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 (Page 7,024)

Showing posts 140,461 - 140,480 of223,020
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146250
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times have shots been fired and no one was killed?
By your logic, TNT should be open for purchase to anyone.
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 am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146251
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Oh, and for 200 years, owning a firearm was not a right. The 2nd amendment is speaking about the military, not average people.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People who say the 2nd amendment is "Right to bear arms" obviously have not read it.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146252
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.
So you would outlaw hunting?

In my state it is guaranteed an unalienable right.
Also one that cannot be superseded by the federal government.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146253
Jan 1, 2013
 
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, TNT was not designed for killing. Should we be allowed to own TNT?
Turner Network Television?

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146254
Jan 1, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It doesn't matter what some people use things for. I use my Bible to prop up a TV stand - does that mean the intended purpose for printing Bibles is that? No, it does not.

Guns are MADE to be used as weapons. If your argument boils down to, "Guns can be used for sports, too!" your logic is entirely flawed.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146255
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.
"the only other perceivable use is as a weapon"?!

Guns are very effective against voilence, you know. Cops use their guns all the time without ever even firing....

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146256
Jan 1, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> So you would outlaw hunting?
In my state it is guaranteed an unalienable right.
Also one that cannot be superseded by the federal government.
No, I wouldn't. An ideal set of gun control laws, in my opinion, would be similar to those of Australia - where you can only obtain a gun if you have a good reason to own one and can prove that you have a good reason to own one.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146257
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and for 200 years, owning a firearm was not a right. The 2nd amendment is speaking about the military, not average people.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
People who say the 2nd amendment is "Right to bear arms" obviously have not read it.
You have no idea what it means, that much is clear.
It means people should form militias to protect their rights and country.
It also means people have the right to own firearms period.
It means these are sovereign god given unalienable rights.

"shall not be infringed"

But it doesn't mean laws can't be made to outlaw them.
That's where the true meaning of exactly what it means comes out.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146258
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and for 200 years, owning a firearm was not a right. The 2nd amendment is speaking about the military, not average people.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
People who say the 2nd amendment is "Right to bear arms" obviously have not read it.
You're behind the times. We've already beaten back gun haters like you.

"In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

en.wikipedia.org/.../Second_Amendment_to_the_...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146259
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I wouldn't. An ideal set of gun control laws, in my opinion, would be similar to those of Australia - where you can only obtain a gun if you have a good reason to own one and can prove that you have a good reason to own one.
That's not the American way, douche.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146260
Jan 1, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"the only other perceivable use is as a weapon"?!
Guns are very effective against voilence, you know. Cops use their guns all the time without ever even firing....
Doesn't matter, they're still weapons.

weap·on
Noun
A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest: "resignation threats are a weapon in his armory".

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146261
Jan 1, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the American way, douche.
I don't care, and even if I did, you've yet to even define what this "American way" is.

America has a legal system which is set up to be able to change if necessary. This is why owning a slave is no longer legal. This is why you can no longer teach pseudo-science in public schools. Et cetera, et cetera.

Once again - so far, the only arguments I've heard you use that aren't ad hominem or downright foolish is "Guns can be used in sports," and "That's not the American way!"

How is that even an argument?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146262
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter what some people use things for. I use my Bible to prop up a TV stand - does that mean the intended purpose for printing Bibles is that? No, it does not.
Guns are MADE to be used as weapons. If your argument boils down to, "Guns can be used for sports, too!" your logic is entirely flawed.
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.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146263
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter, they're still weapons.
weap·on
Noun
A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest: "resignation threats are a weapon in his armory".
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.......

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146264
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I wouldn't. An ideal set of gun control laws, in my opinion, would be similar to those of Australia - where you can only obtain a gun if you have a good reason to own one and can prove that you have a good reason to own one.
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.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146265
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
When looking at the purpose of something, you do not look at the reason why people buy it, you look at how and why it is MADE.

Guns are made to be used as weapons.

By the logic you use, I should be allowed to buy grenades because I want to use them to go fishing.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146266
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care, and even if I did, you've yet to even define what this "American way" is.
America has a legal system which is set up to be able to change if necessary. This is why owning a slave is no longer legal. This is why you can no longer teach pseudo-science in public schools. Et cetera, et cetera.
Once again - so far, the only arguments I've heard you use that aren't ad hominem or downright foolish is "Guns can be used in sports," and "That's not the American way!"
How is that even an argument?
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 am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146267
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
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."

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146268
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.
BS, we all have stumps or rocks to move, unless you live in the city, of course.

But you missed the point, according to your logic, it should be legal to purchase, because it's original intent was for moving stumps and boulders.

Be like the fundie! Make up the rules as you go!

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146269
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.......
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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 140,461 - 140,480 of223,020
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••