Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239337 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#133857 Oct 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh, you're so sweet.
Careful! I called a dude "sweet" & now he calls me a colset(sic) gay...

;)

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#133858 Oct 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It's amazing that he does it, hey? What mental disorder would drive a person to such incredible lengths?
Assholism

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#133859 Oct 29, 2012
Bob wrote:
Psalm 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
And the evil ones say "I speak for God.".

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#133860 Oct 29, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Practicing medicine without a license again?
Isnít that illegal?
Most states do not require a license to practice a variety of psychological therapies.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#133861 Oct 29, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>It's obvious the gay agenda has claimed yet another nubile young female for their devious plans. Will the evil machinations of the homosexuals never end? They indoctrinated you, after all, what could be more appealing than having a sexual orientation that the majority of society looks down upon?
Please give the verses that specifically mention lesbianism.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#133862 Oct 29, 2012
That logic is equivalent to claiming that it's ok to bar marriage between whites and non-whites on the basis that whites and non-whites have the "equal" right to marry someone from their same category. Nope, the USSC didn't buy that logic either.
Judge Moniters wrote:
Oh, the lame gay Loving case, which said nothing about same sex marriage
It said something about *marriage*, however, and the takeaway lesson is that states don't get to create arbitrary rules for marriage (such as ones based upon discrimination).
Judge Moniters wrote:
sorry in Oklahoma SCOTUS upheld the ban on same sex marriage, using the 14th Amendment.
SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet on same-sex marriage. I guess you missed that. And the last time I checked, SCOTUS was in DC, not in Oklahoma.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#133863 Oct 29, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
atheists begin with the premise of 'no God'
I'm an atheist, and I don't begin with that premise. I guess you're wrong.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#133864 Oct 29, 2012
Sexual orientation and race are two human categories that have some things in common. In particular, people have discriminated, by law and government policy, against certain people in those categories.
Judge Moniters wrote:
The is nothing in common with sexual orientation and race. Are you claiming the pedophiles are common to whites?
No, I'm saying that sexual orientation is analogous to race in that gays have suffered some forms of legal discrimination just as blacks have suffered some forms of legal discrimination.
Judge Moniters wrote:
Present the law and government policies which discriminate against the behavior commonly known as homosexuality.
Most of these have already been repealed, such as laws against same-sex behavior between consenting adults, and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies. The major one remaining is the discrimination against same-sex marriage.
Judge Moniters wrote:
Also, race and sex are suspect classes but the behavior of homosexuality is not.
If sex (gender) is a suspect class, then laws barring same-sex marriage discriminate on the basis of a suspect class (since Mary can marry John but can't marry Joan merely because of Mary's sex).

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#133865 Oct 29, 2012
No, the burden of proof falls upon the person who made the initial claim, and that burden has not yet been met. The initial claim is that the ratio of straights to gays (given as 20 to 1) is somehow relevant to the percentage of pedophiles who prey upon male victims. No such relevancy was provided. So the burden is still not met.
<quoted text>
No such study was presented.
Judge Moniters wrote:
That burden is on you, since you refuted the claim with your opinion.
No, I refuted the claim by pointing out that you had failed to make a supported case that "homosexual pedophiles" were actually gay (you know, the ones you're referring to in that 20 to 1 ratio?). I'm still waiting for you to meet your burden on that claim.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#133866 Oct 29, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
Any positive mutation will not be passed on if procreation does not occur.
It will be passed on if it is carried by siblings but not expressed by them.

Basic evolution. Hard fact.(Ever heard of hemophilia, as an example?)
Dave Nelson wrote:
Recruitment is usually done of adolescent boys with raging hormones being seduced and then told they are queer.
Let us know when you produce a study of gay males that says that they weren't gay until they were "recruited".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#133867 Oct 29, 2012
Nope, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that homosexuality is a disorder.
<quoted text>
What evidence was that? Identify that evidence.
Judge Moniters wrote:
Wrong, the burden is on the gays who made the claim for the removal and reversal.
No, the burden falls upon those who claim that it is a disorder. If they fail to meet that burden, then it obviously doesn't belong in the DSM.

Got any evidence to support the "disorder" claim? No, I didn't think you did.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#133868 Oct 29, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You have just ventured into the realm of pure absurdity. Based on your logic, heterosexuals, should they choose to have sex with an animal, would have a preference toward the opposite sex. Do you really think that's how it works?
Amusing. You reveal a lot about yourself with that one.

A female, gay or straight, would require the proper apparatus on the animal to get any physical stimulation from it. Not too many animals they can count on to give them a satisfactory cunnilingus session.

A straight male would be interested in available orifices, the first instinct being the one designed for such use. Less teeth, and the tail wouldn't be so much in the way.

This would require an animal of the opposite sex.

Now, Timmy and his gay buddies can go with either sex. All they have to do is lift that tail and have at that universal orifice they consider a sex organ. Don't even have to lift the tail with their buddies.

You guys are nasty.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#133869 Oct 29, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful! I called a dude "sweet" & now he calls me a colset(sic) gay...
;)
Boblbalblhba or whatever his name is just likes to hate people. I don't really care what he thinks of me :)
:)
:)

And, RR, you're not gay.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#133870 Oct 29, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Amusing. You reveal a lot about yourself with that one.
A female, gay or straight, would require the proper apparatus on the animal to get any physical stimulation from it. Not too many animals they can count on to give them a satisfactory cunnilingus session.
A straight male would be interested in available orifices, the first instinct being the one designed for such use. Less teeth, and the tail wouldn't be so much in the way.
This would require an animal of the opposite sex.
Now, Timmy and his gay buddies can go with either sex. All they have to do is lift that tail and have at that universal orifice they consider a sex organ. Don't even have to lift the tail with their buddies.
You guys are nasty.
Chimpanzees and bonobos both do oral sex (and everything else, barring S&M). Macaques females do mounted genital rubbing - so do birds, actually.

Once again, you've expressed gross ignorance.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#133871 Oct 29, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Amusing. You reveal a lot about yourself with that one.
A female, gay or straight, would require the proper apparatus on the animal to get any physical stimulation from it. Not too many animals they can count on to give them a satisfactory cunnilingus session.
A straight male would be interested in available orifices, the first instinct being the one designed for such use. Less teeth, and the tail wouldn't be so much in the way.
This would require an animal of the opposite sex.
Now, Timmy and his gay buddies can go with either sex. All they have to do is lift that tail and have at that universal orifice they consider a sex organ. Don't even have to lift the tail with their buddies.
You guys are nasty.
Obsessed much, Dave?

Try to get it out of your mind. Think of magnets, em, table saws.

Or take a cold shower.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#133872 Oct 29, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Assholism
hahaha!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#133873 Oct 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>And no evidence has been presented that homosexual orientation is a "disorder".

The burden of proof is on the person claiming that homosexual orientation (there is no evidence that it's a "choice") is a "disorder".

Got any such evidence?

No, I didn't think so.
Judge monitors is a hypocritical moron.

Nothing will penetrate that thick skull of his.

He just needs to spew hatred for gays because he gets a stiffy whenever he sees a good looking guy.

Probably never showered after gym class, either.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#133874 Oct 29, 2012
Judge Moniters wrote:
BY the way, that was in the DSM-IV, page 678 I believe.
Page 678 is about medication-induced movement disorders.

Care to try again?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#133875 Oct 29, 2012
Judge Moniters wrote:
Zen Master Doc wrote:
and the DSM records that 75% of GID children grow up to be homosexual.
It was the DSM-IV, page 678, I believe.
Nope.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#133876 Oct 29, 2012
The claim at issue isn't merely that the ratio of straights to gays is 20 to 1, but that the ratio "is somehow relevant to the percentage of pedophiles who prey upon male victims."
<quoted text>
What study?
Judge Moniters wrote:
Try to read properly, the 20 to 1 ratio came from a study and it was presented at least three times.
Try to read properly, the 20 to 1 ratio of straights to gays isn't the issue.

Now, demonstrate how the 20 to 1 ratio of straights to gays (adults attracted to other adults) is relevant to the sexual preferences of pedophiles. That's the claim that I am challenging, and for which you have produced no evidence.

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 It aint necessari... 839,583
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min June VanDerMark 590,551
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 4 min dollarsbill 4,533
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 7 min Jac 100,059
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 12 min evil follows 2,420
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 20 min raje 112
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 29 min Aura Mytha 271,378
More from around the web