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
183,821 - 183,840 of 225,578 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191589
Dec 11, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You display an exceptional talent at being a jerk.
You must have applied yourself very diligently in those 27 years to develop that level of expertise you display in doing so.
My client (Sloppy) was sentenced to 27 years.

For asking the guy for $1.50 to return the bucket of tools.

Extortion, with a gang enhancement.

In my view (not shared by all), that's a violation of the 8th Amendment.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191590
Dec 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

So you buy your coke with food stamps? Maybe that is how you pay male prostitutes?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Dope dealers driving Mercedes spend lots of food stamsps.
They have no "reported income", since their dope business is in cash. So they qualify for your tax money.
Don't ask me how I know this.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191591
Dec 11, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Lawyers are what made you need one, dumb ass. They wrote the fucking laws.
You won't understand the significance of that.
Oh, they can come in handy, but you wouldn't need them so much if they didn't make work for themselves. The price of everything is mucho higher because of their cut of the action.
I'm not making work for myself.

Right now I'm having a glass of rose while watching Magic Moments--recording artists of the 1950s reuniting to perform. It's a PBS fundraiser. And reading the L.A. Times.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191592
Dec 11, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say you could do a house, but you could find apartments. A lot depended on where you lived. I'm not saying it was easy, but your dollar did go farther back then because you didn't have all of those taxes and mandatory purchases like insurance. You get nothing from those. You could get started back then. If you had a job minimum wage didn't last all that long, you always got a raise fairly soon.
One other thing about back then that makes a big difference. You didn't have the same toys to buy. Cell phones, games, and all of that didn't exist. You used a pay phone. Messages still got around.
Yes inflation has made everything more expensive, but I don't think you could support any kind of dwelling on minimum wage alone.
Especially now but not even 20 years ago, without starving half the time.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191593
Dec 11, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You never could support a house on minimum wage, at least not without roommates. I never made less than double the minimum wage after I left my parents home, and still couldn't hardly afford all the bills by myself.
The road to prosperity is education and hard work. And that hard work starts in pre-k and doesn’t stop until a college degree or vocation is earned.

Nevertheless these low paying institutions like McDonalds and Walmart can pay more to people who do exceptionally well.

I’m not talking about everyone but the 10% or 15% that exceed and work extra hard. There should be more pay for these people and better benefits. In doing so the corporations would be making their business stronger and more profitable.

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191594
Dec 11, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>You display an exceptional talent at being a jerk.

You must have applied yourself very diligently in those 27 years to develop that level of expertise you display in doing so.
Pot kettle.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191595
Dec 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
Yes, market conditions set prices.
If minimum wage is raied to the $11 figure, the market will demand compensation for that.
All if us, including the minimum wage employees, will be paying the difference.
What's the point?
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/qand...

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191596
Dec 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
Illegally taking advantage....?
Huh.
As in, committing fraud.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You scorn those that illegally take advantage of welfare programs but you insist that those that use drugs illegally are actually "victims" of the war on drugs.
I didn't scorn them.

I'm just telling you that these problems you complain about are caused by policies you seem to support.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Both types of people are acting illegally, Tide. Both.
And WTF do you mean by victims if circumstance?
A person does not choose when or where they are born, or how they are raised. These circumstances might help them or hurt them. Most people that become prosperous and peaceful members of society were born into better circumstances than those who struggle and make bad decisions.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191597
Dec 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
The surviving adults of the Branch Davidians were tried for murder and conspiracy to commit murder of federal agents. They were all acquitted.
Some were convicted of various other crimes. No evidence of child abuse was found, and it is unclear what the claim was based on. Insiders testified that ATF agents, during the standoff, dropped their pants and exposed themselves to the Davidians. Interestingly, one member who was outside the compound was shot 7 times and killed. Agents said he refused to surrender. Witnesses said they heard two shots after he was on the ground. 2 bullet holes were found in the back of his head, about 1 inch apart, indicating he was shot twice at close range in the back of the head after down.
I sure wish that you would get into the habit of sourcing your data. My guess is that you are probably correct about much or all of these accounts, but I simply can't take your word, and don't have enough incentive to hunt all of this down myself.

Assuming for the moment that you are correct about ALL of this, instead of learning these things from you, the all just go into the great bin of things that Buck believes, which, as you know, is a mixed bag of truths, untruths and half-truths from my perspective.

For example, I just read this from you:

"The 100 ATF agents rolled up and burst out of cattle trailers. They ran toward the house with guns pointed, yelling "Police, search warrant, lie down on the ground".

One factoid I found said this:

" ... two covered cattle trailers containing over seventy ATF agents ..."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/09/00...

That's very close, but one of these accounts is inaccurate. Assuming that it's yours, and "over 70 morphed" into 100, I have to wonder how much more of this has been distorted.

Here's the rest of your account of the events of February 28, 1993:
Buck Crick wrote:
The 100 ATF agents rolled up and burst out of cattle trailers. They ran toward the house with guns pointed, yelling "Police, search warrant, lie down on the ground". They shot a number of dogs in front of the house. David Koresh and Perry Jones were standing at the front door - unarmed. Koresh was shot in the arm, Jones was shot in the stomach and died. On the phone later, Koresh defended the account, telling them to watch the tape. The ATF was taping the raid (funding purposes?), but nobody could locate the tape afterward.
Also missing were the activity logs of that exchange - the pages were torn out. The ATF testified to Congress that they just couldn't figure out how the tape and the log went missing. That testimony IS on tape.
The link, which reads as an evenly written report and not the words of a partisan fanatic, reads, "The lead agent claimed to have yelled, "Police! Get down!" or some such cry, and Koresh closed the door."

In your version, there is no mention of Koresh´s uncooperative reaction, just that he was shot.

The link is longer than I care to scour, so I haven't read it all, especially given that this type of stuff is a double turn-off for me: religion and (literal) militance.

I would have had to wade through too many sentences about Babylonians, messiahs, and Seven Seals to bother with it, so, I won't be sorting it out, and I still don't know what happened.

I presume that you post these things to inform others about them and that you would like to be believed. The difference between accomplishing that and not is the difference between making unsupported claims and providing credible supporting documentation.

Any, this is FYI in case you care.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191598
Dec 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
During the final Waco siege, there was a concrete bunker in the building where the mothers ran to with children when the tank-mounted booms tore open the building and started firing in CS gas cannisters. The ATF then began gassing the concrete bunker. They gassed it for 2 hours. A survivor testified that some of them had foam filter masks they tried to breath through, but they did not work. They removed them, and their skin eventually began to burn so badly, they used the small amount of drinking water they had to wipe the faces of the children. They didn't know that made the gas burn worse. The children were tortured this way for upwards of two hours before they died. Some may have shot their children due to the suffering.
Sorry, but I blame the Davidians for this, and faith for the Davidians. What must they have been thinking to have not surrendered even then? These people's minds - their internal road maps for negotiating life - were so badly deformed by faith based thoughts about whatever they thought was in the sky to protect them or commanding them to resist that they were doomed from the start. It is unreasonable for them to have expected to be accommodated given how crazy their leader sounded with all of his references to Armageddon and other violent scenarios, and the weapons he had stockpiled.

Sorry, but if they lived in my area, my feeling would be that if they won't surrender, they are dangerous, and go ahead do whatever you have to to neutralize them.

I don't know enough about these types of matters to know if there was a way to do that without killing them and at no risk to the FBI and ATF agents. It seems that they were trying with gas, and the reaction of the people inside depicted them as entrenched, armed fanatics unwilling to surrender.

And they died. The end.

I'm satisfied that the blame lies principally or exclusively with the Davidians, whatever fault can be found in the government's handling of the matter, and that anybody who only wants to point the finger at Clinton, Reno, and the FBI/ATF is partisan for the religious, against the Clinton administration, or both, and would not be a credible source of information for me.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191599
Dec 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
Yes, market conditions set prices. If minimum wage is raied to the $11 figure, the market will demand compensation for that. All if us, including the minimum wage employees, will be paying the difference. What's the point?
This is incorrect.

You don't understand what market forces are. Ownership will be absorbing most of the cost of the wage increase as lower profits with little change in pricing or loss of jobs for the reasons I outlined earlier, which is exactly the opposite of what happens when ownership can successfully keep wages down - it reaps extra profit without creating new jobs. Increased profits don't lead to hiring more people. They lead to fatter bank accounts. You need to sell more widgets to justify hiring more people.

The main issue here is not prices to consumers or jobs for workers, the stuff the propagandists have filled your head with to enlist your support, but what share of the profits go to ownership and what share go to the workers.

The apportionment that leads to a world like I was born into, where a postman could afford a stay-at-home wife, a home, and expect to own two cars while putting braces on the children and sending them to college, is the world I want back. Since Reagan on, the trend has been to shunt the profits back up at the expense of the working middle class. Ownership isn't interested in sharing. Quite the opposite is true.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191600
Dec 12, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You scorn those that illegally take advantage of welfare programs but you insist that those that use drugs illegally are actually "victims" of the war on drugs. Both types of people are acting illegally, Tide. Both.
Point?

Weren't you bemoaning the nanny state a while ago, and complaining that I was its champion? Is that the state that makes welfare available to the needy, or the one that tells them what they can and can't smoke?

You equate people breaking laws against defrauding the public trust with those breaking laws against recreational drug use, but I don't, obviously, since I did the one and not the other myself. I didn't mind nanny - I defied her. Bad IANS!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191601
Dec 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
IANS is quite comfortable having religious people murdered by the government.
This is how you summarize my position? You're despicable.

And a whiny, dissembling, professional victim to boot. You poor religious people! Everyone should pity you for the unfairness of people like me who want you all systematically murdered for nothing more than peacefully exercising your faith.

Quick! Somebody call an waaaaaahhmbulance.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191602
Dec 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
For the guy supposed to be running the free world, it is. For a married man, it is. So much for Secular Humanism and it's "higher morals"...
Secular humanist morals are superior to Christian morals, most of which seem to be about other people's sex lives anyhow.

What do you care if Clinton got a hummer? That's between him and his wife. Talk about embracing nanny values!

Apart from sex with unconsenting and/or underage partners, my morals about sexual behavior are limited to my own and my wife's. And that is superior to Christian nannying.
Thinking

Windsor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191603
Dec 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It's only the nanny state when it disagrees with RR.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Point?
Weren't you bemoaning the nanny state a while ago, and complaining that I was its champion? Is that the state that makes welfare available to the needy, or the one that tells them what they can and can't smoke?
You equate people breaking laws against defrauding the public trust with those breaking laws against recreational drug use, but I don't, obviously, since I did the one and not the other myself. I didn't mind nanny - I defied her. Bad IANS!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191604
Dec 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I sure wish that you would get into the habit of sourcing your data. My guess is that you are probably correct about much or all of these accounts, but I simply can't take your word, and don't have enough incentive to hunt all of this down myself.
Assuming for the moment that you are correct about ALL of this, instead of learning these things from you, the all just go into the great bin of things that Buck believes, which, as you know, is a mixed bag of truths, untruths and half-truths from my perspective.
For example, I just read this from you:
"The 100 ATF agents rolled up and burst out of cattle trailers. They ran toward the house with guns pointed, yelling "Police, search warrant, lie down on the ground".
One factoid I found said this:
" ... two covered cattle trailers containing over seventy ATF agents ..."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/09/00...
That's very close, but one of these accounts is inaccurate. Assuming that it's yours, and "over 70 morphed" into 100, I have to wonder how much more of this has been distorted.
Here's the rest of your account of the events of February 28, 1993:
<quoted text>
The link, which reads as an evenly written report and not the words of a partisan fanatic, reads, "The lead agent claimed to have yelled, "Police! Get down!" or some such cry, and Koresh closed the door."
In your version, there is no mention of Koresh´s uncooperative reaction, just that he was shot.
The link is longer than I care to scour, so I haven't read it all, especially given that this type of stuff is a double turn-off for me: religion and (literal) militance.
I would have had to wade through too many sentences about Babylonians, messiahs, and Seven Seals to bother with it, so, I won't be sorting it out, and I still don't know what happened.
I presume that you post these things to inform others about them and that you would like to be believed. The difference between accomplishing that and not is the difference between making unsupported claims and providing credible supporting documentation.
Any, this is FYI in case you care.
My objective is to hit the high points where facts contradict the story fed to the media by the government.

Each can decide if he wants to know more.

My conclusion is solidified by the 2011 documentary, which is, that the raid was a stunt, people died, and then Clinton and Reno's actions to dispense with the embarrassment led to the death of the people. They made up the suspicion of child abuse - just like Hillary made up the youtube video demonstration at Benghazi.

I'm also convinced the guilt of it contributed to Vince Foster killing himself 90 days later.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191605
Dec 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
You neglected to acknowledge that the Preamble is speaking about all Americans, not just the Americans in government or in power.
The Preamble is about the purpose of the government that was being formed by the Constitution, which was written in the name of "We the people" to serve the people. Where is the confusion coming from for you?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
They can read my emails if they want, I don't care. If it means a safer America, then let them have at it.
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The Nanny State is when the government needs to hold your hand through everything and when you think that's the best way to do it and to impose as many regulations as needed to tell you the best way to live your life.
And who in America is telling others how they should live their lives? Who are these nannies?

Who is telling whom who they can have sex under the desk with, and judging others as immoral for not obeying his Christan ethics?

Who judges people that want to use illicit drugs criminals and lumps them in with welfare frauds?

Who approves of Big Brother reading his emails?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
And of course, they'll need more tax money to do that. That's YOUR utopian government, not mine.
Is that right? I outlined my vision for government, which is much, much, MUCH smaller, cheaper, and less intrusive than yours.

Try thinking rather than just repeating talking points you've heard. They're simply wrong.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I got a better idea. How about the goddamned government just stick to the military and police and let the civilians handle their own business. THAT'S the governments job, not taking care of everybody.
This is so frigging depressing to read. You have been captured 100%. And they have generated tens of millions just like you. I leave you to YOUR utopian vision of surveillance, military and police. Good luck

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191606
Dec 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:

This is typical for our discussions [Rolls boulder uphill]
RiversideRedneck wrote:
*pushes rope* you're not making this easy.
TMI. And get away from me with your "rope."

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191607
Dec 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes inflation has made everything more expensive, but I don't think you could support any kind of dwelling on minimum wage alone.
Especially now but not even 20 years ago, without starving half the time.
1965 was almost 50 years ago.

Like I said the minimum wage wasn't the standard wage, just entry. A probationary wage.

You would be surprised how much of the economy was regulated then compared to now. Wasn't as free market as now. You had a thing called the Fair Trade Act that prevented retailers from discounting the price of certain manufactured goods produced in this country.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191608
Dec 12, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Obama has unilaterally suspended enforcement of immigration law. He has refused to prosecute drug law violators. He simply stopped defending federal laws he didn’t like, like the Defense of Marriage Act, in court.
He seems to want to leave people that want to work picking produce for slave wages, get high, and marry a gay spouse alone. He's not being a very good nanny, is he?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
He issues waivers on Obamacare and the No Child Left Behind Act. His Environmental Protection Agency has attempted to regulate carbon emissions when Congress didn’t push through a global warming bill. He appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board in violation of law. His administration rammed through an auto bailout that screwed bondholders, as well as a slush fund from British Petroleum.
As I told Eagle, when you show an interest in seeing all presidents held accountable for perceived violations of law rather than just the ones with a "D" after their names, then I'll believe that you care about the rule of law and actually respect for the Constitution. Right now it looks like you're just a passive vessel for the memes of partisan interests.

And aren't you the one who mocked others for Googling and reproducing information from the Internet? You plagiarized this from the Internet:
http://www.kaldaya.net/2013/News/11/Nov18_E4_...

Did you use Google or Bing?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••