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
190,221 - 190,240 of 225,687 Comments Last updated 12 min ago

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198377
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are describing is "partisanship", not "non-partisanship".
Yes

I meant to write no bi-partisanship instead of non-partisanship

Like I said, I was on my phone taking a break. Sometimes I don't bother to proof my posts

Good catch dork

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198378
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. It's hard to believe it's not butter.
:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198379
Jan 2, 2014
 
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, Gramps !!!
Did you buy some legal pot yet?
I may do so if I win the lottery. Until then I get small gifts of pot every great once in a while.

Overall that store bought stuff should be pretty good and consistent quality with brands of it developing. Like cigarettes. Seed to sale is regulated. You won't have that grab whatever you can of days of old and the accompanying risks and disappointments. This is really a significant improvement to the lives of dopers.

I foresee real estate in CO going up.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198380
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Some might say that the im too old is a psychic sin. Col. Sanders didn't think that. I think he was 60 when he started . Just think, you could be the Colonel of whole boned hog bisquits or something. How about maybe a human punching bag for the UFC? Many choices are still available, just not playing football.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Trejo

He did OK.

Chief Dan George was a longshoreman until he went into the movies at age 60 or so.

That is just Hollywood.

There have been quite a few late bloomers in life.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198381
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I assumed when you responded to my post that your response was to what was written in that post in context
Moving on
BUCK

I noticed you addressed something in that post other than how you responded to my old post. I tend to skim your posts now, Anyway, I will address it here even though it seem self-explanatory to me.

You missed the point

The vetting process can uproot something has ALREADY taken place yet isn't known nationally or even at all. When someone spends their life in public service and the media and bloggers and investigators who dedicate untold hours digging through someone's past because they are running for president, they will eventually uncover someone's true motivation if they are a fake

Perhaps someone was on a board for a charitable organization. At first glance it seems altruistic and patriotic in nature. Yet they comb thru the books and discover the person was really not spending the money on what they claim and pocketing it.

Or someone speaks out in favor of civil rights yet in interviewing hundreds of co-workers and acquaintances it is discovered this person has made numerous statements in private about how he doesn't like black people

Or etc, etc, etc

No the mayor of Detroit was not exposed due to vetting. But a vetting process would immediately uncover it. My point on that was even on a smaller scale, the truth can often come out over time. So on a larger scale where tons of people are going through everything a person has ever said or done with a fine tooth comb, they will find something if it is there.

Is it possible someone could keep their true agenda hidden even with all that scrutiny for an entire lifetime? Perhaps albeit extremely unlikely. But then when factor into that equation that someone who wanted true power and money would never want the job of president, it makes it that much more unlikely at an exponential rate

THEN include that into the justification for making the accusation that a president is NOT a patriot. There is none. With zero proof to support it and a system in place to make it so unlikely a fake could ever get through, I find it nothing but hateful partisanship for people to engage in rhetoric and propaganda calling a president a traitor and unpatriotic. Unless proven otherwise, it is unreasonable and even irrational to claim presidents are anything but patriots. But I suppose if you are someone that feels making extreme and groundless accusations against someone with nothing to support them then is ok then you will take no solace int he vetting process, a lifetime of public service, and any reasonable standard used to conclude patriotism. For me, I am content to believe all presidents are patriots based on them passing every possible litmus test available and no proof to the contrary.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198382
Jan 2, 2014
 
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh
You really can be exhausting Buck
Try talking to people with a different opinion like you don't have a stick up your ass and something to prove
And the point i am making is we don't need to return to a mentally of witch-hunts where anybody is disagrees with us ideologically is a traitor to the nation
Surely you can agree there are more productive ways to go about disagreements right?
Or maybe you can't. Maybe that is the problem?
McCarthy wasn't going after people for a disagreement.

He was seeking to out communist infiltration.

His name being used as a pejorative seems to be the thing you say you want to avoid - branding people as some sort of traitor because of a disagreement.

Perhaps you can think of a better example, rather than one based on folklore.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198383
Jan 2, 2014
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I may do so if I win the lottery. Until then I get small gifts of pot every great once in a while.
Overall that store bought stuff should be pretty good and consistent quality with brands of it developing. Like cigarettes. Seed to sale is regulated. You won't have that grab whatever you can of days of old and the accompanying risks and disappointments. This is really a significant improvement to the lives of dopers.
I foresee real estate in CO going up.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24828236/wo...

The first day of sales.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198384
Jan 2, 2014
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Trejo
He did OK.
Chief Dan George was a longshoreman until he went into the movies at age 60 or so.
That is just Hollywood.
There have been quite a few late bloomers in life.
My brother got out of prison and boot camp with nothing but the clothes he was wearing

He did odd jobs until he could buy a $500 car and a ladder to tie to the hood. He started doing gutter cleaning. He built that up to a 700 customer business. As he was doing so he was living in an unfurnished basement in Detroit with standing water and nothing but a mattress. He expanded into tuck-pointing and minor cement repairs. He then started working with sub-contractors for things he didn't know how to do and taking a cut while taking classes to learn how to do more on his own. He now owns a fully legal licensed and bonded company with dozens of employees doing everything from building chimneys to paving driveways to building stone walls. He lives in an affluent suburb in a half-million house he got for $200,000 because of the market and does so much business from word-of-mouth that he doesn't even need to advertise any longer other than putting signs in the lawn of jobs completed. He deducts a certain amount from the price if they agree to let him put the sign up for 6 months. You can't drive anywhere without seeing his signs all over.

It's never too late to at least continue to try. There is no guarantee of success but there never is at any age. The age really has nothing to do with it at all IMO other than it eliminates SOME routes. Obviously if someone's plan was to work at a company for 40 years a build up a 401K and retirement and then retire then that plan is out the window. But there are other ways that age plays no factor it

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198385
Jan 2, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
McCarthy wasn't going after people for a disagreement.
He was seeking to out communist infiltration.
His name being used as a pejorative seems to be the thing you say you want to avoid - branding people as some sort of traitor because of a disagreement.
Perhaps you can think of a better example, rather than one based on folklore.
i refereed to an ideological era and a mind-set that is comparable to what some people do now

The reasons may have been different but the approach was the same. To brand anyone a traitor that didn't seem to fit a particular mold.

If you are unable to understand comparisons except in the strictest sense then perhaps you ought to pass on the exchange. My posts are directed at people who can

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198386
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's called the Oath of Enlistment. It has a proud history.

"I,_____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
What's its proud history? What would have to be the case for its history to be either proud or shameful?

By the way, the last sentence is not an essential part of the oath. According to Army Regulation 601-210 Chapter 6-18, it's optional.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198387
Jan 2, 2014
 
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
But then someone can morally kill a verbally abusive spouse who doesn't work who was miserable for anyone to be around instead of just divorcing them. The outcome is the families and his neighbors are happier. Nobody misses him.

Happy New Year Ya'll!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198388
Jan 2, 2014
 
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>i refereed to an ideological era and a mind-set that is comparable to what some people do now
The reasons may have been different but the approach was the same. To brand anyone a traitor that didn't seem to fit a particular mold.
If you are unable to understand comparisons except in the strictest sense then perhaps you ought to pass on the exchange. My posts are directed at people who can
"To brand anyone a traitor that didn't seem to fit a particular mold."

Actually it was the opposite. They did fit a mold. But the whole situation got out of hand because of personal power. There has been a cleansing of "politically wrong thinkers' by the mass media since then that only the advent of the internet managed to combat.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198389
Jan 2, 2014
 
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
BUCK
I noticed you addressed something in that post other than how you responded to my old post. I tend to skim your posts now, Anyway, I will address it here even though it seem self-explanatory to me.
You missed the point
The vetting process can uproot something has ALREADY taken place yet isn't known nationally or even at all. When someone spends their life in public service and the media and bloggers and investigators who dedicate untold hours digging through someone's past because they are running for president, they will eventually uncover someone's true motivation if they are a fake
Perhaps someone was on a board for a charitable organization. At first glance it seems altruistic and patriotic in nature. Yet they comb thru the books and discover the person was really not spending the money on what they claim and pocketing it.
Or someone speaks out in favor of civil rights yet in interviewing hundreds of co-workers and acquaintances it is discovered this person has made numerous statements in private about how he doesn't like black people
Or etc, etc, etc
No the mayor of Detroit was not exposed due to vetting. But a vetting process would immediately uncover it. My point on that was even on a smaller scale, the truth can often come out over time. So on a larger scale where tons of people are going through everything a person has ever said or done with a fine tooth comb, they will find something if it is there.
Is it possible someone could keep their true agenda hidden even with all that scrutiny for an entire lifetime? Perhaps albeit extremely unlikely. But then when factor into that equation that someone who wanted true power and money would never want the job of president, it makes it that much more unlikely at an exponential rate
THEN include that into the justification for making the accusation that a president is NOT a patriot. There is none. With zero proof to support it and a system in place to make it so unlikely a fake could ever get through, I find it nothing but hateful partisanship for people to engage in rhetoric and propaganda calling a president a traitor and unpatriotic. Unless proven otherwise, it is unreasonable and even irrational to claim presidents are anything but patriots. But I suppose if you are someone that feels making extreme and groundless accusations against someone with nothing to support them then is ok then you will take no solace int he vetting process, a lifetime of public service, and any reasonable standard used to conclude patriotism. For me, I am content to believe all presidents are patriots based on them passing every possible litmus test available and no proof to the contrary.
I think that is a very naive and hypothetical construction of circumstances.

A person's patriotism is a largely subjective analysis, where all the outward signs are going to be managed for self-interest by the candidate and his supporters. It is sanctified now as trespassing on some sort of holy ground to question one's patriotism, and I am not intimidated by such.

An examination of the history of our Secretary of State, and former presidential candidate, John Kerry, for instance, leads me to the conclusion he is not a patriot.

That's my conclusion. Yours is likely different. I don't think mine is any less legitimate for public discourse.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198390
Jan 2, 2014
 
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=Gw7gNf_9njsXX
Happy New Year Ya'll!
Heh

Poor Earl!

Than link didn't work for me but I took the part after the = sign in your link after pulling up a different YouTube video to get to it. Maybe this link will work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

It is the same link as far as I can see but the first time just took me to the main YouTube page

Good to see ya Hip

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198391
Jan 2, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that is a very naive and hypothetical construction of circumstances.
A person's patriotism is a largely subjective analysis, where all the outward signs are going to be managed for self-interest by the candidate and his supporters. It is sanctified now as trespassing on some sort of holy ground to question one's patriotism, and I am not intimidated by such.
An examination of the history of our Secretary of State, and former presidential candidate, John Kerry, for instance, leads me to the conclusion he is not a patriot.
That's my conclusion. Yours is likely different. I don't think mine is any less legitimate for public discourse.
on't think it should be barred from discussion or off-limits as too extreme to even address

But i think someone better have a real good reason for calling someone a traitor.

Especially someone who has served their country and who has spent a lifetime in public service working themselves all the way to the highest office

And here is my main problem with it. If these same people actually agreed with you ideologically or politically, I doubt you would ever pull out that card

That is why I don't find it legitimate

But I could be wrong

Only you know for sure

But I could give you parallels even with Bush Jr and his dad pulling strings for him to avoid the draft yet you said nothing about it when bringing it up against Clinton.

And that's the other thing. I don't think you could recognize it even if you wanted to. That isn't an insult. I just think it is so engrained in your thinking now that you truly believe it but you didn't use an objective method to conclude it

JMO

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198392
Jan 2, 2014
 
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>i refereed to an ideological era and a mind-set that is comparable to what some people do now
The reasons may have been different but the approach was the same. To brand anyone a traitor that didn't seem to fit a particular mold.
If you are unable to understand comparisons except in the strictest sense then perhaps you ought to pass on the exchange. My posts are directed at people who can
Oh, I understand comparisons fine.

That's how I recognize yours is flawed.

Thanks for the free advice.
Bongo

Coram, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198393
Jan 2, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't accuse me of catching on to something.
Except for whoopin' asses. Which you are due to experience.
You caught something. Your discourse with Skom is less checkered. He does have some redeeming qualities.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198394
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>

There have also been excellent arguments proposed that he was:
1. Self castrated.
2. Asexual
3. Homosexual
4. celibate due to a broken heart
And he was a bad dancer.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198395
Jan 2, 2014
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"To brand anyone a traitor that didn't seem to fit a particular mold."
Actually it was the opposite. They did fit a mold. But the whole situation got out of hand because of personal power. There has been a cleansing of "politically wrong thinkers' by the mass media since then that only the advent of the internet managed to combat.
I really don't want to keep getting into semantics

Depending on one looks at it, they did or didn't fit a mold. Point being there was one type of person that was considered ok. And one type of person that wasn't. And the standard was unreasonable and subjective and a complete with-hunt. It also was often politically motivated.

You understand my point right? That I am comparing a subjective and reckless process being used to label someone a traitor where that is often concluded despite no actual proof?

If we want to start playing the nit-picking game i am very good at it. I just almost never do it because I find it to be pointless

Or we can just talk to one another and if we understand what point the person is tryign to convey just leave it at that and reply to it

It is up to you guys

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198396
Jan 2, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I understand comparisons fine.
That's how I recognize yours is flawed.
Thanks for the free advice.
And I understand your insecurities cause you to nitpick anywhere you think it might give the impression of superiority

That is how I am able to understand why you do it over such silly things

You are welcome

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.

•••