Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243007 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.

Anon

Lakewood, OH

#146386 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I would NEVER do that.
Blowing shit up is cool!
Finally! A rational conclusion on this thread. Never thought I'd see the day...

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#146387 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can buy assault weapons at your local Walmart.
But too many people seem to be using them to slaughter large numbers of people.
Thanks.
Or do you think there haven't been enough mass murders yet.
What is your limit on your number of people, both doing the killing and being killed? I need to know so that I can determine what else we need to ban or restrict.

"Or do you think there haven't been enough mass murders yet." That is just downright nasty. I wouldn't have expected something like that from you.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146388 Jan 1, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Designed to be used to cause bodily harm.
Ahhhh... Combining the two now, are ya?

Is that their only design?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#146389 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Reduced to quoting bumper stickers.
Perfect.
http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2011/5/9/1a...

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#146390 Jan 1, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. IMHO it's even more embarrassing to have your religious hypocrisy pointed out to you by a non-believer than otherwise.
<quoted text>
Nope. I'm my observation is correct. My skepticism has nothing whatever to do with it.
<quoted text>
Is the scripture not correct if quoted by an atheist? Lol.
<quoted text>
So Paul was wrong in Galatians? Interesting.
As far as Matthew 5:39.

It would depend upon if the one doing the slapping had any help and if he had a gun. If there are witnesses a call to the police would be in order where assault charges could be filed. Then of course there are civil penalties that could be considered. So yes, a slap in the face could cost a offender more than he bargained for.

Allowing one to slap you in face while on the job would be advantages. The offender will defiantly lose his/her job. And may end up spending some time in jail.

Weapons such as guns were not yet in place in the Bible.

However there have been weapons used by Gods people.

Did not David kill Goliath with a high speed projectile?

Then cut is head off with Goliaths sword?

Was not Joshua a great warrior with his leadership and sword?

Luke 11:21

King James Version (KJV)

21. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146391 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
How about silencers.
Think we should have the right to own silencers?
After all, the noise can be damaging to unprotected ears.
Neighbors might find the noise annoying.
And you might actually get off a
second shot at that deer you didn't put down with the first.
After all, a silencer is only a little muffler.
You'd have to beat somebody over the head with it to kill them.
Silencers are illegal in California - as they should be.

If you did't get the deer on the first shot, you suck.

I wouldn't know, though. I've never killed anything with my guns, except a scoreboard :)

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#146392 Jan 1, 2013
Correction: advantage - advantageous

We don't want the grammar muchacho getting upset.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146393 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm in touch with my feminine side.
TMI, Aero......

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#146394 Jan 1, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the point! It would be too costly to normal people to attempt on both sides.
<quoted text>
Sorry, I was not trying to force you into a false dichotomy!
<quoted text>
I wonder what would happen if we started to tighten the restrictions we already have or what the effect of new laws would have. Would people turn to other means? Would we get the firearms out of the criminal's hands? I would go into better scenarios for killing a large group of people, but I would rather not give an irrational person any help.
<quoted text>
100% agree! I am only asking that we make sure that we are making the right moves.
<quoted text>
I disagree. If you were a soldier and every time you walked the streets, one of your buddies was shot, it would start to wear on you. The numbers would always be on the side of the civilians and if they don't give up and don't join the military...
<quoted text>
Yes, we need to sit and talk it out. I would give almost anything to have those children home safe or for people to feel safe going to see a movie, but I don't want to follow blindly because of feelings. I want to do what is right.
<quoted text>
Me too! But I know people who have not be so fortunate.
<quoted text>
If by not having the problematic item, you die, what was gained? Curing the symptom does not cure the decease.
Like someone mentioned before; take the violence off the TV and out of movies, that sounds like a good start! Add a few love scenes for christ's sake! Show a set of boobies instead of a gun!
<quoted text>
;) we agree on a lot of issues! Cool heads will find a way.
{Show a set of boobies instead of a gun}!

Oh boy, that one got me laughing.:)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146395 Jan 1, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with that. My question is: So?
The great majority of them are purchased because they are weapons. They're much more effective for self defense and self preservation than a bag of feathers is. Regulations are in place. There are hundreds (thousands?) of laws in place that deal with firearms whether federal, state or local. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol. It doesn't work with narcotics and it won't work with guns. Prohibition creates a black market and it makes citizens criminals. It never works.
My argument is addressed specifically towards assault weapons.

In general, I have no problem with sport and target weapons.

Assault weapons are neither.

They are not accurate enough for serious competition shooting OR hunting, really.

They are not necessary for anything other than killing and the "cool" factor.
HickUp

North Augusta, SC

#146396 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.
So, you're smarter than the Supreme Court, prove it!

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#146397 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, airplanes original intent in the military was surveillance.
After a while, the pilots started to use their pistols to shoot at the enemy on the ground and then they started dropping bombs, by hand, out of the open cockpit.
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
- Marshal Ferdinand Foch [Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre](circa 1911)
He was Supreme Commander of Allied forces, 1918
"Aviation is good for sport, but for the Army it is useless!"
- Marshal Ferdinand Foch

The intent with guns were the same from its conception , how they are refined and used is corrupted as men themselves.
It took 9 years from the first airplane to turn it into a killing machine. We don't have that history with the gun it is lost.
But you cannot say the intent was purely to kill people in conception. The Atomic bomb was clearly designed with the intent top kill people. But the neutron bomb was designed to specifically
to only kill living things. Perhaps we should ban them? And keep the gun at least you have somewhat a chance with them and your skill./

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146398 Jan 1, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your limit on your number of people, both doing the killing and being killed? I need to know so that I can determine what else we need to ban or restrict.
"Or do you think there haven't been enough mass murders yet." That is just downright nasty. I wouldn't have expected something like that from you.
And I would have expected you to understand the issue.

Instead you just keep spouting NRA BS like it's bible.

You can't even admit that an assault weapon is designed for killing.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146400 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is addressed specifically towards assault weapons.
In general, I have no problem with sport and target weapons.
Assault weapons are neither.
They are not accurate enough for serious competition shooting OR hunting, really.
They are not necessary for anything other than killing and the "cool" factor.
Yes, they sure are COOL!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#146401 Jan 1, 2013
HickUp wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're smarter than the Supreme Court, prove it!
Lots of people are.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146402 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And I would have expected you to understand the issue.
Instead you just keep spouting NRA BS like it's bible.
You can't even admit that an assault weapon is designed for killing.
And you can't conceive that an assault rifle (or any gun) is designed to shoot bullets, not just to kill.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146403 Jan 1, 2013
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

* Heart disease: 599,413
* Cancer: 567,628
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
* Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
* Diabetes: 68,705
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
* Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

* Firearm murders: 8,563

And y'all wanna focus on gun control?!

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#146404 Jan 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And THEN kill.
Do they use a different gun for that?
That must get cumbersome.
It take 2 people to carry a wounded man to the medic.

Its simple Aero wound as many as possible , taking at least one other trigger-man out the fight with each casualty.

That way you achieve numerical superiority.
Snipers have been known to defeat entire regiments using this philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York
HickUp

North Augusta, SC

#146405 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of people are.
That is a matter of opinion, and could possibly be overturned.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#146406 Jan 1, 2013
HickUp wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a matter of opinion, and could possibly be overturned.
lol That was witty.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 5 min Eagle 12 9,168
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Secret Admirer 19,741
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 11 hr lozzza 6,160
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Mon Thinking 15
Atheists have morals too! Sun par five 3
News Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion Sun QUITTNER Jne 28 2015 53
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Sun thetruth 2,280
More from around the web