Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
166,061 - 166,080 of 225,578 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173001
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The situation is grossly different.
She left, returned days later demanded he leave, he would not.
She went to her car and got a gun and demanded he and her children leave. He would not so she fired the gun.
Now you please explain when her life was in danger?
She could have , and should have just left.
This is factually incorrect.

The two had been fighting. He had her in the bathroom, blocking her exit. She managed to push past him into the garage, from which there was no other exit. She shot a warning shot into the air.

She did NOT leave and return days later. Her car was in the garage from which there was no other exit. He refused to leave after she showed him that she had a gun and she made a warning shot into the air.

Now, she was offered a plea deal of 3 years if she plead guilty of aggravated assault, but she believed she did nothing wrong. When she was then convicted, that meant a minimum 20 year sentence.

One of the *big* problems in both this case and the Martin-Zimmerman case is that the injustices were directly from the law being applied as it was designed. In the Zimmerman case, it is too lenient when someone is killed and in the other case, it is too harsh when nobody is killed. Contradictions like this make it clear that the law is NOT being applied fairly and is draconian in many ways.

There are discussions about whether Trayvon Martin smoked pot. Who cares? Seriously, what relevance is there to the matter at hand? if it was a white kid who was having trouble in school and had smoked pot and a black man that shot him, do you really think the results would be the same? I don't.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173002
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is factually incorrect.
The two had been fighting. He had her in the bathroom, blocking her exit. She managed to push past him into the garage, from which there was no other exit. She shot a warning shot into the air.
She did NOT leave and return days later. Her car was in the garage from which there was no other exit. He refused to leave after she showed him that she had a gun and she made a warning shot into the air.
Now, she was offered a plea deal of 3 years if she plead guilty of aggravated assault, but she believed she did nothing wrong. When she was then convicted, that meant a minimum 20 year sentence.
One of the *big* problems in both this case and the Martin-Zimmerman case is that the injustices were directly from the law being applied as it was designed. In the Zimmerman case, it is too lenient when someone is killed and in the other case, it is too harsh when nobody is killed. Contradictions like this make it clear that the law is NOT being applied fairly and is draconian in many ways.
There are discussions about whether Trayvon Martin smoked pot. Who cares? Seriously, what relevance is there to the matter at hand? if it was a white kid who was having trouble in school and had smoked pot and a black man that shot him, do you really think the results would be the same? I don't.

Asides the fact garages have two exits.
I have a different story, she was estranged and had been living elsewhere. The key feature is that she in fact could have left after pushing him out the way. Instead she retrieved the gun and reentered the house. Firing the gun a further demanding he leave.
This is in contrast to how you are telling it.

Here is the story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173003
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is factually incorrect.
The two had been fighting. He had her in the bathroom, blocking her exit. She managed to push past him into the garage, from which there was no other exit. She shot a warning shot into the air.
She did NOT leave and return days later. Her car was in the garage from which there was no other exit. He refused to leave after she showed him that she had a gun and she made a warning shot into the air.
Now, she was offered a plea deal of 3 years if she plead guilty of aggravated assault, but she believed she did nothing wrong. When she was then convicted, that meant a minimum 20 year sentence.
One of the *big* problems in both this case and the Martin-Zimmerman case is that the injustices were directly from the law being applied as it was designed. In the Zimmerman case, it is too lenient when someone is killed and in the other case, it is too harsh when nobody is killed. Contradictions like this make it clear that the law is NOT being applied fairly and is draconian in many ways.
There are discussions about whether Trayvon Martin smoked pot. Who cares? Seriously, what relevance is there to the matter at hand? if it was a white kid who was having trouble in school and had smoked pot and a black man that shot him, do you really think the results would be the same? I don't.

Out of curiosity I looked to find more of the story, or a different version. I found this...

Here is where things get messy. According to Alexander, she went to the garage to flee Gray, who was threatening her. So why did she go back into the house? Alexander has been less than consistent on this point. She has claimed that the garage door would not open, forcing her back inside, and also that she had forgotten her keys in the house. In either case, she grabbed her handgun from the glove compartment (the gun was legal, and Alexander had a concealed-carry permit) and went back inside.

Gray’s account aligns with this — and adds a bit of color. Gray says that just before heading into the garage, Alexander told him,“I got something for your ass.” When she came back in with the gun, he put his hands in the air. After the shot, he fled out the front door with his sons and called 911.“She said she’s ‘sick of this sh*t,’” he told the dispatcher.“She shot at me, inside the house, while my boys were standing right next to me. Lord have mercy.” Alexander never called the police.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173004
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Oops I forgot the link.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354178/...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173005
Jul 26, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of curiosity I looked to find more of the story, or a different version. I found this...
Here is where things get messy. According to Alexander, she went to the garage to flee Gray, who was threatening her. So why did she go back into the house? Alexander has been less than consistent on this point. She has claimed that the garage door would not open, forcing her back inside, and also that she had forgotten her keys in the house. In either case, she grabbed her handgun from the glove compartment (the gun was legal, and Alexander had a concealed-carry permit) and went back inside.
Gray’s account aligns with this — and adds a bit of color. Gray says that just before heading into the garage, Alexander told him,“I got something for your ass.” When she came back in with the gun, he put his hands in the air. After the shot, he fled out the front door with his sons and called 911.“She said she’s ‘sick of this sh*t,’” he told the dispatcher.“She shot at me, inside the house, while my boys were standing right next to me. Lord have mercy.” Alexander never called the police.
And she got 20 years for that.

Do you think that's an appropriate penalty?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173006
Jul 26, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And she got 20 years for that.
Do you think that's an appropriate penalty?
No I don't, the point is the 10-20-25 law is what was messed up.
It was supposed to target bank robbers or burglars not housewives.
Automatic 10 for using a gun in a crime
Automatic 20 for discharging a firearm during a crime.
Automatic 25 to life for shooting someone during a crime.
They need to change that law, because it does seem harsh in her case.

I think it is a double edged sword here, if you pull a gun and shoot at or shoot someone, you better be sure you're in the right. huh? To be honest even the 10 years seems harsh for just shooting a gun and not hitting anyone.

A guy in my town shot a man on his front porch, it was considered manslaughter and he only got 7 years.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173007
Jul 26, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
What about the scripture that says he was born in Mary and Joseph's house in Nazareth? Their house wasn't a manger over 100 miles away was it? No it couldn't be because they were traveling away from home... A city Nazareth that didn't exist until well into the second century... Cough... Cough...
Wrong as usual I see.:))

http://www.nazareth-israel.com/nazarteh-histo...

There was no scripture that says Jesus was born in the home of Mary and Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. You know, the one just down the road; right?
Givemeliberty wrote:
Thanks for changing sock puppets and dancing at my command as soon as I returned...
I see you still have a bad habit of making A PRIORI ASSUMPTIONS and of giving yourself way too much credit for such small achievements. Oh, and I don't need any socks. I'm sitting barefoot by the hotel pool sipping on a Long Island Iced Tea. Ah the joys of wi-fi.:))
Givemeliberty wrote:
You said you were leaving for vacation about 23 hours ago. So nice to catch you in another lie.
Yes I did say I was going on vacation. I didn't say when I was leaving my house for our vacation getaway. I didn't realize I needed your permission. I didn't know you were that important. You're a legend in your own mind aren't ya?
Givemeliberty wrote:
BUSTED!:))
Said the blind Keystone Cop to the park bench after pulling it over for speeding.:))

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173008
Jul 26, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No they aren't Bob, the woman was not pinned to the ground and could have simply left. She gave up the house and children for a week before returning and demanding he leave. The two cases aren't even vaguely similar. If Zimmerman had left and returned with a gun , and had not been pinned to the ground he would have been guilty.
If either of those things would have happened or not happened Zimmerman would have been guilty.
The horrid way the SYG law is written?

THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

It is why SYG is an abominable law-- it FORCES the judicial system to make choices.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173009
Jul 26, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You seem to be mistaken here also Bob, Zimmerman did not invoke a stand your ground stance. His status in his case was simply self defense. You have to be on your own property , or very close to it to use the stand your ground defense.
He followed an unarmed kid, then shot him dead? How on earth was that "self defense"?

If the SYG was **not** his escape clause? Then there was a gross violation of justice-- he murdered an unarmed kid in cold blood.

Premeditated murder, as he had to chase him down to do it.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173010
Jul 26, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>SYG laws vary from state to state. Here in FL, one may legitimately use deadly force anywhere one perceives a deadly threat.
Which is why it should have applied to the black woman's case.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173011
Jul 26, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>In some states, used to be prominently NJ and IL, one was obliged by law to exhaust all other options, including fleeing, before resorting to actual defence. Even in one's own home.
These were colloquially called "back-to-the-wall" states, in that force was unlawful unless one's back was literally against a wall, and no other options were available.
Then there were "castle doctrine" laws, which stated, "okay, he's in your house. You don't have to run away or hide under the bed to escape some intruder in your own home".
And then there are SYG laws. These state that if a "reasonable" person - that's the language in most cases - feels that he's under threat of felony assault, death, or severe bodily harm to himself or another, he does NOT have a duty to run away screaming. He can respond, even in the street, with an appropriate, even deadly, level of response.
Twenty-six US states have some level of either "Castle Doctrine" or SYG laws in place.
Here in Oklahomer? It's a "castle" thingy. You cannot simply shoot someone in your yard, especially if he's running away.

But you can, if he enters your house-- he does not need to be armed, either-- you just have to claim that you believed he was or might have been, and **bam** you get to shoot him dead.

I'm of mixed feelings about that whole thing, but I do have protection, just in case.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173012
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, and PLEASE do not get me wrong here.
I'm a huge fan of unassing the area, rather than getting in a gunfight. Or avoiding the area to begin with.
I agree-- leaving the scene is the best "defense" of all.

But if you're in your own home? Leaving may not be a reasonable option.

I'm kind of torn about this one-- as I do think each life is unique, and worthy of trying to preserve.

But I also think an individual should have the right to stop someone else from doing violence to them.

“And I won't watch this anymore”

Since: Jun 10

the alternate future

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173013
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

I agree 100%. The execution of justice on that case was simply a joke.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173014
Jul 26, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is factually incorrect.
The two had been fighting. He had her in the bathroom, blocking her exit. She managed to push past him into the garage, from which there was no other exit. She shot a warning shot into the air.
She did NOT leave and return days later. Her car was in the garage from which there was no other exit. He refused to leave after she showed him that she had a gun and she made a warning shot into the air.
Now, she was offered a plea deal of 3 years if she plead guilty of aggravated assault, but she believed she did nothing wrong. When she was then convicted, that meant a minimum 20 year sentence.
One of the *big* problems in both this case and the Martin-Zimmerman case is that the injustices were directly from the law being applied as it was designed. In the Zimmerman case, it is too lenient when someone is killed and in the other case, it is too harsh when nobody is killed. Contradictions like this make it clear that the law is NOT being applied fairly and is draconian in many ways.
There are discussions about whether Trayvon Martin smoked pot. Who cares? Seriously, what relevance is there to the matter at hand? if it was a white kid who was having trouble in school and had smoked pot and a black man that shot him, do you really think the results would be the same? I don't.
I agree with your points--- the law in this case, is in conflict with itself.

Because of that conflict? The Justice Department **must** choose which law to use, in any given situation.

Statistically, it appears that SYG is more likely to apply if you are **not** brown-skinned ...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173015
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
He followed an unarmed kid, then shot him dead? How on earth was that "self defense"?
If the SYG was **not** his escape clause? Then there was a gross violation of justice-- he murdered an unarmed kid in cold blood.
Premeditated murder, as he had to chase him down to do it.
Sure if you omit he was not breaking the law , when JR. slipped up from behind him.

Sorry you lost the case.

What will it take you to settle into the idea justice was served?

Whether right or wrong.....It's over.

Go home.
Justshootthebast ard

Okmulgee, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173016
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
He followed an unarmed kid, then shot him dead? How on earth was that "self defense"?
If the SYG was **not** his escape clause? Then there was a gross violation of justice-- he murdered an unarmed kid in cold blood.
Premeditated murder, as he had to chase him down to do it.
You Sir seem to be about the biggest idiot, you should ask for forgiveness from any and everyone who has read your bs
Justshootthebast ard

Okmulgee, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173017
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree-- leaving the scene is the best "defense" of all.
But if you're in your own home? Leaving may not be a reasonable option.
I'm kind of torn about this one-- as I do think each life is unique, and worthy of trying to preserve.
But I also think an individual should have the right to stop someone else from doing violence to them.
Unless it's George Zimmerman, his head was being pounded into the sidewalk and you saymhe killed him in cold blood.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173018
Jul 26, 2013
 
Justshootthebastard wrote:
<quoted text>Unless it's George Zimmerman, his head was being pounded into the sidewalk and you saymhe killed him in cold blood.
Even the jurors were planning to convict.

Juror says Zimmerman ‘got away with murder’
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/26/juror-says-zim...

BTW about all those pics on facebook:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin....

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173019
Jul 26, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why it should have applied to the black woman's case.
I absolutely agree.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173020
Jul 26, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree-- leaving the scene is the best "defense" of all.
But if you're in your own home? Leaving may not be a reasonable option.
I'm kind of torn about this one-- as I do think each life is unique, and worthy of trying to preserve.
But I also think an individual should have the right to stop someone else from doing violence to them.
As a reasonable and (I think) moral person, I will make every reasonable effort not to kill anyone. Even if I'm not legally obliged to.

That said, absent alternatives, I'll put two in his head without a second thought.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••