Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256101 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.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202453 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it does not.
No legislature is prevented from showing preference to the Judeo-Christian religions.
"Preference" is not an establishment of an official state religion, which is all that is addressed by the establishment clause. Nothing else is addressed but "establishment".
That's why they call it the "Establishment Clause".
There is no "preference clause". Or if you have found one, you can point it out for me.
By the way, which day of the week is the federal post office in your town closed?
Around here, it's the Christian sabbath day.
This means Jewish people can only utilize the facility 4 days other than their sabbath.
Christians can utilize it 5 days other than their sabbath.
How is this not a "preference"?
How is this not a preference:
"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation".
United States Supreme Court, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States
(103 years after ratification of the Establishment Clause)
SCOTUS says otherwise. End of story.

And "Preference is not an establishment"??? <rolleyes> Can't you go even one post without saying something stupid?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202454 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying it isn't one?
BTW...FYI...the Hindu symbol is the mirror image of the Nazi symbol.
<quoted text>
No. I would no more want to see that religious symbol in courtrooms than I would like to see any religious symbol in a courtroom. In our society, the courts are secular and should not have any religious symbology.
<quoted text>
Oh, so again it is you that gets to decide?
<quoted text>
That's your religious indoctrination talking.
<quoted text>
No, but then abusing others violates those others' rights. We don't allow any religion to violate rights, as much as some people wish we would.
BTW, give me one confirmed instance of a satanist abusing a child in the name of satanism. The is the same sort of straw man you use against atheists all the time.
<quoted text>
Be careful what you wish for. If you start banning certain religions, it is just possible that one day they will ban yours as well.
The proposed satanic monument would hurt no one. Nor does it incite anyone to harm another.
Speaking of monuments on government property...

Dogpile, I don't see Satan among them.

What gives? I though SCOTUS banned these????

http://www.christianindex.org/1087.article

Oh shit ! What's this on government property?

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

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#202455 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I care about what is actually true.
That's my bias.
It's okay if you have other priorities. I understand.
So did the flight crew of Air Florida flight 90. Its too bad they thought and did trust the reading they had on instrumentation at takeoff. See this crew was from Florida and while trained to fly in many conditions its doubtful they were ready for the blizzard this Jan day in Washington D.C. An error was made not turning on the anti ice system and that led to an "untrue" reading they thought was true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flig...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202456 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you consider all things that science cannot replicate and that haven't been observed in the history of human record keeping unlikely? How about whale evolution from land mammals?
What evidence suggests that abiogenesis is highly or extremely unlikely?
I just summarized the evidence that it is extremely unlikely.

The search for it has been exhaustive, with little to no results.

Whale evolution from land mammals may have occurred, but it did not occur in the pathway that Darwinists presently want us to accept.

In fact, that series is impossible by natural selection alone.

But it's good enough for the Darwinists anyway. It's a "just so" story. It just has to be so.

(both the whale series and abiogenesis)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202457 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Maybe there's a Satanist out there who'd like to ritually abuse a child. They don't get to do that, do they?
<quoted text>
I'll do better than just one.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satani...
It's a huge list.
Take your time.
If Dogpile says it, expect the opposite to be true.

By the way, he won't read the list. He will just repeat his original misstatement.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202458 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
A new video from the NonStamp Colector.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Thanks. Maybe some other time.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#202459 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar and an idiot.
That's your interpretation.

I think I'm honest, intelligent, and an overall cool guy.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#202460 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have participated in several murder prosecutions in which the defendant explained that he killed because God told him to, and psychological assessments confirmed the defendants' belief they were acting on God's istructions.
Were these defendants murdering in the name of God?
Or were they insane?
What do you think?
1. Were you defendants guilty of excessive drug use that resulted in drug induced psychoses?

2. Or were they not taking prescribe treatment for an already diagnosed mental illness?

3. Then there’s the few that go undiagnosed with psychoses until harm is done.

Hearing voices in their head that are telling them to do something destructive and reprehensible is not the norm.

Regardless for the reason, dangerous individuals need to be incarcerated in a guarded mental institution or a correctional facility.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202461 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar and an idiot.
How much "interpreting" is needed for the noun "Congress"?
How much interpreting is needed for the noun "law"?
How much interpreting is needed for the phrase "establishment of religion"?
We aren't talking about "interpreting".
The Supreme Court had "interpreted" this clause for over 150 years prior to the radical reversal of precedent beginning in 1947.
Don't play games with me. I'm smarter than you, and more honest than you.
I know what "interpreting" means.
"Congress" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was pretty nearly all of the Federal government.

Since then things have changed.

And, as I have pointed out, limiting the bans mentioned in the 1st Amendment to JUST Congress means that none of those guaranteed freedoms would actually exist. If you interpret the free press provision..."Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." as applying to ONLY Congress, then freedom of the press does not actually exist, since by your interpretation any state legislature could shut down any media outlet it wanted to...and it would be perfectly constitutional. At least under your interpretation.

Which is why (I strongly suspect) the vastly brighter individuals who were on the court expanded the meaning to be all governmental bodies. The whole 1st Amendment would become moot if you were in charge.

And you, smarter than me? Since when? A box of rocks is smarter than you. At least a box of rocks knows to keep its mouth shut when things are being discussed it knows nothing about.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202462 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Aristotle was just as much of a scientist in his time as Einstein was in his time. What Aristotle taught 2,000 years ago was considered fact just as much fact as what we learn from Einstein today.
I do have one question for you.
How was spontaneous generation "falsified"?
Old meat (I think it was) was placed in two containers. One was sealed, and the other was open to the air. Maggots appeared only on the one exposed to the environment, and not on the sealed meat, thus evidencing the notion that maggots can't just appear from meat.

Again, you're ignoring or missing the point. Like I just said, questioning modern theories because ancient philosophers, not scientists, were wrong about some things is as asinine as thinking the world might be a square because we used to think it was flat. If you have a problem with a theory, criticize the theory, not the work of ancient philosophers. Obviously people have believed some things that aren't true, and obviously we don't know everything today. The nice thing about the scientific method is that it allows us to correct those errors. Do you know of another methodology that is better at producing results? If so, share it.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#202463 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
HA HA!! "straw person"....
You're so PC.
It's called a straw man, not a straw person. Call it what it is.
I think it was a straw toddler, now that I think about it.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's going nowhere. Your faith that tells you Christianity is evil is too strong for me to contend with.
I don't employ faith, RR.

Think about what you gain by accusing me of relying on faith. Where's my high five? The most important aspect of your life depends on the validity of faith, does it not?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I won't bother arguing your beliefs.
You see, I'm not an atheist.
I don't blame you.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202465 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is my belief, yes.
The downturn of the American familial structure, beginning in the 60s when school prayer was ceased, is my reasoning for that.
Lol. I think it's only a coincidence that the "downturn of the familial structure" coincides with the civil rights movement, feminism, and more recently the gay rights movement.

No, your beef is with prayer in schools, as if that has *anything* to do with family structure. I mean, I do believe that you're upset about that, for some reason, but it makes absolutely no sense. What, does your faith need to be reinforced at school or else your family implodes from all the pent up religious energy? Lol.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#202466 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they were Insane.
I think they were insane enough to want to murder another human being.
But they were smart enough to try the crazy card and get out of jail free.
What do you think? You think God really instructed them to murder?
Of course I don't think God instructed them to murder.

I don't even believe in gods.

But if the evaluating psychiatrists agree that a defendant is not malingering, and truly believes he is was acting on God's instruction to kill, he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity, either because he couldn't distinguish between right and wrong, or because he lacked the capacity to control his actions and refrain from killing.

And re-read your post. You're saying he's insane, but he's not insane.

That's insane.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202467 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Speak English , dammit!
<quoted text>
*squints*
I know this is English but I can't tell what you're saying.
Vestigal? You sure?
Ah, then I must refer you to "stepchild's" more simplified version:

"And the sad thing is it shouldn't be that hard to conceptualize.

1) Here we have two pieces of string.

2) Here we have one string with a knot in its middle."

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#202468 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Yes, I know.
I know the Topix Atheist! line of reasoning tells them the following:
-Christians kill for Christianity.
-Satanists don't kill for Satanism.
-Atheists don't kill for atheism.
I'm trying to follow along but the logic just doesn't add up.
Redneck1 out
Off to the Jim.
Some (lots and lots) Christians have killed for Christianity.

I assume some theistic Satanists killed for Satanism.

Neither atheists or theists kill for (because of) atheism or theism, respectively.

I think if you tried to be less dichotomous, some of this would come easier to you.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#202469 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>You lie. I don't claim that. Tell me, which THEORY of evolution has been proven? Which of the various guesses is the one? w hy isn't it the law of where life came from? Nobody disputes life evolves, only tell me precisely how man came to be.
Why do you look to topix for a rudimentary education? Go, study, learn, be free lil drongo.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202470 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Do you know what a CINO is? Christians don't kill. Catholics are not Christ centered, they have mary and saints. Adherents to Jesus words don't have much fault to be found in them.
Ah...another one that gets to decide who is and is not a Christian.

What was that quote from the Bible about not casting the first stone?

BTW...it was not just the Catholics in Northern Ireland. The Protestants had their own terrorist organization that was just as bad as the Provos.

And it isn't always Protestants versus Catholics. In the English Civil War you had the Church of England Cavaliers and Puritan Roundheads slaughtering each other in the name of the One True Christianity (tm). That is, Protestant v. Protestant. Just different flavors of Protestant.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#202471 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Islam is against holy symbols, or at least they're supposed to be. I doubt they'd want to display it in our courtrooms. But if I had to choose between and Islam Crescent or a Satan statue, I'd pick the Crescent any day.

I'm not suggesting denying Satanists their freedoms. I'm suggesting they put it somewhere else. To have a statue of Satan right next to the Ten Commandments is just petty bickering on their part. It'd b like having a strip club open across the street from a daycare center. Legal, sure. But not right.
Not right to you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202472 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:

It doesn't matter Dave. Its a public forum. Public forums have to allow both religious and political speech. What part of this do you not get?
__________

No they do not.

The government can subject speech to what are known as "time, place and manner" restrictions that regulate when, where and how a speaker can express a message.

It can shut down speech altogether in certain public forums, if it determines the speech is disruptive to government function.

Dogpile still batting zero. Hang in there, Pooch.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#202473 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Oh.

You mean he wasn't murdering in the name of Satan?

Interesting turn around.

When a Christian goes nuts like that, all you Topix Atheists! blame it on his Christianity and claim he was murdering "for God".

But when a Satanist does it....

He's just an "utter nutcase, and totally wasted on hallucinogens".

Fucking hypocrites.
christians murder in the name of their Satan god almost as much as they murder in the name of their three in one war god. They also like to blame their Satan god for all the evil they do. No christian has any standing in labelling anyone either a liar or a hypocrite.

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) 4 min Grey Ghostmoron 1,405,727
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Wed Trojan 32,308
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Wed ThomasA 311,496
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Wed IB DaMann 9,991
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 25 NotInPotatoQuality 201,878
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web