Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 comments on the Jul 18, 2009, Webbunny tumblelog story 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: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213816 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Look I am not the one who is imposing on anybody for any reason. I am simply pointing out it is those who are advocating for SSM as imposing. SSM can and is opposed for both religious and non religious reasons. It depends on what part of the country you are in. I am in the North-West..I work mostly with non Christian men and I can think of possibly one who would possibly support SSM. The rest despise the idea and these are not republicans. They are working class union members. So there is a divide in the country.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#213817 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Such compassion.
Such caring.
So much for your "coverage for everyone" lie.
You're caught red-handed again, counselor.
What are you talking about?

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213818 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstood.
I said such bans do not violate equal protection.
I didn't say federal judges are honest, or uphold the Constitution.
Yet, obviously, they do.
If you disagree with the legal opinion of every federal judge to hear the case so far, maybe you can provide a better legal argument that all of the previous lawyers have.

I would love to hear it.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213819 Feb 21, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> In my state SSM is illegal.
Not for much longer it won't be.

SSM is a **religious** idea-- strictly and without any other argument possible.

And one religion is illegal to be promoted above the others.

Even within your own hideous cult (Genuine Christianity™) there are factions who not only allow same sex marriage, but openly embrace the practice.

So you cannot even claim solidarity among christians for your hate and bigotry, here.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#213820 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.
Nugent also called Obama a chimpanzee.

Just as you called three black kids monkeys.

Racism, pure and simple.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#213821 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"soon"?
How soon? I mean, since you seem to think you have all the facts, tell em...
Allow me to clear it up a little.

First, you got married.

Next, you hit your six-month-old baby.

Then, you followed up by hitting your wife.

And finally, you walked out on her.

Some Christian you turned out to be.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213822 Feb 21, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Look I am not the one who is imposing on anybody for any reason.
Why do you lie in such obvious ways like this?

You would force-- at gunpoint-- if you were allowed -- everyone on earth to comply with your hideous hate cult's misogyny, racism and bigotry.

Wouldn't you?

Admit it-- you would, if you could.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213823 Feb 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nugent also called Obama a chimpanzee.
Just as you called three black kids monkeys.
Racism, pure and simple.
Indeed he is-- and a wife beater, a pedophile too.

He has accidentally admitted to all of these and worse...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213824 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, obviously, they do.
If you disagree with the legal opinion of every federal judge to hear the case so far, maybe you can provide a better legal argument that all of the previous lawyers have.
I would love to hear it.
Indeed.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213825 Feb 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Allow me to clear it up a little.
First, you got married.
Next, you hit your six-month-old baby.
Then, you followed up by hitting your wife.
And finally, you walked out on her.
Some Christian you turned out to be.
Yes indeed-- he is a first class monster.

His first wife is much better off without his sh7t. So is the baby (if it even survived his abuse, that is... doubtful)

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#213827 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
For the upteenth time, Buck, yes, there is an equal protection "problem" in denying marriage to same-sex couples.

Will you argue that there's no equal protection problem in anti-miscegenation laws, because no person can marry somebody of another race, and everybody is entitled to marry somebody of their own race?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#213828 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
My boo hoo was a personal comment to the Redneck.

It was a sarcastic comment. He has previously told us that he CAN afford coverage, but has opted not to. Instead, it seems he prefers to spend his money on cigarettes and beer.

Leaving his entire family without coverage.

Do you have health insurance?

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213829 Feb 21, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Look I am not the one who is imposing on anybody for any reason. I am simply pointing out it is those who are advocating for SSM as imposing. SSM can and is opposed for both religious and non religious reasons. It depends on what part of the country you are in. I am in the North-West..I work mostly with non Christian men and I can think of possibly one who would possibly support SSM. The rest despise the idea and these are not republicans. They are working class union members. So there is a divide in the country.
I am well aware of the reasoning behind those that oppose SSM.
What I am saying is none of them are valid legal arguments.

There are two basic reasons.
1) My religion says it is wrong.
2) "They" disgust me (almost always due to how homosexuals have sex).

As a white heterosexual married male (yep, that's me) I can't remember one time I have pictured two men having sex. Lesbians on the other hand, they're hot.

Yet, those opposed to SSM on non-religious grounds seem to spend an awful lot of time thinking about it.

What I have found from my studies of this issue is that if you know a homosexual person personally (friend, neighbor, relative) you are much more likely to think of them as real adults deserving of the same rights and protections afforded to me.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213830 Feb 21, 2014
scaritual wrote:
You said your deity created it.
So you think the Jesus! passed it on?
*slaps knee*

No. Jesus was about two millennia before AIDS.

I thought you knew.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213831 Feb 21, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for much longer it won't be.
SSM is a **religious** idea-- strictly and without any other argument possible.
And one religion is illegal to be promoted above the others.
Even within your own hideous cult (Genuine Christianity™) there are factions who not only allow same sex marriage, but openly embrace the practice.
So you cannot even claim solidarity among christians for your hate and bigotry, here.
Sorry, Blob. Your incoherence is not a cover for your stupidity.

You say SSM is a religious idea, and illegal to promote. But you are also arguing against its banning. So which is it?

Pick a coherent idea and stick with it, Blob.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213832 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
7 billion people and you are worried about extinction due to 10% of the population not having children?
No, I am not worried about extinction, I just wrote it is not impossible.
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.
I think most would assume orphanages are terrible places for children. I do not assume that. Would prefer a stable orphanage to a home with a same sex couple.
Not really sure why you feel imposed upon.
SSM is wrong objectively.
How does someone else having the ability to marry change your ability to marry or your marriage in any way?
They can marry or they can live together. Nobody cares what they do in their homes all that much. They just cannot marry in my state. There is a line there. We do not want it. Forgot the context of the rest of your post. Let me ask you something. If you have children or perhaps some day you will. Are you OK with having your offspring being taught SSM is the equal to opposite marriage? What about a transvestite teachers in say middle schools? As adult role models for your children?

]

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213833 Feb 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
For the upteenth time, Buck, yes, there is an equal protection "problem" in denying marriage to same-sex couples.
Will you argue that there's no equal protection problem in anti-miscegenation laws, because no person can marry somebody of another race, and everybody is entitled to marry somebody of their own race?
To the Buckster?

The only "problem" exists whenever he doesn't agree with it...

... yes, his ego really is that huge.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213834 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
He thinks he's excused from giving me the boo hoo because he dislikes me.

I suppose according to his standards, "everyone can have health coverage" only applies to those he likes.

He's a perfect example of the hate-filled liberal.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213835 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
Hey look at that.

"recognized religiously"

Go figure.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213836 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Blob..
I do not talk to wife beaters or pedophiles -- and you are both-- you've admitted as much.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Stilgar Fifrawi 828,649
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min Regina 584,364
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 8 min dollarsbill 3,550
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 10 min Neelakaran 6,300
chat with demi lovato 112 (the real official de... (Jan '09) 37 min Naveen2015 1,918
Israel End is Near 38 min Someone 66
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr AntiqueAnnie 611,869
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr ChristineM 442,876
More from around the web