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

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#202338 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Challenge it on the grounds of interstate commerce or the common good.
The government has a right to limit activities that can be harmful to the maintenance of the nation or public good by improper use of resources. Personal decisions of whether to continue the process of creating a resource the nation needs to stay a viable entity providing for the good of all can lead to the supply of such resource being reduced or even eliminated. People are the prime resource for humankind. They can't live without them.
The act of creating was initiated voluntarily in most cases. Such usually then draws upon public resources in some fashion, such as pre-natal care, which I believe is a given under Obamacare. I believe termination is also included, as is prevention. Prevention allows for personal choice before drawing upon public resources.
The child is needed for future taxes and support of the whole. Society has an investment in its production that trumps the ill conceived actions of the individual that initiated the process.
It isn't a matter of personal liberty, it is a matter of survival of the species.
There is probably a considerable body of law already in practice that has supported similar legislation, and even in advancement of your social agendas.
Dave, I would respond to your post, if I knew WTF you're talking about.

Translation anyone?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#202339 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
Your "influence of Satan" theory.

And now the dude is influencing himself into the Oklahoma Capitol grounds.

Maybe you have something here after all.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202340 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't read any of them, did you?
"The murder became sensational news in the New York area and across the nation due to the torture of Lauwers and alleged Satanic ritualistic aspects of the murder."
It happens. Satanists are evil, cruel people hell-bent on anarchy and torture.
That kind of religion should get no monument.
That a murder had occurred, yes. And again you use the word "alleged".

You aren't very good at this, are you?

----------

You really insist on playing this game, don't you?

So tell me, how is your God not evil for having ordered the murder of entire nations, including the animals and trees?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#202341 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are less irritated by this re-writing. I understand, due to your ideology.
But the court did re-write the Constitution by calling a corporation a person.
You and I know that's bogus.
They did so by defining the term person in a political sense. A group of people with shared interests becoming one entity for certain purposes. A corporation can't vote in elections, but they can advocate and buy them. That didn't rewrite the Constitution.

Get a definition established, no matter how loosely, and then run with to advance agendas and make money.

The same way you and your crowd have subverted it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#202342 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, I would respond to your post, if I knew WTF you're talking about.
Translation anyone?
Then I would suggest you aren't really a lawyer, just posing as one.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202343 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were so sane and rational why do you use such silly things like that as reasons to rant trying to convince the world your thinking is the rational way of thinking?
Many billions of people have lived with religion and done just fine without having to resort to such activities.
You are suffering from a mental pathology.
Silly? I think it is a perfectly valid question.

Your God is supposed to be omniscient, which means he had to know about germs and the link they have to disease. As Jesus, he could have prevented uncounted deaths and great misery by merely telling us about it. But he didn't. Or at least, that is what your story says.

If this god of yours actually exists, and is omniscient, then he certainly isn't benevolent.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202344 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
I saw a drawing of the planned statue of Satan. It's a pretty good depiction, from what I have heard about Satan's appearance. But it doesn't have a tail, and they didn't make it red.
“The old lady who said there must be a devil, else how could they make pictures that looked exactly like him, reasoned like a trained theologian - like a doctor of divinity.“- Robert G. Ingersoll

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#202345 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think about hanging a swastika over a judge and calling it a Hindu religious symbol?
Would you want to see that in our court rooms?
I for one would fight to prevent that form of "religious expression". The swastika promotes hate and death, the Nazi's done f_cked it up.
In turn, Satan promotes hate and deception, not something that should be portrayed in the public light.
Maybe there's a Satanist out there who'd like to ritually abuse a child. They don't get to do that, do they?
Sometimes freedom of religion is curtailed, as it should be.
I didn't respond to Dave Nelson's post, because I couldn't figure out what he was saying.

I won't respond to yours, because it's utterly ridiculous.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#202346 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good one. Here are some follow ups:
A neutron goes into a bar and asks the bartender, "How much for a beer?" The bartender replies, "For you, no charge."
Two atoms are talking in a bar. One says to the other, "Are you all right?" "No, I lost an electron!" "Are you sure?" "Yeah, I'm positive!"
LOL

Although I do object to the religious implications of your jokes.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, ask Dave. He'll come up with something.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#202347 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you missed a very important word in that title...ALLEGATIONS.
I asked for confirmed instances. You fail.
BTW...I CAN provide confirmed instances where Christians abused children in the name of Christianity. Lots and lots of them. But I really don't want to get into that game.
What about RR himself?

Oh, forgot. Faux Christian.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#202348 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I would suggest you aren't really a lawyer, just posing as one.
You already smoked me out yesterday, remember?

I'm a Hollywood celebrity, or the spouse of a celebrity.

Or something like that.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#202349 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly? I think it is a perfectly valid question.
Your God is supposed to be omniscient, which means he had to know about germs and the link they have to disease. As Jesus, he could have prevented uncounted deaths and great misery by merely telling us about it. But he didn't. Or at least, that is what your story says.
If this god of yours actually exists, and is omniscient, then he certainly isn't benevolent.
You are trying to convince everyone your perspective as to what is true or important is the only criteria for establishing such. That is why you try to force the argument down those logic paths that are trivial to most people. At the same time you totally blow off any logic and argumentation they have.

You are obsessive and doing the exact same thing as you accuse them of.

In addition, outside this petty assed forum you are grossly outnumbered.

Re-evaluate your motives for exhibiting such passions on relatively meaningless issues.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#202350 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't respond to Dave Nelson's post, because I couldn't figure out what he was saying.
I won't respond to yours, because it's utterly ridiculous.
You can't respond. That is because you are a fraud.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202352 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
You are constantly denigrating learning from others.
Dave resents educated people.

He is also continually denigrating atheists and professionals.

The fact is that he has nothing kind or constructive to say to anybody.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202353 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
I think your bigotry is making you stupid. List for me all the types of risks that combine deadly danger, multiple shielding, and a repeating glow effect. This ignores the facts that the passage speaks of an Alien visitor, who is able to hover above the ground, and accurately predicts a result that we still observe today. Smile.
You're discussing it like it isn't fiction, and expecting others to do so as well. It's mythology. It doesn't need explaining any more than magic beans, beanstalks, and giants need explaining.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202354 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
If you want to look at the history of how courts have revised the Constitution fraudulently, committing a usurpation of the powers of the people, you have to look at about 1960 and forward. You have to look at liberals.
Aha!!........ Im pretty sure RR has facts about how satans influence ramped up starting that year
RiversideRedneck wrote:
What?
Catcher1 wrote:
Your "influence of Satan" theory.
And now the dude is influencing himself into the Oklahoma Capitol grounds.
Maybe you have something here after all.
Bongo gets asked a question that's eerily Catchery souding and Catcher responds.

Huh....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202355 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I mock you because you want to impose your definition of religion on others. It was, after all, you that said satanism is not a religion and that public policy should be based on that.
So this is how it stands...
You don't think satanism is not a religion, and I don't think your opinion should dictate public policy.
I think religious icons should not be placed in secular courtrooms.
I still fail to see how you interpret this as hypocrisy. What I said in the first case was about religion. What I said in the second case is about religious symbols. Not the same thing. Or is that too subtle for you to understand?
Right. You're finally getting it.

You think my opinion should dictate public policy but you voice your opinion as if it should.

That's the hypocrisy.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#202356 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, this is such beautiful irony.
Yeah, like reverse progeria

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202357 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
You are getting confused. The ancient passage lists five events, simply as a general explanation of what happened. 1. A extra-terrestrial visitor came 2. His presence emitted such a danger, that three types of shielding were required to prevent death. 3. The affect was a glowing on the skin 4. That affect was repeated every time Moses returned to the Alien presence 5. The Alien was able to hover over the group for an extended time. Any one of these events is now understood to some degree scientifically. The ability to hover in flight alone is profound. But combined in one account, they become a fatal conundrum for atheists. Now here is where you expose your ignorant bias; People traveling in the desert would be shocked by Moses returning from an Alien visit because he had a 'sunburn'. LOL, that was priceless... To top that off, I've made no claim whether the passage is true or not. I simply have asked those who brush off the Bible as nothing but meaningless fiction to explain how this single event, with multiple aspects of modern understanding got into a fake book. I've listed five aspects, and I'm still waiting for a single atheist to explain them in context.
SMile.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You have presented good points that are impossible to brush off in a rational manner. Swami Dave predicts you will not find a single Topix atheist capable of responding to those points in a rational manner. It is the nature of those beasts. Let their bleating and bellowing begin.
It's wonderful that you two found each other. You have just about the same understanding of science and just about the same personality.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202358 Jan 13, 2014
David Rothmann wrote:
I could claim that there is a twenty headed God who revealed himself to me and he lives in another galaxy, the validity of that claim wouldn't rely on whether anyone couldn't disprove it.
Did it hover? Did its face glow? These are tests of authenticity on this thread.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 5 min ChristineM 2,297
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 1 hr Thinking 3
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr TheHeadlines 145
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 11 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 12 hr Thinking 3
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) Sat polymath257 23,199
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Sat Yiago 148
More from around the web