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

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#223485 Apr 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what you clowns tell us .
http://thecorner.typepad.com/photos/uncategor...
alice

Salmon Arm, Canada

#223486 Apr 6, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just trying to get an idea how deep seated is his hatred for freedom in the United States and how far is he willing to go with it.
you certainly have revealed the shallowness of your philosophy.
He has as much right to his philosophy as you do yours.
You answer your set of questions ---- first...

“Religion kills”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#223487 Apr 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You can't rewrite legend to your liking. The artist interpretation was a hell of a lot closer to the event than your cleansed assumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_%28myth...
Plato...Ganymede, he points out, was the only one of Zeus's lovers who was granted immortality.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
The 2nd-century preacher Clement of Alexandria used divine pederasty as an indictment of Greek religion and the mythological figures of Herakles, Apollo, Poseidon, Laius, and Zeus: "For your gods did not abstain even from boys. One loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymedes.
http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Ganymedes.html
bycus, Fragment 289 (from Scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes)(trans. Campbell, Vol. Greek Lyric III)(Greek lyric C6th B.C.):
"In these lines Apollonios takes over what Ibycus said in his account of the rape of
Ganymede [that he was carried off by a love-smitten Zeus] in his song to Gorgias."
----------
Pederasty, pedophilia and sexual slavery was the norm in pre Christian cultures. Christianity ended a lot of it. In Rome, for example slaves could charge rape. In other words slaves could be raped by their owners with zero consequences.
''For slaves there was no protection under the law even against rape.[50]''
Take away the church and say hello to the sexual pathology and barbarism of ancient Rome and Greece.
Kidnapping and rape go hand in hand unless you are one of them sickos who assume young boys who are kidnapped and at the mercy of their kidnappers can give consent to anal penetration.
Just like you can't rewrite true stories of priests molesting little boys to your liking. Something tells me Christianity hasn't ended much.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#223488 Apr 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya me too, Gorjeeya's cool.
I'm not looking forward to the new Robocop, though. Dunno why, it just doesn't look like a good remake.
Robocop? Hard to care much, but I do wish Topix would improve the roboblogger.

“Religion kills”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#223489 Apr 6, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. It is.
Warren Jeffs (The leader and 'prophet of the FLDS) is in prison for raping a 12 year old girl. The FLDS claims it wasn't rape because they were "married". The FLDS still claims Jeffs is the 'Mouth of God'.
The FLDS claims to be the only "Real Christians"...... sound familiar ?
They'll have to keep him in protection. I know what the other prisoners will do to the sicko, otherwise.

Of course they're "real Xians"
*spits*

“Religion kills”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#223490 Apr 6, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you feel the old style USSR communism is a better government than the United States government based on the US Constitution?
Would you consider yourself Anti-American?
Would you ever consider doing anything to harm or hurt any free American exercising their right to freedom?
You're starting to sound like Joe McCarthy.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#223491 Apr 7, 2014
KiMare'a writes,
<quoted text>
OGosh, you claimed 'religion has never advanced mankind.'
I gave a clear example where a religion LEAD THE WAY thousands of years ahead of science.
Moreover, the Jewish faith has produced and protected the most astounding culture history has recorded.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ ...
You are clearly ignorant, and probably a liar.
O G Kush wrote:
<quoted text>
The slave of organized superstition speaks of ignorance and lies? Too funny!
It's your fantasy world, enjoy it and be happy.
I have zero interest in it.
Your Jewish hero Moses is a wild fabrication.
Egyptian history does not recognize him.
Maybe you can find those commandments underneath the ark, when the ark is found,
OR... Malaysian flight 370?
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/moses...
Your Messiah is a copy of other previous messiahs.
Joseph Smith is the most recent Christian prophet visited by angels. A more recent Moses if you will.
Therefore the book of Mormon is actually the newest part of your Bible - why do so few Christians deny it and refuse to recognize it?
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristiani...
1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.
2) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”.
3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.
4) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.
5) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.
6) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).
Religious extremism is a drug that makes you feel good while it is killing you.
What's the problem, can't address what I do point out, so you change the subject?

You claimed religion NEVER advanced society. I proved otherwise.

Moreover, in YOUR community right now, there are numerous religious groups caring for the needy and every week encouraging honesty, responsibility and love.

All you do is validate 'rational atheist' oxymorons...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#223492 Apr 7, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
Just like you can't rewrite true stories of priests molesting little boys to your liking. Something tells me Christianity hasn't ended much.
So you accuse me of wanting to rewrite stories of priests molesting to justify your revisionism. Is that it? Your the one who putting a happy face on boy rape in ancient cultures. Ignoring the fact pagan deities kidnapped and raped boys. Like Zeus. Demonstrating for all to see your historical ignorance. Lame attempts at revisionist history. Any slave in pre Christian cultures like Rome or Greece could be raped at will and that would probably include children. Want to get rid of the church and go back to the good old days? Stupidity like that is outright dangerous.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#223493 Apr 7, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
So...how long have you had your uterus?
How long have you been a moron?

Whether a human being has a right to live doesn't depend on whether the human being wishing to kill him has a uterus.

What happens to the uterus of female aborted babies? What happens to their reproductive rights?

Why is it you pro-aborts have to invent terms to cover up the truth of what occurs?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#223494 Apr 7, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
Anybody watching Bible Rules on H2?
Pretty interesting.
I watched it. Really interesting.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#223495 Apr 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>How long have you been a moron?

Whether a human being has a right to live doesn't depend on whether the human being wishing to kill him has a uterus.

What happens to the uterus of female aborted babies? What happens to their reproductive rights?

Why is it you pro-aborts have to invent terms to cover up the truth of what occurs?
Like calling us pro abortion?

Nobody I know is pro abortion. We are pro choice, or pro abortion rights.

AFAIC, if you don't have a uterus, you have no voice in the matter.

Why is it that so-called pro lifers (who are really pro birthers, since many of them are also against welfare and food stamps AFTER the baby is born) are not so vocal against boner pills.

After all, not being able to get it up MUST be the "designers" will.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#223496 Apr 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You proved nothing.
I will tell you one more time:
The First Amendment forbids government entanglement with religion.
So has the Supreme Court interpreted the effect of the First Amendment.
Now go ahead--wash, rinse, repeat your pedantic, outdated, technical-language mantra.
But it's a lost cause, even your hero Scalia is in agreement.
"The First Amendment forbids government entanglement with religion."

No, it does no such thing. Let's read the relevant clause together:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

10 words - that's all.

Notice the words missing: "entanglement; "government".

Where did you get those words, Counselor? You didn't get them from the First Amendment. You didn't get them from the debate surrounding its ratification in Congress.

Do you think the authors meant to say "entanglement" and "government" but just forgot?

Do you think they did not know those words and didn't know how to apply them?

No, I think they said exactly what they meant.

In fact, here is proof they said what they meant - exactly as I read it, not as you read it:

James Madison, author of the First Amendment, during DEBATE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE....

Annals of Congress, June 7, 1789:

"The states seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution it enabled Congress to make laws of such a nature as might establish a national religion. Mr. Madison thought if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent".

So the author of the establishment clause agrees with me, and disagrees with you.

Do you have someone on your side of this argument with better insight to the intent of the amendment than the man who debated it and wrote it?

Jousting aside, you know what happened here as well as I do.

The present day church-state law was legislated by the Supreme Court. It was a purely political act, and has no constitutional basis. Further, it is a violation of separation of powers, and an act worthy of prosecution for treason.

You know I am right. You just refuse to admit it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#223497 Apr 7, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Like calling us pro abortion?
Nobody I know is pro abortion. We are pro choice, or pro abortion rights.
AFAIC, if you don't have a uterus, you have no voice in the matter.
Why is it that so-called pro lifers (who are really pro birthers, since many of them are also against welfare and food stamps AFTER the baby is born) are not so vocal against boner pills.
After all, not being able to get it up MUST be the "designers" will.
You are pro-abortion. "Pro choice" is a euphemism invented by a public relations firm.

"if you don't have a uterus, you have no voice in the matter"

Oh? Then you are for repealing Roe v. Wade, right? Supreme Court Justices with no uterus over-turned the abortion laws of all 50 states with their ruling in Roe.

According to you, those justices "have no voice in the matter".

Oh, and another thing. If the person with the uterus is the only one with a voice in the matter, she has no claim to a father's child support, right?

If he has no say in whether the kid pops into the world, how could he have any responsibility?

Oh, and another thing. Does this uterus requirement make it easier for irresponsible men to exploit women, or more difficult?

Are there other instances where you think it is OK to kill a human being by virtue of the human being's location? How about in his mother's arms? Can she kill the human being there? How about during early weeks after birth, when the baby is totally dependent on this person "with a uterus"?

You have a fucked-up moral sense.


Since: May 10

Location hidden

#223498 Apr 7, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>

Why is it that so-called pro lifers (who are really pro birthers, since many of them are also against welfare and food stamps AFTER the baby is born)

Red herring. The laws that prevent someone from killing another person carry no requirement for supporting the person, and are based on the principle of the human being's right to live, not a right to monetary support.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#223499 Apr 7, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:

AFAIC, if you don't have a uterus, you have no voice in the matter.
Right, because the person with the uterus makes the child all her own....
O G Kush

Winter Garden, FL

#223500 Apr 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare'a writes,
<quoted text>
OGosh, you claimed 'religion has never advanced mankind.'
I gave a clear example where a religion LEAD THE WAY thousands of years ahead of science.
Moreover, the Jewish faith has produced and protected the most astounding culture history has recorded.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ ...
You are clearly ignorant, and probably a liar.
<quoted text>
What's the problem, can't address what I do point out, so you change the subject?
You claimed religion NEVER advanced society. I proved otherwise.
Moreover, in YOUR community right now, there are numerous religious groups caring for the needy and every week encouraging honesty, responsibility and love.
All you do is validate 'rational atheist' oxymorons...
You validate 'rational theist' oxymorons and remain a moron.

Addicted to superstition and proud of it.

Do me a favor, if you bother to respond to any more of my posts...

Start each one with the following:

"Once upon a time in a land far far away..."

Since: Sep 10

United States

#223501 Apr 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"The First Amendment forbids government entanglement with religion."
No, it does no such thing. Let's read the relevant clause together:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
10 words - that's all.
Notice the words missing: "entanglement; "government".
Where did you get those words, Counselor? You didn't get them from the First Amendment. You didn't get them from the debate surrounding its ratification in Congress.
Do you think the authors meant to say "entanglement" and "government" but just forgot?
Do you think they did not know those words and didn't know how to apply them?
No, I think they said exactly what they meant.
In fact, here is proof they said what they meant - exactly as I read it, not as you read it:
James Madison, author of the First Amendment, during DEBATE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE....
Annals of Congress, June 7, 1789:
"The states seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution it enabled Congress to make laws of such a nature as might establish a national religion. Mr. Madison thought if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent".
So the author of the establishment clause agrees with me, and disagrees with you.
Do you have someone on your side of this argument with better insight to the intent of the amendment than the man who debated it and wrote it?
Jousting aside, you know what happened here as well as I do.
The present day church-state law was legislated by the Supreme Court. It was a purely political act, and has no constitutional basis. Further, it is a violation of separation of powers, and an act worthy of prosecution for treason.
You know I am right. You just refuse to admit it.
Sorry Buck, but no.

Ironically, I am in San Francisco, lecturing today on Constitutional issues.

I guess that, to you, I will be committing treason.

Wish you were here; a foil would contribute to the discussion.
O G Kush

Winter Garden, FL

#223502 Apr 7, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have some strong opinions against those who exercise their religious freedom. I have asked you several questions and you just ignore them. I would like to ask a few more if you don’t mind.
Do you believe it is acceptable to engage in terrorist acts against those who exercise religious freedom on US soil?
Are you anti-American?
Do you believe the US Government should be overthrown?
Have you ever conspired or participated in hate crimes and or terrorist acts against people of faith on US soil?
Should religious freedom be amended by lethal force in the United States?
Share with us your thoughts please.
Religious freedom as well as freedom from religion should be amended but they won't.

This country's elections amount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

We can no longer ' vote ' our government back to us. We are now "owned" by the rich and powerful.

The multi-billion dollar business of buying and selling political influence must be overthrown, repudiated and thoroughly replaced if democracy is to survive in America.

This massive influence-peddling must become our number one political issue because it underlies and thus greatly affects all other issues.

If we don't get big money out of our politics, our democracy and our standard of living will continue to decline.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#223503 Apr 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:

Sorry Buck, but no.
Ironically, I am in San Francisco, lecturing today on Constitutional issues.
I guess that, to you, I will be committing treason.
Wish you were here; a foil would contribute to the discussion.
Rocco's from San Francisco...

Go figure.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#223504 Apr 7, 2014
O G Kush wrote:
<quoted text>
You validate 'rational theist' oxymorons and remain a moron.
Addicted to superstition and proud of it.
Do me a favor, if you bother to respond to any more of my posts...
Start each one with the following:
"Once upon a time in a land far far away..."
At first I was attempting to educate you. Clearly you reject what is right in front of your face qualifying you not only as a 'rational atheist' oxymoron, but also as a bigot.

If you were a man, you'd admit it.

Smile.

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min truth 545,221
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min Stilgar Fifrawi 744,418
Are Women Intentionally Stupid? 14 min barelyable2 23
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 20 min WasteWater 4,610
3 Word Game (Feb '12) 24 min Kid_Tomorrow 4,250
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 26 min Paul is dead 2,902
4 word game (use same Letter) (Mar '13) 31 min Kid_Tomorrow 1,119
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 43 min Charlie Sheen 260,269
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr mike 601,449
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 8 hr Roberta G 174,213

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE