan.
It's a pretty good depiction, from what I have heard about Satan's appearance.
But it doesn't have a tail, and they didn't make it red.
I saw one, also.

https://www.google.com/search...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202178 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 97% figure is wrong, but it is NOT a tiny difference.
We share 75 - 80% of DNA with earthworms.
This does not mean we are 75% similar to earthworms, or 95% similar to chimps.
Given the number of base pairs, it is a huge difference.
You are conflating what you mean by "share".

We share 98% of our protein coding genes with chimps. 98%. And the "share" in this case means exact matches. We share about 95% of our DNA with chimps if you include the vast amount of non-coding DNA. This includes a very large amount of non-operative DNA...where mutations have no effect on survival and can accumulate over time.

The "share" you mention with earthworms is a different sort of "share". In the case of earthworm, it is talking of genes which have the same function...but the genes themselves produce somewhat different proteins.

So your equivocations give a dishonest picture of the situation. In other words, it is spin. In yet other words, it is a lie.

For someone that is always expressing concern over the honesty of others, you don't seem to have any concern about your own honesty.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202179 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Animals who thrive in an environment are better suited for the environment than those who do not thrive.
And animals are better suited for their environment because they thrive in it.
That's a fabulous scientific breakthrough - if your environment kills you, you aren't suited for it.
And here is the even more brilliant breakthrough:
If you are dead, you can't reproduce as much.
Actually, Buck, yes it WAS a great scientific break-through. Because no one had ever thought of it before Darwin and Wallace. And because it explained so much.

It only seems obvious in hindsight.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202180 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
With all respect, my critique of your statement.
First, your quotes are not from the Constitution. You have mined them to support your position, from scores that would refute your position.
Second, it's 2014, Buck.
Happy New Year and welcome to the present.
It's much better than when Story lived--we don't even allow slavery, or Jim Crow laws, any more. And women are allowed to vote (don't tell RR, he'll have a coniption).
By the way, Story was NOT the first Chief Justice. It was John Jay, as any Constitutional scholar should know.
The Catcher Institute of Constitutional law is accepting applications.
You may apply at the Institute, or at the Holy Church of Catcher.
Excuse the faux pas on first chief justice.

Story founded Harvard Law School and served 34 years on the Supreme Court, authoring 286 opinions, 269 of which were the majority.

So his credibility stands.

Not yours, so much. The examples you gave - ending slavery, Women's suffrage - resulted from AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. And Jim Crow laws were state laws, struck down by later state laws.

The First Amendment has not been amended, and reads the same as it did in Story's day, and in the day of Zorach v. Clauson in 1952.

Yes, it is 2014. And the establishment clause still reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Those 10 words are the boundaries on the constitutional quoting. What is available to quote further is court opinions. Remember stare decisis?

Leading up to 1962, for 170 years the Supreme Court upheld such things as voluntary prayer, citing numerous precedents.

In 1962, in Engle v. Vitale, the court began striking them down.

How many citations of precedent did the court cite in the Engle?

Wanna' guess?

O (zero)

Stare decisis. Sure.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#202181 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Animals who thrive in an environment are better suited for the environment than those who do not thrive.
And animals are better suited for their environment because they thrive in it.
That's a fabulous scientific breakthrough - if your environment kills you, you aren't suited for it.
And here is the even more brilliant breakthrough:
If you are dead, you can't reproduce as much.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are dead, you can't reproduce as much.
Is that why you have intercourse with corpses?

Natural selection at work.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202182 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Without intending discourtesy, I want to focus just on this one statement of yours.
Your history somehow ended suddenly at a very early stage. That's not the way history works. History is like time, it doesn't stop, it continues to run.
So I say, look at where we are today, at our point in history.
Wouldn't you agree that I'm the one who should be saying, "That's the history. Like it or lump it?"
We are talking about the history of two different things.

If you want to know the intent of the U.S. Constitution, you have to look at the reasoning and the early court interpretations of the framers' intent.

If you want to look at the history of how courts have revised the Constitution fraudulently, committing a usurpation of the powers of the people, you have to look at about 1960 and forward. You have to look at liberals.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202183 Jan 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
I was merely observing the mistake of tempting God.
Tempting it? I couldn't even get its attention.

How do you tempt a god? What does that even mean? I'm guessing that that word means absolutely nothing in this context.

Or maybe it means having expectations of a god that makes promises. Was that the crime? Does tempting mean expecting that if the god is real, it will do what it said it would, and walking away when it didn't? Could that be the crime of tempting a god that you are warning me about?

I call that common sense, not tempting a god. If a human being wasn't capable of doing that, it couldn't correct an error. Before I was twenty, I had a girlfriend that was Buddhist. She tried to get me into that. I attended a few meetings with her, then moved on. I call that common sense, too - not tempting a god. Do you think I tempted Buddha?
Bongo wrote:
Even some lottery winners faithfully played their number 20 years and more before hitting. Same with science, many grew old and died in their quest to solve , never quitting.
Maybe I gave up on Buddha too soon.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202184 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter how I interpret it. And it doesn't matter how YOU interpret it.
What matters is how SCOTUS interprets it and SCOTUS has determined that it applies not only to Congress but to all of government.
I suppose you think it would be just fine and dandy if a state passed a law saying you couldn't say anything. That a state COULD infringe upon your freedom of speech, because that state is not Congress?
That seems to be your interpretation of the !st Amendment.
SCOTUS expanded the ban on the actions of Congress to include all of government. Largely, I think likely, because without that expansion we would have none of the rights listed in the 1st Amendment. If the ban applies only to Congress, then any other government agency COULD deny you those rights.
I swear Buck, you are one of the shallowest thinkers I know. Barring Dave, but that goes without saying. You are so obsessed with the meaning of words that the rest of your brain just shuts down.
Wrong.

States have constitutions, too. They are ratified and agreed to by the people. States can't do anything they want to do, any more than the federals can do anything they want to do.

As far as the religion clause, yes, states could have established religions. That's why they included the establishment clause - to prevent Congress from meddling in it.

You use the term "interpret". How can a court "interpret" the term "Congress" to not mean Congress??

That's not interpreting, my shallow friend. That's revising.

You like SCOTUS legislating laws for you. What if you get a far right SCOTUS?

You will talk out the other side of your mouth.

Why are you afraid of governing yourself, coward?

You are almost as poor at commenting on government as you are at commenting on math.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202185 Jan 12, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>1952??
A paltry 27 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial?
Are you feckin' serious?
Which words of the First Amendment have been changed since 1952?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#202186 Jan 12, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Is that why you have intercourse with corpses?
Natural selection at work.
Sure gives a new meaning to the term, "dead end".

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#202187 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
So the first amendment goes where ever the American is, and to a degree even on foreign soil (US Embassy).

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202188 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Buck is very busy, doing research in order to respond to my latest posts on Constitutional issues.
Take your time, Buck, I'm calling it a day.
My only research was to correct my error on Story being the first chief justice.

The rest was easy.

Your post was a mess, jurisprudence-wise.

Can you cite the court's precedent for knocking down school prayer in Engle v. Vitale?

I'll save you some research.

THEY DIDN'T OFFER ANY!!

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202189 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
You are conflating what you mean by "share".
We share 98% of our protein coding genes with chimps. 98%. And the "share" in this case means exact matches. We share about 95% of our DNA with chimps if you include the vast amount of non-coding DNA. This includes a very large amount of non-operative DNA...where mutations have no effect on survival and can accumulate over time.
The "share" you mention with earthworms is a different sort of "share". In the case of earthworm, it is talking of genes which have the same function...but the genes themselves produce somewhat different proteins.
So your equivocations give a dishonest picture of the situation. In other words, it is spin. In yet other words, it is a lie.
For someone that is always expressing concern over the honesty of others, you don't seem to have any concern about your own honesty.
When I say "DNA", I always mean "DNA".

If I wanted to say "genes producing somewhat different proteins", I would say "genes producing somewhat different proteins".

The dishonesty is trying to present these percentages to make humans and chimps sound more similar than they are.

There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.

CNN:

"Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.

Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.

This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent."

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#202190 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
States have constitutions, too. They are ratified and agreed to by the people. States can't do anything they want to do, any more than the federals can do anything they want to do.
As far as the religion clause, yes, states could have established religions. That's why they included the establishment clause - to prevent Congress from meddling in it.
You use the term "interpret". How can a court "interpret" the term "Congress" to not mean Congress??
That's not interpreting, my shallow friend. That's revising.
You like SCOTUS legislating laws for you. What if you get a far right SCOTUS?
You will talk out the other side of your mouth.
Why are you afraid of governing yourself, coward?
You are almost as poor at commenting on government as you are at commenting on math.
A state cannot endorse a specific religion. There are also test's that determine whether they do are not.
Lemon test
Lemon test redux
Coercion test
Endorsement test

In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/establish...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202191 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Buck, yes it WAS a great scientific break-through. Because no one had ever thought of it before Darwin and Wallace. And because it explained so much.
It only seems obvious in hindsight.
Wrong. Plenty of people thought of it before Darwin and Wallace.

Darwin plagiarized a good bit of it.

And yes, it seems obvious if your environment kills you, you are not well-suited for it, and if you are dead, you can't reproduce.

The reason it seems obvious is because it is obvious.

What is not obvious is why it's considered a breakthrough.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202192 Jan 12, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
You are just a worshipper of math scripture. A pew warmer.
You are constantly denigrating learning from others.

So tell me, Dave, do you believe electrons exist?

If so, where did you get the idea?

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 VetnorsGate 1,655,526
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 33 min ThomasA 321,834
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 11,888
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Trojan 35,071
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 26 Okboy 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web