Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
140,441 - 140,460 of 225,524 Comments Last updated 21 min ago

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146229
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
A gun is only a *potential weapon.
So are cars, airplanes , knives, and baseball bats .
You are looking at a man from a christian country and swearing him a christian. He is in fact only potentially a christian.
The difference between cars, knives, baseball bats, etc., and guns is that GUNS ARE MADE TO BE USED AS WEAPONS. Cars are made for transportation. Guns are made to be used as weapons. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else might use them for sports, by definition, their intended use is as a weapon.

Should we ban everything thing that CAN be used as a weapon? No. Should we ban things that are made to be used as weapons to kill or maim? Yes, we should.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146230
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are talking a intended use, not intended design criteria.
I agree an assault weapon is manufactured as a weapon of war.
But you cannot assign an intended use for a potential civilian gun buyer.
You do not get to decide for them their reason , that's being disingenuous and fallacious.
The fact is a car could be bought to kill people , it is quite capable of mowing down lots of people. But then again maybe they are buying the car to have fun using it legally.
I beet you're good at dodging bullets, too.

You just can't admit that the primary and designed purpose of an assault weapon, no matter what it will actually be used for, is to kill people, can you?

If you want to consider your car analogy valid, then practically anything can be used, not for its designed purpose, but to kill people.

Your arguments are alarmingly weak.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146231
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between cars, knives, baseball bats, etc., and guns is that GUNS ARE MADE TO BE USED AS WEAPONS. Cars are made for transportation. Guns are made to be used as weapons. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else might use them for sports, by definition, their intended use is as a weapon.
Should we ban everything thing that CAN be used as a weapon? No. Should we ban things that are made to be used as weapons to kill or maim? Yes, we should.
That is only true with certain types and even then is an intent you do not get to establish. You can say it till you turn blue it wont change the fact a gun is only potentially a weapon.
If it is used for hunting it is not a weapon , it's a tool.

If you assign a gun a singular intended use then cars are weapons airplanes are weapons baseball bats are weapons and knives are weapons.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146232
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I beet you're good at dodging bullets, too.
You just can't admit that the primary and designed purpose of an assault weapon, no matter what it will actually be used for, is to kill people, can you?
If you want to consider your car analogy valid, then practically anything can be used, not for its designed purpose, but to kill people.
Your arguments are alarmingly weak.
I said assault rifles are manufactured as weapons of war, but a civilian version is manufactured as any other gun and it's intended use can't be assigned
by anyone but the buyer.
War = killing other people yes.

My position is reality Aero , and you or any other cannot establish intent before the fact.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146233
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only true with certain types and even then is an intent you do not get to establish. You can say it till you turn blue it wont change the fact a gun is only potentially a weapon.
If it is used for hunting it is not a weapon , it's a tool.
If you assign a gun a singular intended use then cars are weapons airplanes are weapons baseball bats are weapons and knives are weapons.
Guns are DEFINED as weapons. I don't care what you say, until you can somehow manage to get every credible definition to change this definition, they are weapons.

Cars/airplanes are defined as tools for transportation.

A baseball bat is an instrument to play a sport with.

Knives are tools commonly used to aid cooking, etc.

And guns are weapons.

Or does the meaning of words no longer matter?

Oh, and would you kindly list some guns that aren't weapons, if that only applies to certain kinds? Which kind of gun isn't designed to be used as a weapon?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146234
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Cute. Let's joke about killing foreigners now.
Foreigners?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146235
Jan 1, 2013
 
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans too
lol, there's the double pointers!

MexiCan AmeriCans

AfriCan AmeriCan

- my fav -

Can-adian AmeriCan

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146236
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you're just joking.
At least I hope you are.
But I'd think twice about joking like that on a public forum.
Seriously.
Oh gimme a break, of course I'm kidding.

What, did I offend your soft lil liberal tushie?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146237
Jan 1, 2013
 
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
RepubliCans?
D'oH!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146239
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take a look at the widely used meaning of the word gun:
gun
n.
A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.
A weapon, you say? Let's see what that means!
weap·on
Noun
A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
How can you argue that a gun's intended purpose is "plinking" when the definition of the word itself contradicts this? I don't care what any buyer's intent of using a gun is, the reason that there are guns is so they can be used as weapons.
A gun is much more than just a weapon.

Sure, if used as a weapom, it's a very effective weapon.

But also, if used for sport, it's also very effective.

There are many uses for guns - not just "to kill people" as you gun cowards think.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146240
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
Guns are DEFINED as weapons. I don't care what you say, until you can somehow manage to get every credible definition to change this definition, they are weapons.
That depends on what it's used for.
Cars/airplanes are defined as tools for transportation.
Unless they're used as a weapon.
A baseball bat is an instrument to play a sport with.
Unless it's used as a weapon.
Knives are tools commonly used to aid cooking, etc.
Not much experience with knives, huh?
And guns are weapons.
Depending on how they're used.
Or does the meaning of words no longer matter?
Of course they do, look up "weapon" & "tool", you'll see that "gun" applies to both.
Oh, and would you kindly list some guns that aren't weapons,
My biceps.
if that only applies to certain kinds? Which kind of gun isn't designed to be used as a weapon?
All civilian guns. There's a lot of them, I don't want to list them all.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146241
Jan 1, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I said assault rifles are manufactured as weapons of war, but a civilian version is manufactured as any other gun and it's intended use can't be assigned
by anyone but the buyer.
War = killing other people yes.
My position is reality Aero , and you or any other cannot establish intent before the fact.
Maybe not, but I can and will establish the designed intent.

You can deny that, but that makes YOU the one not dealing with reality.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146242
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
Guns are DEFINED as weapons....
Or does the meaning of words no longer matter?
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.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146243
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between cars, knives, baseball bats, etc., and guns is that GUNS ARE MADE TO BE USED AS WEAPONS. Cars are made for transportation. Guns are made to be used as weapons. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else might use them for sports, by definition, their intended use is as a weapon.
Should we ban everything thing that CAN be used as a weapon? No. Should we ban things that are made to be used as weapons to kill or maim? Yes, we should.
You are not making any sense. First, the right to own a firearm, is a right. There are very good reasons for that to be a right.

Driving a car is a privilege and it kills more people than firearms.

TNT was invented for the propose of removing rocks and tree stumps; to use your logic, it should be legal for everyone to have. The fact that some have used to to kill or break into vaults should have no bearing on it being legal to own or not.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146244
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh gimme a break, of course I'm kidding.
What, did I offend your soft lil liberal tushie?
It's obviously offensive, but my intent was just a friendly word of caution.

If you really want to get some attention, start going online and try to order some large quantities of fertilizer and kerosene.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146245
Jan 1, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe not, but I can and will establish the designed intent.
You can deny that, but that makes YOU the one not dealing with reality.

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...

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146246
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/...
A man in China stabbed 22 children and 1 adult. None of them died. Don't think we'd be able to say the same if he had shot them all, now could we?
A gun's intended use is to kill. If you want to use it for sports - that is fine. But how about we limit it to sports, then? Certainly, if that is a gun's use as you and several others on this thread have mentioned, there should be no harm in restricting guns to competitions.
How many times have shots been fired and no one was killed?

By your logic, TNT should be open for purchase to anyone.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146247
Jan 1, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe not, but I can and will establish the designed intent.
You can deny that, but that makes YOU the one not dealing with reality.
Again, TNT was not designed for killing. Should we be allowed to own TNT?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146248
Jan 1, 2013
 
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not making any sense. First, the right to own a firearm, is a right. There are very good reasons for that to be a right.
Driving a car is a privilege and it kills more people than firearms.
TNT was invented for the propose of removing rocks and tree stumps; to use your logic, it should be legal for everyone to have. The fact that some have used to to kill or break into vaults should have no bearing on it being legal to own or not.

Exactly .

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146249
Jan 1, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obviously offensive, but my intent was just a friendly word of caution.
If you really want to get some attention, start going online and try to order some large quantities of fertilizer and kerosene.
LOL, I've said it numurous times that out of the thousands of rounds I've fired over the years, I've never shot at anyone.

I don't own guns to kill people no more than someone owning a Harley to go fast...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••