Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 240106 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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#214950 Feb 25, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
LMAO!

"cows got guns!"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#214951 Feb 25, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>

So to you a BJ isn't sex?
Don't be disappointed. Maybe he'll let you try again.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#214952 Feb 25, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not seeing that from the information I'm reading.
I say that as an owner of numerous firearms. I'm not going to give an exact number of what I personally own,, but I'll say this, between my brothers and I, we collectively own around 40+ firearms.
hahaaa.
I own quite a few myself-- many are from trades, and therefore fly under the radar (so to speak).

It's part of being a 'Murrican, I guess.

(or it could be that I enjoy sport shooting at inanimate targets, such as beer cans and water bottles...)

<laffin>

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#214953 Feb 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
What you are describing is "murder rate per capita".
"Murder rate" is murders per unit of time.
Look up any "murder rate" statistic. It is given as "murders per capita"...not "murders per time".

Doofus.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#214954 Feb 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You would expect that a state with a huge amount of gun restrictions and laws would have a much, much, much lower murder number than California or Washington, DC does. Per capita, DC has the highest gun murder rate BY FAR than any other state.
Like I've said, gun laws only promote more gun violence. They make it harder for honest citizens to protect themselves against criminals that don't care what they gun laws say.
So says our village idiot.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#214955 Feb 25, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Link me to that statistic.
From what I'm seeing, the 10 states with the most murder per capita, by firearm, have some of the more liberal or most liberal gun laws in the country. States such as Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Arizona. Mississippi has a a 55% gun ownership rate based on population. Louisiana - 44%.
Louisiana has the highest murder rate, by firearm, of all the states, and 44% of the population owns one or more firearms
<quoted text>
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
In DC there illegal
District of Columbia pop 601,723 pop density10298 murders 131 gun murders 99 gun ownership 3.6% murders per 100k 21.8 1gun murders per 100k 6.5
New Orleans is a International freeport, lot of influx of drug traffic.
But typically the places where the gun laws are strictest , have the highest rates.
<quoted text>
I wanted to clarify a bit more.
My point being, is that when populations are considered, and gun ownership rates are also looked at as well, there seems to be no benefit to a state having very strict laws, or permissive laws, and the percentage of a states population that does own guns, doesn't appear to factor in being a deterrent to crime.
It rather makes sense.

The various activities by people will tend to average out the results-- the more people involved, the more average the results will become.

Same goes for gun deaths: the more guns available to the population, the higher we should expect to see gun-related deaths.

Same holds true for automobile deaths-- the more concentrated the vehicular traffic is, the more auto-deaths we would expect to see.

As much as I admire Australia's bold experiment, in removing nearly all their guns from private hands?

I still like me my sport shooting... take **that**, beer can!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#214956 Feb 25, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Redneck hasn't disclosed the location of the touch.
Or his response to the touch.
I think he'd be well advised to take the Fifth.
Redneck **did** mention-- more than once-- he has a preference to getting it in his backside, by his Jesus.

So it's pretty easy to guess, here.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#214957 Feb 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
What you are describing is "murder rate per capita".
"Murder rate" is murders per unit of time.
Come on, Buck.

I expect better from you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#214958 Feb 25, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
lbr's "most historians" include mostly Christian historians, who of course would insist on the historicity of Jesus. If he weren't historic, then their whole religion falls apart.
While personally I think there was a person named Jesus that was a minor religious leader, I also think that the stories about him became completely overblown. This was likely due to the influence of other religious myths (including Mythra) floating around the Middle East at the time.
This would be similar to Daniel Boone, who WAS a real person, having a story about him killing a grizzly with his bare hands. The man was real, but the story myth.
Richard Carrier, who has written extensively about the historicity of Jesus, does make a good case that no real Jesus existed. His arguments aren't conclusive, but do present some good food for thought.
Here is a talk he presented to a humanist group on the subject...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =XORm2QtR-osXX
The historical Jesus is established well enough to be accepted by most credible scholars.

A few fringe crackpots resist.

Odd coincidence they are humanists.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#214959 Feb 25, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Sure it does, they used to not put that in the news, but lately they do. Lots of people saved their own life lately in the news.
The one thing that means more than anything else is population density, in all areas where there are more than 250,000 gun crimes go up, the more people the more violence.
Nothing will change that, not even eliminating guns will. DC is proof of that.
But the murder rate in DC is even higher than in anywhere, something they don't want you to know.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011...
I agree, Aura-- 100%, with what you just said.

People are violent, and will usually find an outlet for said violence, regardless of how you limit the means.

And although I admire Australia's bold experiment?

I wouldn't want to live with it myself.

The only nit I could pick-- and it's a minor one-- is that guns *do* make it easier to commit a lethal act, than other things commonly available.

Of course-- someone hellbent on committing murder will find a way-- cars are readily available, for example, and are more deadly in any case.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#214960 Feb 25, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Historicity of Jesus is established..
<spam deleted>
Ehrman has already been debunked.

Your SPAM is exactly the same lie you posted before.

You lied then?

You lie now.

It's how you roll.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#214961 Feb 25, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It was a valid question since you go against majority scholarship on this one. Name one contemporary historical account of any person who lived in the time of Jesus? You are the one who denies historicity of Jesus because there is no contemporary writings from His time affirming His existence.
**MY** statements are valid criticism.

Your claim has never been proven.

It is YOUR claim -- not mine.

I'm simply debunking your lie about the supposed historicity of your myth.

As such, it's up to YOU to prove your Jesus was NOT myth.

You have failed on every turn-- all you have is OPINION.

You NEVER post an actual DOCUMENT which would PROVE your Jesus was a real man.

This is because you cannot--

--- NO SUCH DOCUMENTS EXIST.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#214962 Feb 25, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on, Buck.
I expect better from you.
Buck is taking lessons from RR.

Seems their goal is to become more ignorant every day.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#214963 Feb 25, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed-- I do dismiss all ***religious** so-called "documents".
For the simple reason that they each have an agenda-- and accurate history didn't make the list.
Just as I would dismiss all **religious** so-called "documents" about Zeus, or Thor or Imhotep.
But it's much worse than you portray: there is not a single document written during Jesus' alleged life-- not even a **religious** one!
The various "gospels" we have-- including the ones not canon, are all written several generations after the alleged events.
That fact is the most damning of all-- there never was a historical Jesus.
.. it still doesn't make sense to me. Here's my thinking:

1. The man we call Jesus was presumably an itinerant preacher.
2. At the time, most of the people were illiterate.
3. Because of this, word-of-mouth was the only way to disseminate his message.

.. should we trust modern scholars who make a case against a historical Jesus or people that lived shortly after the event ??..

.. at the time of crucifixion, neither a rebel, thief or murderer would warrant mention by the Romans. Like Edgar Allen Poe or Emily Dickinson, a man named Jesus became famous after his death and biographies were written ..

.. still, the idea that Jesus never existed is an intriguing viewpoint ..

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#214964 Feb 25, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree 100% with your statement and conclusions, here.
It is impossible to impose morality on a population-- the people have to **want** it, first.
Of course-- how you raise your children has an eventual effect on the morality of the adults they become.
And religion has demonstrated it does not do a very good job, of raising moral and ethical adults.
For proof, I submit the most **religious** political group in the US, at present, The TeaBaggers.
Who are also the most immoral political group in many a decade.
I wouldn't call them immoral, but they are radical fundamentalist Christians.
Nearly the same type person as the radical fundamentalist Muslims.
In fact they are the ugly side of the two religions , the ones that want to kill each other.
The tea party are the ones who would raise the ark of the covenant and march to war.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#214965 Feb 25, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, Aura-- 100%, with what you just said.
People are violent, and will usually find an outlet for said violence, regardless of how you limit the means.
And although I admire Australia's bold experiment?
I wouldn't want to live with it myself.
The only nit I could pick-- and it's a minor one-- is that guns *do* make it easier to commit a lethal act, than other things commonly available.
Of course-- someone hellbent on committing murder will find a way-- cars are readily available, for example, and are more deadly in any case.
It is easier to make a car bomb that could take out a city block than to make a gun.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#214966 Feb 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, Bob.
<a tip of my non-existent hat>

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#214967 Feb 25, 2014
scaritual wrote:
Why do you make me do this to you? I'm starting to think you're a masochist.

The murder rate per capita, based on 2010 figures. The data was compiled from FBI gun crime statistics and U.S. Census figures.

Louisiana
Population (total inhabitants) 4,533,372
Gun Ownership (%) 44.1%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 7.7
Gun Murders (total deaths) 351

Missouri
Population (total inhabitants) 5,988,927
Gun Ownership (%) 41.7%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 5.4
Gun Murders (total deaths) 321

Maryland
Population (total inhabitants) 5,773,552
Gun Ownership (%) 21.3%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 5.1
Gun Murders (total deaths) 293

South Carolina
Population (total inhabitants) 4,625,364
Gun Ownership (%) 42.3%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 4.5
Gun Murders (total deaths) 207

Delaware
Population (total inhabitants) 897,934
Gun Ownership (%) 25.5%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 4.2
Gun Murders (total deaths) 38

Michigan
Population (total inhabitants) 9,883,640
Gun Ownership (%) 38.4%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 4.2
Gun Murders (total deaths) 413

Mississippi
Population (total inhabitants) 2,967,297
Gun Ownership (%) 55.3%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 4.0
Gun Murders (total deaths) 120

Florida
Population (total inhabitants) 19,687,653
Gun Ownership (%) 24.5%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 3.9
Gun Murders (total deaths) 669

Georgia
Population (total inhabitants) 9,920,000
Gun Ownership (%) 40.3%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 3.8
Gun Murders (total deaths) 376

Arizona
Population (total inhabitants) 6,392,017
Gun Ownership (%) 31.1%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 3.6
Gun Murders (total deaths) 232

California came in at number 12.

California
Population (total inhabitants) 37,253,956
Gun Ownership (%) 21.3%
Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 3.4
Gun Murders (total deaths) 1,257
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_ ...

It's easy to see that Louisiana's murder rate by firearm is a bit over twice as high as the California statistic.

Is California's total murder by firearm number higher? Yes, but I didn't say, "murder total", I said, "most murder per capita, by firearm.

California's population is eight times the population of Louisiana, too.

RiversideRedneck wrote:
You don't know that actual gun ownership rates. People who have illegal guns don't register them...

We don't know how many legal firearms are unregistered either. For instance, firearms in the U.S. weren't required by law to have serial numbers until the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I have a shotgun and a .22 without a serial number at all. Bought over 20 years ago from an individual. Entirely legal to own.

I wonder how many firearms there are in the U.S. when you factor *that* into the mix?

At any rate, I'm not interested in discussing this issue much further than this. I find gun control conversations to be sharply divided and emotion/insult filled.

In my opinion, it raises the ire of people more than discussing religion.

Plus it bores people to...um...death.
Oh Noes! You used.....math!

You will blow out Ar Ar's feeble little brains-- both neurons will quit firing, here...

<laffin>

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#214968 Feb 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is incorrect.
In some states, a person earning above $62,000 per year is not eligible for a subsidy no matter the cost of the premium.
In my state, a person earning $62K can be paying as high as $1,000 a month in premiums, or roughly 20% of income, not 9%, and ineligible for a subsidy.
And this is not accomplished by "a health care system". It is the government.
"...as high as..."

There's tnat self-serving hyper-selectivity of facts again.

Because what's the opposite of "...as much as...."?

That would be "....or as low as....", with the added benefit that the lowest priced policy will meet standards of care far higher than the low-ball junk insurance available previous to the ACA.

Don't be a carrier.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#214969 Feb 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I already answered this yesterday. I think there's more gun violence in California than any other state because California has the strictest gun laws in the union.
<quoted text>
You'll excuse me for not taking your opinion on this as fact.
No worries...you can take the opinion of the others who are pointing out how ridiculous you're making yourself look over this.

Again...why oh why would California have more gun deaths than any other state?

What on earth could the answer be?

LOL...poor RR...so sadly clueless....

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 min The_Box 7,681
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Thinking 2,248
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr MikeF 19,151
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 20 hr The_Box 139
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) Tue Reason Personified 166
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Tue Reason Personified 14,660
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) Mon NoahLovesU 7,514
More from around the web