Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257121 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.

LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#161441 Mar 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so stupid. You can't see sarcasm, can you?
My wife isn't fat, she's 5'7", 153 lbs, blonde hair, hazel eyes. She's a knockout, to me anyway. I live in a home on one acre, I have 2 kids, 2 dogs, 3 cats, 2 horses & an African Gray parrot. I have 3 vehicles, a truck, a car & an SUV. I live in a modest home that we are happy with, just 1200 sq ft, but our yard is enormous and that's just what we want - little house, big yard. I also have a 850 sq ft garage with drive thru doors (front and back), rv parking, two sliding gates (yard is 100% fenced & private) and a well in the backyard. My kids are very smart, they're both above a 3.5 GPA and are on the honor roll at a school.
My life is great, for me.
I'm sorry that yours is so miserable to seek to project your anger on an anonymous website under an anonymous name...
If your kids are smart, then bring your little boys here so I can do them in. They can pull nothing off here.

Kids who were spanked were found to have a lower IQ.
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#161442 Mar 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure have a warped view of religion.
A god thing, and I noticed you capitalized god, helps give one a sense of humility, and lessens false egos. A good thing when lots of people have to live together.
Blow one note per second on your trumpet. One for each person in the world now. Take a long breath, as you will do that nonstop for over 220 years.
It's kinda stupid and vain to believe you are better than all of them, or that you got where you got strictly on your own.
You are kinda mad. I have enough of a conscience, and self conviction, I don't need some silly little boy in the sky who calls himself God to tell me off.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#161443 Mar 21, 2013
LargeLanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
You are kinda mad. I have enough of a conscience, and self conviction, I don't need some silly little boy in the sky who calls himself God to tell me off.
?

That wasn't written to you. But it must have struck a chord in you, the shoe fit, or something like that.

I'm sure you are full of self conviction.
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#161444 Mar 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Group marriage should be allowed if same sex is. However, all of these are basically incorporations for economic and social advantage. They can all get out of hand and into the clan sort of thing.
Another interesting article about marriage and children.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/new-report-re...
Always rely on the good olde BuyBull for marriage advice!
God wouldn't lie would she???

Man + Woman (Nuclear Family, Monogamous, heterosexual marriage)

What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history. Genesis 2:24

Man + Women (Polygamy)

Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife. For example, Jacob had 2 wives and fathered 13 children. This is rarely spoken about when the subject of marriage and the bible is debated! Genesis 4:19
Esau (3 wives), Gideon (many), Solomon (700)

Man + Brother’s Widow (Levirate Marriage)

When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan. Genesis 38:6-10

Man + Wives + Concubines

A man could have one or more wives and any number of concubines. The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. Genesis 20:10 To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine Judges 19:1-30.
Abraham (2 concubines), Solomon (300)

Rapist + Victim

If a man raped a woman and she wasn’t married, she would be forced to marry him. A man could rape any woman that he liked and they would be considered married. The draw back? For the man OF COURSE! He could not divorce her!! Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Man + Woman + Woman’s Property

If a woman was “married” and infertile, she could give her property, her slave, to her husband as a wife. This is also referred to as the famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham, Genesis 16:1-6, and Jacob, Genesis 30:4-5.

Male Soldier + Prisoner of War

As with many wars, women become the property of the victor. And that is how it was in biblical times. Female captives were forced to submit to their male captors, usually by force, RAPE. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 and Numbers 31:1-18

Male Slave + Female Slave

An owner could order a female slave to “marry” a male slave without any input from the female. The consummation of this “union” usually involved rape. Exodus 21:4

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161445 Mar 21, 2013
LargeLanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
If your kids are smart, then bring your little boys here so I can do them in. They can pull nothing off here.
Kids who were spanked were found to have a lower IQ.
"Do them in"??

WTF?!
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#161446 Mar 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I believe the parents are the boss, not the kids. My kids don't question my authority over them.
They do however question me on other things. I like it that they do. I encourage them to. There's plenty of things my kids know that I don't & I respect them for that. For example, my oldest son is a whiz at math and is currently acing his calculus class, I can't help him with his homework, I don't know shit about calculus. My younger son is a whiz on his computer, he can make all kinds of files, forms, art & music on it that I can't. I usually get him to make documents for me.
You're assumptions are getting tiresome.
Last time you said you have nothing to learn from kids, but you have plenty to teach them. Liar!

I am the one who originally stated that even though I'm far from a child even I could learn from them, so you just copied off me, and claim it as your own. Sociopaths tend to mimic like that.
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#161447 Mar 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I believe the parents are the boss, not the kids. My kids don't question my authority over them.
They do however question me on other things. I like it that they do. I encourage them to. There's plenty of things my kids know that I don't & I respect them for that. For example, my oldest son is a whiz at math and is currently acing his calculus class, I can't help him with his homework, I don't know shit about calculus. My younger son is a whiz on his computer, he can make all kinds of files, forms, art & music on it that I can't. I usually get him to make documents for me.
You're assumptions are getting tiresome.
What reasons do you believe in parental authority?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#161448 Mar 21, 2013
Sounds like Dave wants to be a Mormon with all his group marriage talk.

How any sane reasonably intelligent person could attempt to compare equal rights to group marriage?
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Group marriage should be allowed if same sex is. However, all of these are basically incorporations for economic and social advantage. They can all get out of hand and into the clan sort of thing.

Another interesting article about marriage and children.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/new-report-re...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161450 Mar 21, 2013
LargeLanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time you said you have nothing to learn from kids, but you have plenty to teach them. Liar!
I am the one who originally stated that even though I'm far from a child even I could learn from them, so you just copied off me, and claim it as your own. Sociopaths tend to mimic like that.
That topic was "learn to laugh from kids", dumb ass.

You and Koder are strange that you're older than kids but haven't learned how to laugh yet.

It shows in your posts.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161451 Mar 21, 2013
LargeLanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
What reasons do you believe in parental authority?
Parental authority

Parental authority can be defined as the ensemble of rights and powers that the law accords to the father and the mother with respect to the person and the goods of their unemancipated minor children, to the end of their accomplishing the duties of protection, education, and support that are incumbent on them. In a lot of cases, the parental authority is given to the father. In a perspective of eradication of gender discrimination, the parental authority should be equally shared by the two parents, without any gender disctinction.

Definition by the European Commission

All children need to be looked after and cared for. In most cases, the children's parents are responsible for this. This is why the term “parental responsibility” is used to describe the duties and rights to take care of a child. The concept “parental responsibility” covers the duties and rights to take care of the child's person and property. This includes a responsibility to ensure that the child has shelter, food and clothes as well as a responsibility for the child's upbringing. It also includes the right to represent the child legally.

The persons having parental responsibility of a child can be referred to as “holders of parental responsibility”. In most cases, the parents of the child have this responsibility. However, if the parents are deceased or no longer capable or authorized to take care of their child, a guardian can be appointed to represent the child. The guardian can be a relative, a third person or an institution.

As long as the parents live together, they usually exercise the parental responsibility over their children jointly according to the law. However, if the parents divorce or split up, they need to decide how this responsibility will be exercised in the future. The parents may decide that the child shall live alternatively with both parents or with one parent. In the latter case, the other parent usually has a right to visit the child at certain times. The parents may decide these matters by a mutual agreement or by going to court.

When a court is used, it decides which parent shall have the custody rights over the child. The custody holder decides, among other things, where the child shall live. The court may decide that both parents shall have custody over the child (joint custody) or that one of the parents shall have custody (single custody). When one of the parents is granted single custody, the other parent is often granted the right to see the child during certain periods (access rights or visiting rights.)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#161452 Mar 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Uh huh. Space just expanded.

Did it expand from within, or from without? Meaning, did the singularity push outward, or did a vacuum sort of thingy pull it out into volume?

Your magical mist of hot stuff had to travel out with it, so something was faster than light. Light was created, or channeled by the event.

Interesting thing about that rather rapid expansion of that hot stuff. There was nothing to cool it off. You can only lose heat via light in space. Yet it condensed into matter. They really could come up with better descriptions of how this all happened. Give Topix atheists something to think about, and not just buzzwords for them to use.

Oh, I'm sorry. I said think and Topix atheist in the same sentence. Talk about fairy tales.
The expansion itself cooled it off.

Ferchrissakes, Dave.

Open a science book.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#161453 Mar 21, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>We hear a lot about “biblical marriage” these days, particular from right-wing conservatives battling the idea of same sex marriage or unions. The problem is that most of them are not clear on what that means. Here is a helpful article on the types of marriage found in the pages of the bible.

The important thing for conservatives to realize here is that none of these models are described as being any better than any other. They all appear to have been accepted throughout the bible.

So there you go. The next time someone opposed to gay marriage says that we need to stick with traditional biblical marriage in this country, you can ask them which of the eight kinds they would prefer, and why.

This one is much better and TRUE!

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/08/biblical-marr...

"Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself
the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice
and the exercise of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument,a thing".
~Archibald Macleish
I actually had some guy in the politix forum say that he wasn't opposed to gay marriage, but before it was legalized all of the dictionaries should be changed first.

Almost made Dave look smart.

Almost.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#161454 Mar 21, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The expansion itself cooled it off.
Ferchrissakes, Dave.
Open a science book.
The heat would then have to be absorbed into the newly created particles. No where else for it to go. "Space" doesn't hold or conduct heat.

A bundle of energy became fragmented and channeled. Light is a heat exchanger.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Use some common sense.
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#161455 Mar 21, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually had some guy in the politix forum say that he wasn't opposed to gay marriage, but before it was legalized all of the dictionaries should be changed first.
Almost made Dave look smart.
Almost.
DAVID warrants amusement only.
His/Her hobby is endless computer chat via Topix.
He craves attention and this is supplied 'in spades' by Non-Believers.

The strangest posters usually draw the most attention - why, I have no idea?

FACTS remain the Achilles Heel of 'faith'.

Old News!

December 29, 2010
Near-Record High See Religion Losing Influence in America
Current 70% nears all-time high of 75% recorded in 1970

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145409/Near-Record...
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#161456 Mar 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That topic was "learn to laugh from kids", dumb ass.
You and Koder are strange that you're older than kids but haven't learned how to laugh yet.
It shows in your posts.
You are very childish. You said, "but seriously, she is 39, and she doesn't know how to laugh?". Obviously she was not being literal.

And no, you said it in general, liar.
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#161457 Mar 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Parental authority
Parental authority can be defined as the ensemble of rights and powers that the law accords to the father and the mother with respect to the person and the goods of their unemancipated minor children, to the end of their accomplishing the duties of protection, education, and support that are incumbent on them. In a lot of cases, the parental authority is given to the father. In a perspective of eradication of gender discrimination, the parental authority should be equally shared by the two parents, without any gender disctinction.
Definition by the European Commission
All children need to be looked after and cared for. In most cases, the children's parents are responsible for this. This is why the term “parental responsibility” is used to describe the duties and rights to take care of a child. The concept “parental responsibility” covers the duties and rights to take care of the child's person and property. This includes a responsibility to ensure that the child has shelter, food and clothes as well as a responsibility for the child's upbringing. It also includes the right to represent the child legally.
The persons having parental responsibility of a child can be referred to as “holders of parental responsibility”. In most cases, the parents of the child have this responsibility. However, if the parents are deceased or no longer capable or authorized to take care of their child, a guardian can be appointed to represent the child. The guardian can be a relative, a third person or an institution.
As long as the parents live together, they usually exercise the parental responsibility over their children jointly according to the law. However, if the parents divorce or split up, they need to decide how this responsibility will be exercised in the future. The parents may decide that the child shall live alternatively with both parents or with one parent. In the latter case, the other parent usually has a right to visit the child at certain times. The parents may decide these matters by a mutual agreement or by going to court.
When a court is used, it decides which parent shall have the custody rights over the child. The custody holder decides, among other things, where the child shall live. The court may decide that both parents shall have custody over the child (joint custody) or that one of the parents shall have custody (single custody). When one of the parents is granted single custody, the other parent is often granted the right to see the child during certain periods (access rights or visiting rights.)
Right. Exactly what reason though do you have to use authority in that way?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161458 Mar 21, 2013
LargeLanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Exactly what reason though do you have to use authority in that way?
I am their father. Nothing else is required.
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#161459 Mar 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I am their father. Nothing else is required.
Why because you are their father? That is a strong statement, I suppose you need to back it up.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#161460 Mar 21, 2013
sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous
/?saNG(k)t?'mone?s/
Adjective
derogatory. Making a show of being morally superior to other people.

A trait Topix atheists possess in abundance.

Where they get it from is anyone's guess.

Maybe it is a package deal with their being as*holes?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#161461 Mar 21, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking to The Dave Nelson.
Did you have to use *designers* in that post?
Didn't have to use it... but, had no reason to not use it. What was being discussed merited use of the word. There are things that are designed. We know they're designed. We designed them.

My vocabulary is limited enough as it is. I'm not going further limit it due to another's nitpicking of various words it includes... and Dave didn't do that anyway... this time, with me.

=)

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
bored 1 min hotasianpussy 1
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min Toby 70,075
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min RoSesz 658,392
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Toby 974,623
hello guys 12 min hotasianpussy 1
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 18 min Internet Reality 45,572
Why are Mexicans trash? (Apr '10) 22 min El Chapo 142
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Brian_G 282,869
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 2 hr lightbeamrider 4,931
More from around the web