Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239450 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.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#146306 Jan 1, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
That is called a "Nanny government". Instead of proper education, we will just outlaw it.
"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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146307 Jan 1, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
I think that people who are uneducated about guns or who have no need for guns should not be allowed to get them.
Who do you suppose would be qualified to say whether or not someone has "no need" for a gun? Wouldn't that take away some more of our freedom?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#146308 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are screwdrivers designed to screw?
So when the NRA calls a gun merely a "tool", what does that mean? What other definition of that term an I missing?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#146309 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>

A gun isn't made for killing no more than a car is.
Come on, give us all a break. A car is not designed to be a weapon. A gun is. It's really that simple.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#146310 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Cherry pick much?
No matter how you pick it, it's an American right to own firearms.
But not under any and all circumstances. Nor is there any prohibition for their regulation or registration.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#146311 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm all for gun registration, proper ownership & use. I don't know why you're preaching to the choir....
Your argument is that guns are made for killing, I say you're wrong.
A gun isn't made for killing no more than a car is.
When it comes to making idiotic statements, it's very close between you and Pattiecake.

I think she wins.

But you come very, very close.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146312 Jan 1, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough already! RR, you "shot" yourself in the foot again. If you scroll down a little farther, guns are defined as weapons on the link you provided. There is no controversy here, guns were quite obviously created for one purpose - KILLING. Their sole purpose dating back some thousand years ago, was to find an economical means to replace archers and swordsmen, who required long term and expensive training. With the advent of guns, any schlub with a minimal amount of training could effectively kill the enemy. I'm a gun owner, and I have no problem accepting this. My sole interest in them is accuracy; punching holes in paper targets twenty five yards away. I find the mental and physical discipline to become proficient in this sport/hobby to be quite rewarding. Even so, I am aware that this is a secondary application for firearms, and obviously not the original intent for their creation.
"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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146313 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.
10 day waiting period in California.

The rest of the Union needs to catch up with us.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146314 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Definition of GUN:
1a : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory
1b : a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun)
1c : a device that throws a projectile
2a : a discharge of a gun especially as a salute or signal
2b : a signal marking a beginning or ending
3a : hunter
3b : gunman
4: something suggesting a gun in shape or function
5: throttle
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gun
==========
I don't see "weapon" anywhere.
Dmb ass.
ordĚnance (˘rdnns)
n.
1. Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment.
2. The branch of an armed force that procures, maintains, and issues weapons, ammunition, and combat vehicles.
3. Cannon; artillery.

Do ya see it there?

Dumbass.

One thing I know.

Stupid people shouldn't own guns.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146315 Jan 1, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
But not under any and all circumstances. Nor is there any prohibition for their regulation or registration.
True, and I agree with those regulations.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146316 Jan 1, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to making idiotic statements, it's very close between you and Pattiecake.
I think she wins.
But you come very, very close.
What about ole Bobblow?

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146317 Jan 1, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were an Atheist? The one thing that I thought that I could count on from Atheists is logic and honesty.
How is this relevant to what you said?

I understand that people have different views on different things. I understand that there isn't only one right answer. However - if people want to argue, I will argue.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#146318 Jan 1, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm imagining a bunch of vigilantes armed with rifles and handguns setting off to confront the police and military. I can't imagine that will go well.
Me either and I hope it never comes to that! Often,{I hate to use the word threat, but I cannot come up with a better one at the moment}, threat is enough to keep most on the right path.

Such as, most people don't break the law because they understand the consequences. "A lock only keeps an honest man, honest."
wilderide wrote:
What happens when you and said someone are both armed? What if said someone has more armed friends than you do? And where does such escalation stop? Am I safer with a scud missile in my garage than a handgun, just in case?
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?

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.
wilderide wrote:
I don't see how the daily social cost of a society flooded with guns is worth the price against an imagined social apocalypse. Moreover, if you are really worried about such a breakdown of society, your best bet is to form an armed and trained vigilante gang. Because if it's just you with a gun and an armed group, you are screwed anyway.
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 live in a good neighborhood and don't fear break-ins or chaos in times of disasters.

I love my rights and my time at the range poking holes in paper.
wilderide wrote:
Thanks. But again, what are my odds against the police and military? I hardly think rifles and handguns, even en masse, are keeping them in check.
Are you a fighter? Probably not. 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.

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.

The reason we demonize our enemies is so we can kill them. Can the government demonize us enough for our own military to kill us?

Well, yes, but it takes a long process to get that far. First, you have to keep the military away from civilians. We don't do that, yet.

Each side is claiming, "If we give an inch, they will take a mile!" The NRA is the loudest, at this point in time, but both sides feel the same way. If you point to the murders alone, getting rid of firearms seems like the only logical choice. If you look at how many people have been saved by having a firearm, then the discussion gets murky.

In my opinion, education and training are the key.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146319 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm all for gun registration, proper ownership & use. I don't know why you're preaching to the choir....
Your argument is that guns are made for killing, I say you're wrong.
A gun isn't made for killing no more than a car is.
My argument is that guns are weapons.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#146320 Jan 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What about ole Bobblow?
Oh, right.

You're in third place then.

“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

Lakewood, 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.:)

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 New Atheism's fatal arrogance: The glaring inte... 1 hr Knowledge- 6
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr woodtick57 7,484
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr MikeF 19,075
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 9 hr Thinking 2,218
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 10 hr Insults Are Easier 125
News Richard Dawkins insists he's not an angry athei... 13 hr Thinking 2
John 3:16 13 hr Thinking 2
More from around the web