Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258461 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.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#191101 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironic. I'm tempted to opt out because my side is losing.
I'm gratified that you think so.

I'm an idealist.

But sometimes I wonder.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191102 Dec 9, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Never.
Well, okay, once, but SOMEBODY smote me on the spot.
<quoted text>
Who? Bible God is described by the Bible.
Tom, Dick, and Harry might all be great guys too, if you imagine them that way.
<quoted text>
If one has to be commanded to love anyone, that love is empty.
We've seen how Christians have treated non-Christians throughout history. Without the cultural influence of rational secular ethics, Christianity is just a sticky stinky shit bomb.
My understanding of what little we know about Jesus was his emphasis on love, not ordering people to do it.

Jesus wasn't big on rules, as he emphatically illustrated to the church members who brought before him a woman caught in "the act".

Their exercise was to test him. They said the law of Moses (knowing Jesus was a Jew and a scholar) says that she must be stoned. But Jesus preached love. So what now, Jesus?

Jesus, as the story goes, said (paraphrasing)

"Yes. You have Moses. You have the woman. Let me tell you hypocrites what I have. I have what I know is in your hearts. And you have been with her yourself, or you want to be. So which ever one of you bastards is better than her, throw the first stone".

They walked away, thinking there was more he could tell.

Welcome to Buck Bible School.(BBC)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191103 Dec 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I have nofucking idea what he's talking about.
Can ya translate?
Yes.

He's saying he eats shit and chases rabbits.

Hope that's helpful.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#191104 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My understanding of what little we know about Jesus was his emphasis on love, not ordering people to do it.
Jesus wasn't big on rules, as he emphatically illustrated to the church members who brought before him a woman caught in "the act".
Their exercise was to test him. They said the law of Moses (knowing Jesus was a Jew and a scholar) says that she must be stoned. But Jesus preached love. So what now, Jesus?
Jesus, as the story goes, said (paraphrasing)
"Yes. You have Moses. You have the woman. Let me tell you hypocrites what I have. I have what I know is in your hearts. And you have been with her yourself, or you want to be. So which ever one of you bastards is better than her, throw the first stone".
They walked away, thinking there was more he could tell.
Welcome to Buck Bible School.(BBC)
bwhahaha you pontificating pundit of pretentiousness .
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

Brooklyn, NY

#191105 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have learned English in a Jamaican whorehouse.
Nope! You Buck naked jarheads learned your barbaric war mongering grunting English , you cavelike minions of hades go back to he11! Bahahahahaaaaa ! Mwhahahaaaaa

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#191106 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Jesus wasn't big on rules, as he emphatically illustrated to the church members who brought before him a woman caught in "the act".
Their exercise was to test him. They said the law of Moses (knowing Jesus was a Jew and a scholar) says that she must be stoned. But Jesus preached love. So what now, Jesus?....
That parable was interesting in that if he said "don't stone her" He would violate The Law. If he said "Stone her" He would violate His own teaching.
His solution was very clever and very Rabbinic.

He basically said, "If she deserves to die then you do too."
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

Brooklyn, NY

#191107 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This thread has turned to shit.
All because of you war mongering grunter! a bhahaaaaa

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191108 Dec 9, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> They say you sucker punched him.
He was a sucker for fighting me.

He's the only man that ever whooped me, and he did so because I was wobbly drunk and on a pair of roller skates at the Bradfordsville Skating Rink.

Like a sucker, Roscoe, who was an accomplished fighter, agreed to a rematch at the Knifley Volunteer Fire Department Annual Fish Fry.

I had shoes on and was sober. Mostly. I don't think he landed one solid lick. He wouldn't give up easy so I had to beat him unconscious.

He went to prison after that for killing Doc Minor. His dad moved in with his wife and started having kids. Roscoe's kids and those kids were their own nephews, I guess.

But I digress. Roscoe lost a fair fight, bottom line.

He was over confident after whoopin' Rabbit Christie, another big-name fighter, and thinking he had whooped me.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191109 Dec 9, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I meant mentally, now answer the question.
I forgot what it was.
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

Brooklyn, NY

#191110 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironic. I'm tempted to opt out because my side is losing.
Interjecting this post of your to IANS! So you a sell out , when tough get going and you bail out , as you corrupted yourself and brainwashed to serve evil and know you fall with your satanic minions ! Bhahahahahahaa !
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#191111 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
He's saying he eats shit and chases rabbits.
Hope that's helpful.
Wrong! i shit on you War mongers for bullying good People who stand for human rights... and i let rabbits go! hope that is hop to you mentally retarded brainless unchristain like jarhead of meatheats!Q bahahhaaaaa
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#191112 Dec 9, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Good on ya! That's not what it means.
:D
I know what it means! bad on yo!:)-...... Bahahahaaaa
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#191113 Dec 9, 2013
davy wrote:
Actually Reagan did raise the payroll tax. He also tripled the federal debt.
<quoted text>
Reagan also never raised the minimum wage. Not only that, he took the credit for ending the Cold War but in reality, he had nothing to do with it. It was because of Reagan that we were right on the precipice of all out global nuclear warfare in late 1983. He called Russia the "evil empire". The Messiah ended the Cold War thirty years ago. Shortly afterwards we had Glastnost and Perastroika. The Messiah also restored pride to the military and got the Jews out of Russia.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191114 Dec 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"Taking care of the people is the job of the government" I want to discuss that. Can you elaborate on your meaning?
It's hard to believe that that comment was controversial or confusing. Buck demurred over it as well.

Yeah, I'll elaborate. The government has a job - a purpose for which it was established. Here it is:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is what it does, or rather, did: Take care of the people.

This does not mean that it takes complete care of people - of all of their needs. But what it does do, it does for ordinary people. What else can it do? Dig holes in the desert?

Your confusion stems from the fact that the people generating and disseminating the conservative memes don't give a crap about those people, and have established think tanks and media networks to undermine that concept - to help you view people as they do: parasites unworthy of help.

And how effective has that message been? Well, Buck objected to the concept, and told us how the government was there to service the economy:

Buck: "Securing the blessings of liberty means the government should interfere with the economy as little as possible, and allowing the maximum freedom of enterprise helps insure domestic tranquility."

And you didn't know what I was talking about without elaboration.

It's also amazing to me that you two don't see how you have been enlisted into the service of these people who care only about themselves and their profits. Look at Buck's concept of the purpose of government: to do nothing and stay out of the way of making money.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191115 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I would say that it you who has been co-opted to serve a master. You say exactly what they would want you to say - things like "class-envy" and "fake compassion."
Buck Crick wrote:
I don't know who "they" is, but I say what I think. I think individual liberty is superior to central government control. I'm weird that way.
In my opinion, you now say what "they" think. And "they" refers to the source of the money that. From "Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics" at http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/...

"There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say,'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that."

Do you think that he is making that up? This is from Wiki:

"The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense". The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States."

That's their message, and now it's yours as well.

And don't be fooled. They don't care about your freedoms or even whether you eat. They're talking about the freedom to make money without government regulation. That's what they mean by limited government: no regulation, no taxation, no redistribution of wealth. How do you think that is going to work out?

The only thing they need government for is to generate infrastructure, defend them from you and from foreigners, to educate people enough to go to work, and to tax workers and send their money upstairs in the form of payments to banks and defense contractors. Notice that limited government doesn't limit military spending, police, prisons, or domestic spying.

"They" exist, they are NOT your friends, and you say exactly what their think tanks have conditioned you to say. How is this so difficult to see even when it is spelled out for you like this?

But the fact that it is - I am rock solid certain that there is zero way to penetrate your head or reach you - is what is so distressing to me. I look at what they can do, how ineffective people like me are at countering or resisting it, and I weep for my nation as I walk away from it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191116 Dec 10, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. there it is ..
.. why do people need silly laws to regulate industry? Surely we can trust Pfizer, McDonald's and Halliburton to do the right thing. I mean, we've got their word that they won't shaft the public, right? Isn't that good enough? After all, they're providing jobs ..
You're being sarcastic, but that is exactly what the people conditioned by conservative think tanks believe. They want the government to stay out the affairs of these corporations, which, coincidentally, is exactly what the corporations want, and not so that they can help America or its citizens.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. most everyone knows financial advisers, insurance companies, banks and mortgage brokers totally screwed the market with derivatives and swaps after the crash of 2008. But, Big Biz learnt their lesson, right? And, they'll never ever do it again so there's no need for regulation ..
There are as many people or more that think like that than that think like you and me. America has become a nation of followers, about half of which have their thinking done for them and injected into their heads through their favorite conservative media outlets and commentators. Rush Limbaugh was the first prominent one, but now there are dozens.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191117 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The government is without any moral or constitutional basis for determining wages. You and I have no right to say how much money someone "deserves".
I disagree.
Buck Crick wrote:
A person's labor, brains, and industriousness is worth EXACTLY what he can convince someone to pay for it. No more, no less.
And how much do you think you will be able to convince ownership to pay you when it has finished concentrating wealth, power and privilege? Have you ever read any Dickens?
Buck Crick wrote:
A free market based on each person's self-interest is the best and only method of achieving prosperity.
Unregulated capitalism does NOT produce the best society. It produces sweatshops with unthinkable working conditions and widespread poverty and misery. Mankind lived in that cesspool for its entire civilized history until enlightened progressives insisted on public health, workplace safety, universal education, decent wages and working conditions, and the like. The result was the wealthiest nation with the strongest economy and highest standard of living ever - the nation I was born into.

But you and the other conservatives have a better idea.
Buck Crick wrote:
There are too few people remaining who understand this, and the results are openly observed. And it's getting worse.
It's getting worse all right, and has been for nearly two generations as this type of thinking has gained ascendance. What is amazing is how you cannot be made to see that. You just keep on singing their mantra.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191118 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I'm re-thinking it. I might conclude he [Dave] has a high aptitude for the transcendent. Analytically, no so much.
How much aptitude do you need to believe in airy fairy stuff?

You call him a great thinker - second only to yourself - except for his ability to think analytically. By that measure, a cat can be a great thinker.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191119 Dec 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.[4] This represented a more regressive tax regime, with more revenue derived from the flat payroll tax versus the progressive income tax."
"The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure, an average national budget deficit per year of $237.5 billion, as compared to an average national budget deficit per year of $56.9 billion during Carter's tenure. The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 2.65% of GDP in 1980, Carter's final budget year, to 3.04% of GDP in 1988, Reagan's final budget year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Fede...
Smoke, mirrors, bullshit, and creative accounting.
There was a lot of that in government and with the mergers of large corporations and fleecing of investors. A house of cards was created that is still being propped up with smoke, mirrors, bullshit, and creative accounting.
There was no manufacturing growth, Buck. That was moved overseas. That is the real wealth. It was replaced by parasitic industries and suckering in foreign investors with those artificial numbers. Hence the propping up of the house of cards still going on.
I was a poor working class schmuck struggling to make a living while those players were running wild. I saw what was going on even then.
Greed, selfishness, and ambition to get rich quick was the order of the day. Ethics, morality, and the long term were set aside.
REAGAN AND HIS HANDLERS WERE ASSHOLES. PERIOD.
I am pleasantly surprised to see you arguing this position, and am happy to give credit where credit is due.

And notwithstanding Buck's comments to the contrary, this is analysis - political analysis. You have looked at data bit by bit and understood its implications. Somehow, "they" have not reached you in this department. You are supposed to adore Reagan and despise liberals.

In this arena, Dave, you outshine Buck by orders of magnitude.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191120 Dec 10, 2013
River Tam wrote:
I don't know the answer, IANS. Should a high school student on summer break be paid as much as a single mother of two? The minimum wage proponents say they should be paid the same.
I don't think that those of us supporting a higher minimum wage are too interested in high school students earning as much as single mothers of two. We're interested in seeing that she and her children live decently if she is willing and able to work. If high school students benefit from that for a few months, terrific.

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) 5 min The Northener 52,191
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 20 min Eagle 12 1,671
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 23 min IB DaMann 492
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 35 min Eagle 12 165
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 51 min scientia potentia... 24,885
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr IB DaMann 5,811
Merry Christmas!!! 2 hr Bayesian 32
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr Bible Believer 11,445
More from around the web