Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 238949 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.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#213935 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.
Smirk.
http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg601/sca...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#213936 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes. It's amazing being asked to justify rejecting such a resource to anybody.
"Hezekiah’s sundial movement" - Ouch! I'll bet that crapping out a sundial caused some bleeding.
Laffin.

Well, yes, if the gnomon was mounted...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#213937 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
One reason I don't lie is, why bother?
Bizackly.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213938 Feb 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Ensure coverage? There are 30 million uninsured. The CBO says after 10 years of Obamacare, there will be...31 million uninsured. 50% of those presently uninsured are uninsured by choice. The result is coverage is not provided for everyone, half of those added to coverage did not want it, and the cost to those paying for coverage skyrockets. Only a liberal could devise such an absurd, transparent wealth transfer.
The language of Obamacare, which is now statute, specifies when the mandates begin. It is restrictive language, not permissive language. It is written as "MUST", not "MAY". Obama changed that. How does that square with your Constitution and Separation of Powers? Are you aware that the President cannot legislate law? Do you recall when the government shutdown over de-funding or delaying Obamacare, Obama and all the dems shouted, "IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND !!!" Guess it wasn't, huh? You Obama voters need to apologize and make restitution. My health insurance went up $700 a month because of ACA. Are you going to start sending me a check each month, or what?
I've been put of the loop for awhile and more or less missed the entire debate on this issue. It sounds to me that what America needed was a public option or publicly funded health care, not a plan that fails to adequately address the problem of millions of uninsured people while raising premiums for millions of others like you. Do you know why you don't have either of those? Didn't Obama think of that?

Hey - it wasn't a total loss for everybody. Thirty million uninsured Americans might go under, but it sounds like the health insurance industry did well.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213939 Feb 22, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Yeah and sex does not require intimacy nor does intimacy require sex. If there is to be offspring marriage is overall the best if child rights are involved. Marriage is basically a license to have children. Children optional between male and female. Children biologically impossible between male and male or female and female. <quoted text> BS.. They are not equal. OSM generally means offspring which is a real family unit and in line with compatible reproductive organs which are there for a reason. SSM is non compatible with physical make-up and never naturally produces children. That means they are no way in hell equal.
Your vision of marriage and family are totally irrelevant to people like me and my wife. She and I are a family. I had already had a vasectomy when we got married in 1990. For us, marriage is a psychological, social and legal arrangement that makes our lives better. It is how we formally committed ourselves to one another, which cemented the relationship in both of our minds. It also raises our social status. And it also give us various legal protections.

I think that I would want all of that if we were a gay couple, too.

Incidentally, our friends John and Earl that I mentioned a few weeks ago are flying to San Jose, California next moth to get legally married after over forty years together in a loving relationship, and they are overflowing with pride and joy. It would fill your heart to see.

Besides the satisfaction of publicly committing themselves and their family being acknowledged as a family by their culture, Earl was explaining to me how important it was to them for legal reasons - something to do with Social Security benefits.

This issue can serve as a litmus test for me. Anybody who objects to such a thing for no better reason than faith in ancient superstitions isn't fully human to me. Anybody who would object to that doesn't deserve respect or consideration. And any institution that would teach people to think like that should be hated, resisted and harshly criticized.

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213940 Feb 22, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
If you want to redefine marriage between man and woman to two persons then the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Prove what to whom? We're simply doing it - redefining legal marriage. Did you need proof that it is happening?
lightbeamrider wrote:
People are physically hetero.
People are (usually) physically male or female. They are psychologically on a hetero-bi-homosexual spectrum.
lightbeamrider wrote:
One of the worst things we can do as a nation is to further corrupt children and deny them their God given rights.
One of the worst things you can do to children is to indoctrinate them into religion. I see a time in the future when religion will be treated like cigarettes and pornography - not legal for young people under a certain age.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213941 Feb 22, 2014
cup of coffee wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you are a topix moderator.
Quaalude Bob?

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/287/6/...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1Ju919adbQI/UFtd777...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213942 Feb 22, 2014
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.
Good to know that you feel that way. Right now, they seem to want to define legal marriage differently.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213943 Feb 22, 2014
KiMare wrote:
couples who choose not to procreate most often change their minds.
Last I checked, ss couples NEVER mutually procreate! They even fail at the defect level for marriage!!! SMirk.
Enough with the procreating already. I support zero population growth.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213944 Feb 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Such compassion. Such caring. So much for your "coverage for everyone" lie. You're caught red-handed again, counselor.
Did you support universal coverage? If not, what compassion were you hoping for?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213945 Feb 22, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
SSM is anti science, anti evolution and anti Christian.
Science (including evolutionary science) has no opinion about marriage.

Evolution gave us sexuality including homosexuality

And if "anti-Christian" doesn't even matter to a lot of Christians, you can imagine how little it matters to the rest of us. We not only don't care what you believe Jesus thinks, it your church tries to impose it on us, it makes itself an enemy of religious freedom and a legitimate target.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213946 Feb 22, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That too.
These Genuine Christians™ seem to be a sour lot, and really hate it when non-christians are happy.
Then why do you gay atheists get so upset when I smile?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213947 Feb 22, 2014
scaritual wrote:
Troll concession.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213948 Feb 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough with the procreating already. I support zero population growth.
Gay troll concession.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213949 Feb 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you looking for me to contradict this? I sleep in or go out to breakfast. You put on a tie and give your money to frauds. Have a nice weekend.
Atheistic bends knee to Christianity.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213950 Feb 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a wife?
Jealous gay atheist.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213951 Feb 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes. Hell yes I mock you.
<quoted text>
Just you. Are you the Jews?
<quoted text>
Are you trying to provoke me to mock you a second time in one post?
Gay atheist confuses mocking with childish scoffing.

Snicker.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213952 Feb 22, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
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.
You see allowing same sex couple to marry as an imposition on you, but forbidding it is not an imposition on them.

Your faith has made you self-centered. Only your values matter. And things are understood only in terms of how they affect you, even when they don't.

Your religious training has blighted your ability to be compassionate or even fair. How do you think that the rest of us should feel about that? Do you think that we should we want more people raised like that, or fewer?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213953 Feb 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever seen a dentist?
Gay atheist finds one word in a rational response to give a marginally coherent response to.

Snicker.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213954 Feb 22, 2014
NoNoNo. Single elderly seldom get married. There is a marriage penalty for one. They are better off living together. A lot of younger couples do not marry because of finances. Say the female has children and works. She gets child support and huge tax breaks in the earned income tax credit. Her man works also. If they marry they probably forfeit perhaps 1 to 3 grand per years. I don't know for sure how it is now but that is the way it used to beIt is legal and the male female pattern is still thereIf you want to redefine marriage between man and woman to two persons then the burden of proof is on you, not me. Most people when the marry do not know if they are infertile or not but I would say infertile couples does not justify SSM. The hard science indicates compatible reproductive organs are there for a reason. People are physically hetero. Assuming you are female then you have reproductive organs. That means you are physically hetero. That is the hard science. Proper reproduction is important for the continuation of the species. Sure anybody can reproduce and many have children out of wedlock or they divorce and thus deprive the child of their rights. Children have rights to responsible loving mothers and fathers. Two mommies does not equal one daddy. We could legalize a type of SSM in which adoption for these couples would be out and they would not go for it. Yet in Massachusetts Catholic adoption agencies had to shut down because they could not allow children to be adopted to same sex couples. Massachusetts is for all practical purposes the blueprint for SSM in the United States. If you do not mind your tax money being used for sex reassignment surgery for 64 year old man/woman [?] then by all means go ahead. If you do not mind teaching children SSM is as legitimate as OSM then go ahead. Me? One of the worst things we can do as a nation is to further corrupt children and deny them
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Prove what to whom? We're simply doing it - redefining legal marriage. Did you need proof that it is happening?
No. Feigning ignorance is all you are doing. It amazes me you have to resort to these sleaze tactics to try to argue your case and validate your bigotry.
<quoted text>
People are (usually) physically male or female. They are psychologically on a hetero-bi-homosexual spectrum.
People are physically human and psychologically dogs and cats. If they are physically hetero then that would take precedent over psychological. That is the hard science. Reality is not created in the head.
<quoted text>
One of the worst things you can do to children is to indoctrinate them into religion. I see a time in the future when religion will be treated like cigarettes and pornography - not legal for young people under a certain age.
We don't need any updates on your bigotry or the fact you mutilate posts. Your selective responses.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min June VanDerMark 589,360
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 14 min Clearwater 176,760
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 18 min Liam 424
Who will be in the NBA Finals?? 21 min Doctor REALITY 4
E-commerce boom 21 min stephenbrown1 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 21 min It aint necessari... 837,041
REAL Contemporary Instrumental Music!! 37 min Doctor REALITY 30
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr Vinamese 4,083
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 271,264
More from around the web