Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190860 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I think you've misidentified the parasite. Countries that don't have the huge expenditures on debt interest and the military that America does handle those cost and many more just fine, and still have enough left to provide an infrastructure and underwrite constructive programs. Have you seriously considered these arguments? You seemed to have ignored my last post and returned to the corporatists' argument. Have you ever noticed that they never bring up costs when discussing the expenditures that benefit them? They don't need help with disability, groceries or health insurance, and they couldn't care less about people that do, so they teach people to share their contempt for these kinds of expenditures. If they were concerned about America and its budget, they would not take the positions that they do ONLY on expenditures that help people other than themselves. What would it take to make you see that if it were true? What do you see that makes you think that it is not? Why do you trust the people that promote that message?
Buck Crick wrote:
I have no problem with cutting foreign aid, or hell, zero it out as far as I'm concerned.
I made no mention of foreign aid.
Buck Crick wrote:
That is a separate argument from the problem of 50 percent of citizens living off the work of the other 50 percent.
I don't think you've characterized the social safety net properly, but apart from that, can you show me where it is a problem for America, or an inappropriate way for government to function?
Buck Crick wrote:
And concerning the politicians, these expenditures DO benefit them. They buy votes.
Perhaps. Is that an issue?
Buck Crick wrote:
Why do you think Obama and democrats constantly exploit class envy, and try to divide the nation? Right now, as we speak, he is on a campaign tour on "income disparity" and raising the minimum wage. These payouts are a way for liberals to pit their base against the imagined foes who want to take away their benefits. It is a tactic for growing that base. Sign up for Medicaid through Obamacare, and by the way, "Are you registered to vote?"
Our thinking and shared assumptions are so far apart on this issue that we really can't communicate at all.

Incidentally, class warfare is real, and the war is over. You and I lost. Now it's just a matter of retooling the nation and collecting the wealth from the middle class.

You seem to have ignored my entire post.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#190861 Dec 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Actually the demand for higher wages is exactly what has driven everything over seas. The unions and such have destroyed our ability to compete with the rest of the world. This has forced us to the building only the ultra expensive things where price is no object.
We are very good at that, if you need war planes, attack helicopters, small arms, munitions, tanks or bombs.
Can I interest you in a flying electric cannon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =1Oc-xbpy-OIXX
And again, corporate greed is why they send jobs overseas instead of paying a decent wage to Americans.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190862 Dec 9, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
That's your 1st Amendment.
It was. I'm with Buck on the Constitution. I lost faith (secular sense) in that government and its promises long ago. I stopped trusting them to protect the First Amendment about a decade ago in the rush to war with Iraq, when war protesters were sequestered in Orwellian free speech zones, harassed there with profiling, brutalizing, and arrests, all with hardly a whimper of protest from the nation. In fact, the right seemed to love it.

The letters don't jump up off the page and enforce themselves. There has to be the will to do that in all cases, or it's a meaningless promise.

Anyway, it's water under the bridge for me now.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#190863 Dec 9, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>The union can help in cases of workplace bullying. I know all about that one.
I'm still waiting to see if my union has helped me on that one.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#190864 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to you for more education, Christine.
I heard that England still has a queen.
Tell me, do you Englanders ever consider changing to a more democratic form of government?
Thank you in atvance.
Yes it’s considered quite regularly and each time the polls tend in favour of the status quo. In fact recently (so I am told) confidence in the British monarchy is at an ‘all’ time high, however I believe that’s just human sentiment over the birth of a baby.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#190865 Dec 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh good GAWD...
Whassup, too ashamed to blame god?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#190866 Dec 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that how it goes?
Thanks, dude.
Glad to have been of assistance, give it a try you may find you circle of friend will get that little bit closer

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#190867 Dec 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Chrissy will never get the humour....
Oh I got the attempt, however it just highlighted the ignorance of some people, which at least buck 'appears' glad to have been enlightened.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#190868 Dec 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
"The kids"...
Well geez thanks a bunch.
I didn't know "the kids" celebrated Saturnalia.
There is such a lot you don’t know about if it’s not in the babble

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190869 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post is quite depressing to me. I have lost hope for America. Whatever it is that generates so many people that think like you will have an easier time of it in the future. The American people are easy to indoctrinate.
With all due respect, I simply am not interested in living under the influence of so powerful a government alongside tens of millions of people that can be so easily co-opted to serve the bosses against my (and their own) interests. I expect to see the American middle and lower middle classes further degraded by the haves with people like you assisting them.
And I see that you're still ensconced in the Democrat versus Republican mode of thought.
You have a fundamental misconception - nobody is being degraded by the "haves".

You have succumbed to the class-envy/fake compassion tactics of the left, and are now its servant.

Liberal progressives in politics have fostered a 100 year war on America, and its result is near. They have fulfilled what the Declaration of Independence condemned:

“sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”

"A political philosophy that masquerades as compassion and the alleviation of misery instead results in its prolongation, the better to create a permanent underclass of dependent voters (Tammany Hall developed the template more than a century ago), and the modern GOP establishment has signally failed to point that out".

-Michael Walsh, National Review

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190870 Dec 9, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm all for everybody making a living wage but it's not an entitlement or a guarantee. A living wage doesn't come from Union bullying. It doesn't work that way anymore and one needs only to look at Detroit to see that. When the business is prosperous the employees should benefit from that. When it's not, the employees must sacrifice like the rest of the business. If I'm not profitable, I can't keep paying you. Businesses have investors that must be paid. I have to stay profitable or what's the point?
I'm amazed. Your post is sensible.

I will be a quibberdick on your use of "living wage".

It means nothing, and is a fraudulent, contrived, silly term which serves the left as a catch-phrase-substitute for an actual argument.

Otherwise, well said.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190871 Dec 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I got the attempt, however it just highlighted the ignorance of some people, which at least buck 'appears' glad to have been enlightened.
Yes, I am truly grateful for your tutoring me.

In particular, thank you for explaining how E=mc^2 proves Al Capone kidnapped baby Lindberg.

I would have never gotten that one on my own.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190872 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
As I told Buck, reading this stuff is very disheartening. You are saying exactly what the very wealthy would want you to say. Do you think that that is a coincidence?
Do you know anyone who asks a poor man for a job?

Jobs are good, right?

If you mowed lawns for money, would you prefer the lawns of poor people?

It's not a static pie. One person's profit does not subtract from the pie of another.

Fundamental misconception abounds.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#190873 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Conversation and reading. I realize that you don't respect sampling as a valid way to assess a collective, but I do.

RiversideRedneck wrote, "Then I remember how much atheists loathe Christmas. WHY? Because it's all about Jesus. If it weren't, all y'all'd be saying Merry Christmas..."

Please tell me how you know what most atheists are thinking about Christmas.
Jesus told him.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#190874 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am truly grateful for your tutoring me.
In particular, thank you for explaining how E=mc^2 proves Al Capone kidnapped baby Lindberg.
I would have never gotten that one on my own.
Nope, wrong again, How many times have I told you that your own personal interpretation and childish grasp of major, though provoking subjects is not proof of E=MC^2.

Please stand in the corner facing the wall with your dunce placed firmly on your head. I will tell you when you can return to your studies.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190875 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're sounding like a lefty now, Dave. That was the original October surprise. Here are a few more bits of the Reagan legacy, which I suspect will outrage Buck to see rehashed:
• "Voodoo (supply side) Economics"
• ketchup-is-a-vegetable
• demonization of "liberals"
• demonization of "welfare mothers"
• IRAN-CONTRA
• Giving sanctuary to Ferdinand Marcos
• The infamous School of the Americas and death squads in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua
• Tax cuts for the rich
• Budget cuts for education, the arts, and welfare
• Selling WMD to Iraq and Iran and Propping up and financing Saddam Hussein
• Propping up and financing the Afghan Mujahadeen, which later evolved into the Taliban and Al Qaeda
• Support to the apartheid in S.Africa
• allowing AIDS to become an epidemic by avoiding the issue
• Saving & Loans scandals
• Squashing unions
• Highest number of officials charged of crimes of any administration in the history of the US.(By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.)
• James Watt, Oliver North, Elliott Abrams and Manuel Noriega
That's hilarious.

The list is not worth addressing one by one, but let's examine a couple of the funnier ones.

Casper Weinberger was indicted on phony charges TWO DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, an indictment that had been ready and waiting for a year.

Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh was investigating Iran/Contra. Walsh wanted Weinberger to discredit President Reagan’s account and testify against him.

When Weinberger refused, Walsh indicted him.

Walsh's indictment was immediately dismissed by the court.

Walsh indicted him again, just a couple of days before the 1992 election.

Tha court dismissed that indictment, but not before it helped Clinton win the election.

What was Weinberger's crime?

He was charged with withholding from Walsh notes he had taken.

But those notes had been given to the Library of Congress, and Weinberger had told Walsh where he could find them. Walsh had failed to hunt them down.

But the funniest one is blaming Reagan for AIDS.

You forgot to pin him with swine flu and legionaires disease.

Thanks for the laugh.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190876 Dec 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that any way to talk to the second smartest poster on the thread?
Hated to do it.

The disparity between first and second is apparently sizable.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#190877 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know anyone who asks a poor man for a job?

Jobs are good, right?

If you mowed lawns for money, would you prefer the lawns of poor people?

It's not a static pie. One person's profit does not subtract from the pie of another.

Fundamental misconception abounds.
One person's greed does.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190878 Dec 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, corporate greed is why they send jobs overseas instead of paying a decent wage to Americans.
If you want to start a corporation that loses money, you are free to do so.

Jobs get sent overseas because of government liberalism.

The US has the highest corporate tax rate and most oppressive regulatory environment of any developed country.

And unions.

Apple has $40 billion in cash overseas. The only reason that money does not come back here and create jobs and wealth is the repatriation tax that would confiscate nearly half of it.

If you had $40 billion, would you want someone to take half of it and send it to Pakistan and provide health care for illegal Mexicans, or would you want to keep it and invest it?

I may be odd. But I'd rather keep it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190879 Dec 9, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Aura is right. Unions are the biggest detriment to a stable economy. They were needed at one point in time but they've served their purpose and they're now out of control. They're now just another political arm. They have to feed the machine. They are a hindrance to employment. They bit the hand that fed them one too many times and that led to outsourcing.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~ John Dalberg-Acton
Wow. You are right again.

Detroit is the test tube experiment.

Obama confiscated GM and gave it to UAW.

Wait and see if he doesn't try to unionize health care workers.

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
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 22 min Hooogle It 77
Evidence for God! 4 hr Uncle Sam 43
Heaven 5 hr susanblange 42
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 13 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,391
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 15 hr Chiclets 23,039
Our world came from nothing? 17 hr _Bad Company 1,103
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Wed Dally Mama 5,583

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE