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
140,521 - 140,540 of 224,013 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146317
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146319
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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.

14 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 49 min Liam R 12
Of Interest InTheNews 1 hr Reason Personified 2
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Patrick 181
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Patrick 21,376
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 6 hr Buck Crick 356
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 8 hr Thinking 831
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 10 hr Patrick 1,285
•••
•••