Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255937 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.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146321 Jan 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know assault weapons are designed to wound rather than kill?
Of course that doesn't mean they aren't effective at killing .
So here look into it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/30/1174...
You are getting desperate.

Ever hear the story that you can't get wounded by an M16?

We were told in training that the bullet was designed to be unstable and that once it entered flesh it started tumbling which caused major damage to multiple organs and massive blood loss.

Sounds kinda lethal to me.

So now you're trying to dance around the whole weapon thing by claiming that an assault weapon is not a LETHAL weapon.

Seriously?

A tazer is not a lethal weapon.

A bean bag gun is not a lethal weapon.

An assault rifle is a lethal weapon.
Anon

Cleveland, OH

#146322 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"guns were quite obviously created for one purpose - KILLING"
Are you sure?
I think guns were created as a more efficient means of launching projectiles.
Where that projectile went is irrelevant to WHY the first gun was made.
Actually, they were created as a method to clear your nasal passages. Of course they were invented for the sole purpose of killing things. Why you are having trouble with this is beyond me.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146323 Jan 1, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, TNT was not designed for killing. Should we be allowed to own TNT?
Of course not. Not without a legitimate purpose and all the proper credentials.

But I fail to see your point.

What exactly is it?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#146324 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
If we outlaw guns, then only outlaws wil have guns.
And the police.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#146325 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
True, and I agree with those regulations.
See? We agree.:)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146326 Jan 1, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you tell me what my logic can decide when you and your nutjob friends don't even understand my logic?
No, TNT should not be open to purchase to anyone because TNT's intended use is not something that any average Joe is going to need to use it for.
Just like guns. You want to use guns for competition? Fine. But how about we ban it outside of that - where the only other perceivable use is as a weapon.
I would allow hunting too.

I see that as a legitimate use for rifles.

But not assault rifles.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#146327 Jan 1, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on the history, scope, and consequences of the misuse. IMHO, guns qualify on all three counts.
I really don't get why anyone would be against the very strict regulation (and registration) of guns. It's like complaining about the necessity for having a license to drive.
One, driving is a not a right and owning a firearm is.

Two, more people die from automobiles than firearms.{Not counting wars, of course}

I have no problem with states requiring a registration, training, and sharing this information with other states that I visit. I have a big problem with the federal government knowing what I have.

History has shown us what happens when the federal government has too much knowledge and power.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#146328 Jan 1, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I should clarify again, as I did with RR. I don't think guns should be entirely banned.
I think that people who are uneducated about guns or who have no need for guns should not be allowed to get them.
Countries that implement similar laws have lower homicide/gun-related crime rates.
Name them and all the crimes committed.

People use stats to lie all the time, so I never know what to believe unless I see all the raw data first.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146329 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You say guns are intended to kill. Period.
The statement makes too broad of an assumption. It implies that this is the most important reason why guns exist in our society.
Guns can be used as tools to make sounds (like in a race), to shoot at paper for entertainment and to hunt.
You cannot make the broad statement that guns are designed to kill and maintain logical integrity.
You changed from "intended" to "designed".

Try to be consistent.

Guns, except for purpose built, high precision, competition guns, are DESIGNED to kill.

They may well be, and are, bought for entirely different INTENDED purposes, such as plinking or target shooting.

But that in no way changes the fact that they are DESIGNED for killing.

And assault weapons, regardless of their INTENDED use, are DESIGNED for killing as many people in as little time as possible.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146330 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
A gun isn't designed to "inflict bodily harm", though.
The purpose of a gun is to accelerate a projectile from zero velocity with respect to the gun to a certain velocity in a controllable vector.
A gun is a tool. How its used is not its definition.
One could argue that guns are intended to start a horse race.......
One could, but one would be exposing his utter stupidity.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146331 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I would allow hunting too.
As would I.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146332 Jan 1, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
"Nanny government" is whenever something you like is regulated. Conservatives give alot of lip service about getting government out of everyone's lives, yet want an enormous military to go global policing with. They also like the idea of the government regulating their often restrictive views on morality on everyone else. But God forbid anyone try and add a waiting period before they can buy a gun.
Or catch them cheating on their taxes.

Or dumping toxic waste.

Or using their tax breaks to buy a vacation home.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146333 Jan 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Again it is tyranny for you to make that decision.
It is not up to others to make justification of a person's right
or reason for owning a gun.
"Shall not be infringed"
I'm for temporary banning of large capacity clips.
Where the problem is you are talking about people who are not intent on breaking the law who will be affected.
Those who do intend on breaking the law , nothing will stop them. Those are the ones who will find a way to do it despite gun laws.
The Brady bill did absolutely nothing to cure the problem.
The problem is with the people not the gun.
The only solution to counter the killing is to meet the killer on equal ground.
Wild wild west.

A bunch of yahoos with guns and a vigilante mentality.

Yeah.

That's what we need.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#146334 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. Not without a legitimate purpose and all the proper credentials.
But I fail to see your point.
What exactly is it?
If you argue that firearms were only intended to kill and that is why we should not have them, then TNT was intended for removing stumps and boulders; why can't I buy TNT? I can buy gallons of gasoline! No one blinks an eye at that! How much damage is done with gasoline vs. TNT?

What gun control folks want to do is demonize firearms, demonize anyone who wants to own one, and will use any definition or reason to do so, ignore anything to the contrary.

I know that there are a number of ex-military on here and they all sacrificed part of their lives to preserve our rights. Owning firearms is a right.

Driving a car is not a right. Cars have killed far more than civilians with firearms. Can cars only do the posted speed limit? Damn few are even talking about making that happen.

If you care about life, I would start with the top killer.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146335 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you American?
If so, it's pretty sad that you don't know what the American way is.
Guns are not designed to kill. Period.
It's my American right to own a gun and you can't stop it.
I bet you stuck out your tongue when you hit the "post" button.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146336 Jan 1, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Name them and all the crimes committed.
People use stats to lie all the time, so I never know what to believe unless I see all the raw data first.
Japan has very strict gun laws. Most guns are outright banned.

In 2008, Japan had 11 gun-related homicides.

In 2008, the US experienced 12,000.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/arch...

Here is a more in-depth look/study of Australia's gun control laws, implemented in 1996. They put up similar laws to what I said - only educated civilians with good reason could by a gun. They discovered that "Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/...

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#146337 Jan 1, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/...
"Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."
Move there then.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#146338 Jan 1, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Me either and I hope it never comes to that!
If it did, the vigilantes would lose anyway. Badly.
At what point to you just lay down and let the bad guys win? If you come home and someone is raping or killing your loved ones, would having a firearm be desirable then or would reasoning with them be better?
Fortunately I'm not limited to the two options you suggest. Moreover, as I pointed out before, is it rational to pay such a high price every day in gun violence nationally in the hope that highly unlikely scenarios are thwarted, assuming guns would thwart them at all?
Where does the escalation stop? I don't know that I can answer that. Maybe when the entire population decides that killing and hurting other is not the answer.
Well that's exactly it. Guns aren't the only problem, nor is tinkering with them and their regulation the only solution. We need to address public education, the economy, job opportunities, and many other complex social issues. But that doesn't mean we don't make progress where we can.
I am not trying to prepare for the apocalypse, I am not too worried about home evasions or the government turning on us. If history shows us anything, the government will turn on us, maybe my owning a firearm will postpone it for my life time. Maybe not. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about that.
I can guarantee you that if the government "turns on you" no number of gun you might own would make any difference.
I love my rights and my time at the range poking holes in paper.
That's great, but it's perfectly valid and reasonable to weigh what rights we have against the cost of providing them. I'm not personally arguing that guns should be banned outright. I think that is too unrealistic in our society.
Are you a fighter? Probably not.
Nope.
Most of us are not. I believe that the reason we are not is as simple as, even if we can take the other guy, we know that we are going to be hurting more than whatever the fight was about was worth.
So far in my life I've managed perfectly well by reasoning with people, and avoiding situations where physical violence would be likely or necessary.
Is the government any different? I am sure they know that most of the police and military will not fire on their own. Some will, but not enough to make it worth the fight.
Who knows?
If you point to the murders alone, getting rid of firearms seems like the only logical choice.
I'm not saying that.
If you look at how many people have been saved by having a firearm, then the discussion gets murky.
Not in that regard. Being saved by something that was problematic in the first place is just another argument not to have the problematic thing to begin with.
In my opinion, education and training are the key.
We agree.:)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146339 Jan 1, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's look at what the OED has to say about guns.
Definition of gun
noun
a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
Note how OED - the voted BEST dictionary - disagrees with you.
However - seeing as definitions can vary, I'd like to point out that you keep saying that guns can be used as tools, but WEAPONS ARE TOOLS. Tools that are meant to cause harm.
No. No.
You've got it all wrong.
Guns are tools used to perforate paper.
It makes it easier to tear.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#146340 Jan 1, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's look at what the OED has to say about guns.
Definition of gun
noun
a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
Note how OED - the voted BEST dictionary - disagrees with you.
However - seeing as definitions can vary, I'd like to point out that you keep saying that guns can be used as tools, but WEAPONS ARE TOOLS. Tools that are meant to cause harm.
Again you establish intent that can't be determined.

If you are issued this gun in the Army it's intent cannot be questioned, but as a civilian you cannot.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min DanFromSmithville 40,332
A Universe from Nothing? 22 min Eagle 12 42
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 33 min Reason Personified 15,818
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 3,746
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 3 hr IB DaMann 190
News Why I quit atheism 4 hr Eagle 12 387
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 15 hr woodtick57 20,580
More from around the web