Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257134 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.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213794 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Child, most couples don't have property when they get married.
Why would you 'require' procreation when marriages need protection NOT to procreate.
On the other hand, ss couples could never procreate if it was a requirement anyway. In fact, gay couples need protection just to have intercourse!
However, its not just that normally marriages procreate and ss couples NEVER mutually procreate, its that a union of 'Mars & Venus' is vastly distinct from the collision of Uranus and Uranus.
Ss couples are incapable of measuring up to marriage at any level of comparison, making ss marriage an oxymoron.
SMile.
<quoted text>
I understand that you are trying to denigrate all marriages today by presenting an ancient, false impression that marriages at one time were all about 'property'.
Here is a start of how marriage is vastly distinct from ss couples;
Marriage is a miraculous union of two genders,
a union so profound,
it is described as the union of Mars and Venus.
It reunites humanity to the roots of life,
while at the very same time
hosting the best and natural
birth place of future human life.
It is the blend of masculinity and femininity.
The wisdom of logic and intuition united.
Strength and delicacy perfectly balanced.
Protection and nurture combined as one.
A complimentary merging that multiplies the unbiased blend of humanity's genders.
Distinctions a ss couple can never match.
While very poetic, simply wrong on so many levels.

You again go back to it is the best way to raise children - irrelevant for marriage.
Then you add the "blending" - again irrelevant for marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract that creates a family unit where one does not already exist.

How are same sex couples unable to live up to the definition?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213795 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
This argument has always amazed me.
Do you even realize how many times marriage has been "redefined"?
Your "traditional marriage" was between a man and multiple women or between a man and his "property". The idea a marriage for "love" is very recent (historically speaking).
You mean since 'Romeo and Juliet'?

How about 'Song of Solomon'???

What an idiotic gay argument...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213796 Feb 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Boo hoo.
If you had pursued an education, you would be able to afford coverage.
I'd make you a loan if you weren't such a sleazebag.
That's quite a different attitude than you display toward the Obama taxpayer subsidies in previous posts.

You said something about "biting the bullet" so the lower earners could be covered.

Now you say "Boo hoo".

You liberals can never get your principles straight.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213797 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
I understand that you are trying to denigrate all marriages today by presenting an ancient, false impression that marriages at one time were all about 'property'.
I am in no way trying to denigrate marriage.
It serves a very useful function in our society.
I wish to see it expanded so that more people can benefit from this great institution.

But, yes, it was for most of our history all about property.

The idea of marrying for "love" (being allowed to marry for love) is a very recent development.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213798 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
While very poetic, simply wrong on so many levels.
You again go back to it is the best way to raise children - irrelevant for marriage.
Then you add the "blending" - again irrelevant for marriage.
Marriage is a legal contract that creates a family unit where one does not already exist.
How are same sex couples unable to live up to the definition?
That's not the definition. It might be the definition of something, and if you want it, have it. But it's not marriage.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213799 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
You mean since 'Romeo and Juliet'?
You do realize Romeo and Juliet weren't able to marry, right?
Did you read the whole play?
Spoiler alert.....they die
KiMare wrote:
How about 'Song of Solomon'???
Ah...King Solomon.
How many wives did he have again?
And who was it that he "loved the most"?(the answer may surprise you)
KiMare wrote:
What an idiotic gay argument...
Awww...Did I hurt your feelings?

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213800 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Bull shit. There is no equal protection problem with applying the restriction to all persons - as in no person can marry a member of the same gender.
So this would be why every case brought before a federal court concerning the issue has been ruled in favor of same sex marriage due to the equal protection clause of the US Constitution?
Buck Crick wrote:
Regardless of the history, if the the people decide through their representatives to define legal marriage as between a man and woman, they have the right.
Lucky for all of us that our laws prevent the will of the majority from suppressing a minority.

Isn't it great....

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213801 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the definition. It might be the definition of something, and if you want it, have it. But it's not marriage.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marria...

Definition #1
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213802 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
This argument has always amazed me.
In my state SSM is illegal. If you want to impose it against the will of the majority then it will have to be imposed on the federal level or enough citizens within the state will have to be convinced. In that sense the burden is on those who wish to redefine marriage from man and woman to two persons.
Do you even realize how many times marriage has been "redefined"?
Your "traditional marriage" was between a man and multiple women or between a man and his "property". The idea a marriage for "love" is very recent (historically speaking).
Agree somewhat with the last statement. They have outlawed polygamy. Incest marriages are out. First cousins cannot marry in some states. Persons with STD's cannot marry. What that all means is states regulate marriages.
And again, all completely irrelevant to the legal contract that we call marriage.
Do you think we are at risk of going extinct as a species?
Not impossible.
You keep bringing up continuation of the species. How children should be raised (even though your ideal is no longer the norm).
Does that mean you do not believe children have rights to responsible loving relationships with biological parents?
Yet, as stated, procreation is not a requirement or marriage and marriage is not a requirement of procreation.
So? None of that justifies the imposition of SSM.
This is the legal quandary those wishing to deny marriage to same sex couples have.
The former [infertile couples] does not validate the other.[Same sex couples.] You can't reasonably say SSM is somehow validated because some OSM couples are infertile.
The only argument they (you) have against SSM is that they can't reproduce.
Not the only one but I would say SSM is anti science, anti evolution and anti Christian. It is a perversion of real marriage which is between man and woman.
Sorry, not a valid reason to deny equal protection under the law.
There is no equality between SSM and OSM and I already went over that.
As long as other couples who also cannot reproduce are allowed marriage rights, you are creating a separate class which is not allowed in our country.
What separate class? See above. Nice try. What I can say about your posts so far is you have not resorted to browbeating and name calling. Homophobe, bigot etc. So that speaks well of you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213803 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
He called Obama “a Chicago, Communist- raised, Communist-educated, Communist-nurtured, subhuman mongrel.”
Shame on him for having an opinion that you don't like.
Bad Ted! Bad.
He was communist-raised and educated.

It was well done, I might add.

Frank Marshall Davis, a hard-line communist, was introduced to the adolescent Barack by his grandfather and provided as a mentor. He mentored Barack throughout his formative years in the 70s.

Davis was on the FBI's "Security Index A". This meant in case of a national emergency, Barack's mentor was to be picked up on sight and arrested.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213804 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marria...
Definition #1
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities
That's a different definition than your last one.

Did you have a point?

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213805 Feb 21, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Not the only one but I would say SSM is anti science, anti evolution and anti Christian. It is a perversion of real marriage which is between man and woman.
And there it is...
You dislike the idea of SSM because of your religious beliefs.

I personally have absolutely no problem with you disliking SSM for religious reasons.
All people are allowed to hold on to their beliefs and act accordingly.
It's another great thing about our country.

Lucky for everyone else in this country, your religious beliefs are not a valid legal argument.

When we are speaking legalities, just and fair trump religion every day.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213806 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
lightbeamrider wrote:
Children optional between male and female. Children biologically impossible between male and male or female and female.
<quoted text>
HA HA HA!!!
Where'd sperm come from, ya knucklehead? Definitely not one of the females...
I do not talk to wife beaters or pedophiles -- and you are both-- you've admitted as much.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213807 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"soon"?
How soon? I mean, since you seem to think you have all the facts, tell em...
I do not talk to wife beaters or pedophiles -- and you are both-- you've admitted as much.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213808 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are trying to equate ss couples to medically handicapped couples, old couples and couples who choose not to procreate for now?
Nope. Same gender couples are **humans**.

And that, apart from being at least 18, is the **only** criteria that the US Constitution is allowed to make note of.

That little "shall not promote **religion**" clause you keep trying to overturn.

Only **religion** sees a problem with same sex couples.

And that is religion's problem-- it cannot BY LAW -- be allowed into the secular sphere.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213809 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
So this would be why every case brought before a federal court concerning the issue has been ruled in favor of same sex marriage due to the equal protection clause of the US Constitution?
<quoted text>
Lucky for all of us that our laws prevent the will of the majority from suppressing a minority.
Isn't it great....
You misunderstood.

I said such bans do not violate equal protection.

I didn't say federal judges are honest, or uphold the Constitution.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213810 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Medically handicapped couples often can be helped, same with old couples, and couples who choose not to procreate most often change their minds.
So?

It would go against your "god's law" if infertile couples **DID** use Modern Science to make babies.

Yet you turn a blind eye to this "abomination of nature"...

Your hypocrisy is showing, bigot.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213811 Feb 21, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Not impossible.
7 billion people and you are worried about extinction due to 10% of the population not having children?
lightbeamrider wrote:
Does that mean you do not believe children have rights to responsible loving relationships with biological parents?
I absolutely believe the ideal environment to raise a child is in a safe and loving home with their biological parents (I stated such a few pages ago)

But, which is better for the child. An abusive home, an orphanage or a loving, stable home with a same sex couple? Again, you are speaking of children's rights.
lightbeamrider wrote:
So? None of that justifies the imposition of SSM.
Not really sure why you feel imposed upon.
How does someone else having the ability to marry change your ability to marry or your marriage in any way?
lightbeamrider wrote:
The former [infertile couples] does not validate the other.[Same sex couples.] You can't reasonably say SSM is somehow validated because some OSM couples are infertile.
No. I am saying SSM does not need your validation.
It is you that bring up procreation.
If we allow one group who can't procreate to marry and have no problem with it, how can you deny it to another group simply because they can't procreate without assistance.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213812 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Last I checked, ss couples NEVER mutually procreate! They even fail at the defect level for marriage!!!
SMirk.
Using the EXACT SAME PROCESS that your infertile couples use?

Same sex couples CAN have babies.

Your hypocrisy is showing-- BIGOT.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213813 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a different definition than your last one.
Did you have a point?
Same definition, just more words.
I simplify it to the basic meaning.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 53 min Spider1954 3,034
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr leonknott 45,615
News Reason to cringe: Female voters react to Trump 1 hr Y the double stan... 147
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Thinking 282,987
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Internet Reality 618,849
Donald Chump: "Not paying federal taxes makes m... 2 hr Internet Reality 4
rajkot to chotila gey sex (Nov '15) 2 hr samir 33
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr Marge 658,723
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 hr Joe Fortuna 70,894
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 hr nanoanomaly 974,735
More from around the web