Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#185823 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't identify with the wealthy.
I identify with economic freedom and property rights.
I am opposed to involuntary servitude.
I identify with John Fitzgerald Kennedy when he lowered tax rates to produce economic growth and jobs in the private sector.
You identify with government ownership (de facto) of production, as in the progressive income tax.
I strive for justice and fairness.

To me, Ayn Rand is an ogre.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#185824 Nov 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Your general demeanour. You don't strike me as a good person.
<quoted text>
[laughing] I have been blessed financially and always enjoy giving to charities. When I lived in Houston I was also a regular blood donor of blood and platelets. I would give platelets as often as once per month.

Giving the platelets would take sometimes two hours as they filtered out the platelets. It just felt good to go and give something you know is going to help some cancer patient or some little child.

There’s no feeling like giving and helping others. I hope you also think about giving blood in your community. It's a worthy cause.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185825 Nov 19, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes should be derived on the benefits derived and the wealth needing protection.
Bill Gates has a lot more to lose than you or I do. His fortune would collapse if not for the system we have to protect it. He should be paying considerably more than you or I to do so. I am not making a dime off of his wealth,
I suspect you are making a dime off Gates' wealth.

Do you ever save money by purchasing on the internet, using your windows platform?

Gates is paying more, both in percentage of income, and in real dollars.

With a flat tax, he would also be paying a heck of a lot more, in real dollars.

I have never seen a credible argument opposing a flat tax.

An easier argument can be made that higher earners should pay a lower tax rate.
USA Born

Claremont, CA

#185826 Nov 19, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying creationists have no proof behind this religious drivel.
They are content with ignoring simple questions like "where is the proof of the god your creationist cult sent you here to lie to us about?"
How can you prove there is no God? Just curious.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#185827 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. Buck is not sharp enough to understand infinity, huh?
Buck says infinity is an imaginary concept, and is only useful in representations in theoretical math and physics.
No real quantity can be infinite. There can be no infinite measure of anything. It is impossible.
Now, educate me, Tinker.
Where am I wrong?
Diclose your location, and I'll tell you where you're wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185828 Nov 19, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I need your tenacity and arguing proficiency do deal with planning boards, town boards , zoning board of appeals and other difficult agencies. The lawyers and other advocates are pussies. They are to worried about keeping friends. You are probably handy with the various bull work and keeping other workers in line.
I would be better with equipment and moving dirt or rock.

I'm not that much of a people-person.

With the boards, I would end up hitting them hard in the face.

So the former would be better, though I enjoy both.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#185829 Nov 19, 2013
Prove I haven't been donating blood for years.
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
[laughing] I have been blessed financially and always enjoy giving to charities. When I lived in Houston I was also a regular blood donor of blood and platelets. I would give platelets as often as once per month.
Giving the platelets would take sometimes two hours as they filtered out the platelets. It just felt good to go and give something you know is going to help some cancer patient or some little child.
There’s no feeling like giving and helping others. I hope you also think about giving blood in your community. It's a worthy cause.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185830 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rarely have I seen such a cogent, persuasive, logical rebuttal.
Must be because you're sober at this time of day.
Thanks, Catch.

Mostly sober, but workin' on it.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#185831 Nov 19, 2013
Agreed. You just don't get it.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck is not sharp enough to understand infinity, huh?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185832 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you have said your god isn't all powerful.
This isn't a ping pong game.
Actually, we elites call it table tennis.
What do you elites call your balls?

Shuttlecocks?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#185833 Nov 19, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes should be derived on the benefits derived and the wealth needing protection.
Bill Gates has a lot more to lose than you or I do. His fortune would collapse if not for the system we have to protect it. He should be paying considerably more than you or I to do so. I am not making a dime off of his wealth,
A flat tax would do just that.The progressive tax is anything but progressive.In addition we should not expect to make a dime from anyone elses success.
Bongo

United States

#185834 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
The guy paying funds 50 percent of the cost of dinner.
The taxpayer funds the remaining 50 percent.
It's a "business deduction" on his taxes. Unless you consider that one guy asking another "How's business?" transforms the culinary feast into a business meeting, the joke is on the taxpayers and the laughs go to the celebrants.
Bottom line, chnging your wording a bit: The fortunate fellow acquires a proprietary claim on money he didn't work for and didn't earn: the taxpayers did that.
Not necessarily, He can only deduct on money he already made that is subject to tax. A legit business meeting ideally produces legit profits, taxable. Meal was used in producing the profit. The guy laughing is the one who sold you the 12 dollar baked potato and over priced wine. Hes making a profit that is taxed. The tax payer you refer to having a joke on funds nothing.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#185835 Nov 19, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I need your tenacity and arguing proficiency do deal with planning boards, town boards , zoning board of appeals and other difficult agencies. The lawyers and other advocates are pussies. They are to worried about keeping friends. You are probably handy with the various bull work and keeping other workers in line.
Are you tired of government flunkies dictating to you how you MAY use your own property? Not that that crap does not exist elsewhere but it was a happy day I left L.I. behind and all my own issues with commercial property and the local harpies of compliance.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185836 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
The guy paying funds 50 percent of the cost of dinner.
The taxpayer funds the remaining 50 percent.
It's a "business deduction" on his taxes. Unless you consider that one guy asking another "How's business?" transforms the culinary feast into a business meeting, the joke is on the taxpayers and the laughs go to the celebrants.
Bottom line, chnging your wording a bit: The fortunate fellow acquires a proprietary claim on money he didn't work for and didn't earn: the taxpayers did that.
That is truly dumb, even for a California liberal.

First of all, the guy buying dinner earned all the money. 100%. The he spends some on a meal. It's all his. He spent his money. What he does then, if he writes the meal off, is avoid spending additional money, in this case, to the tax collectors in D.C.

He paid 100% of the meal. And later, he pays an additional expenditure of X minus the writeoff, to Big Brother.

What is collected in taxes by Big Brother is not a static amount. Just because the payer manages to reduce his tax liability, there is absolutely no concomitant balance owed by another taxpayer.

It is not a zero sum equation.

You could only be correct if the businessman paid for his meal, then recieved a subsidy check from the federal government to pay for business meals, and that check being funded by taxpayers.

But you would still be wrong on the proportion, because it would not be 50%.

The two are not the same thing.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#185838 Nov 19, 2013
Well, I said that a little Buck is highly amusing, and it is. But a lot of Buck begins to get annoying, so I think I will take off for a while.

Cya all.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185839 Nov 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Prove I haven't been donating blood for years.
<quoted text>
Because they screen it.

Can I help you with anything else?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#185840 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you elites call your balls?
Shuttlecocks?
See this?

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/tv/mcac_rhian_...

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#185841 Nov 19, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Not necessarily, He can only deduct on money he already made that is subject to tax. A legit business meeting ideally produces legit profits, taxable. Meal was used in producing the profit. The guy laughing is the one who sold you the 12 dollar baked potato and over priced wine. Hes making a profit that is taxed. The tax payer you refer to having a joke on funds nothing.
Oh, yeah, the restauranteurs love it too.

But come on, it's a hoax.

The meal is not in any way the proximate cause of "legit profits."

It's a night out on the town, at the taxpayers' expense. I am compelled to attend many of these "business" dinners.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#185842 Nov 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Prove I haven't been donating blood for years.
<quoted text>
If true that's outstanding.[tipping hat]

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#185843 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is truly dumb, even for a California liberal.
First of all, the guy buying dinner earned all the money. 100%. The he spends some on a meal. It's all his. He spent his money. What he does then, if he writes the meal off, is avoid spending additional money, in this case, to the tax collectors in D.C.
He paid 100% of the meal. And later, he pays an additional expenditure of X minus the writeoff, to Big Brother.
What is collected in taxes by Big Brother is not a static amount. Just because the payer manages to reduce his tax liability, there is absolutely no concomitant balance owed by another taxpayer.
It is not a zero sum equation.
You could only be correct if the businessman paid for his meal, then recieved a subsidy check from the federal government to pay for business meals, and that check being funded by taxpayers.
But you would still be wrong on the proportion, because it would not be 50%.
The two are not the same thing.
Buck, to me the sad thing is that there are so many people who buy into your sham argument. And some of these people sit at home eating beans and rice while they figure out how to pay the rent, and in the meantime the rich guys drink 25-year-old bottles of French wine while they talk golf.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 75,685
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Frindly 32,060
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 7 hr Regolith Based Li... 4,084
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 9 hr Brendatucker 232
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 10 hr Subduction Zone 6,112
Majority of Scots now have no religion (May '16) Tue John 164
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) Tue Eagle 12 - 581
More from around the web