Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258480 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190653 Dec 8, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Spirituality without acceptance of transcendence demonstrates there is more "in there," in the amazing human brain, not "out there" beyond the natural world.
Not many people are seeking to connect to their brains.

Most already are.

If you are so determined to avoid spiritual matters, you have the option of not talking about it.

If you reject that option, and talk about it, you then become encumbered by it. You are obligated to talk about it as what it is.

It's not the same as finding out you can do long division.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190654 Dec 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Good research (by you). That's more like it.
YAY
As for the research you cited, I'm not sure how good it is.
Lung function can be measured, and the claims about it reproduced, so I accept those findings.
I can't account for smoking pot improving lung function. It's highly counterintuitive. The findings seem to suggest that smoking is actually good for you, but that tar and nicotine counter those effects when it is tobacco that is smoked.
Or maybe it's not smoking per se that is salubrious, but something in the marijuana, although that seems unlikely as well.
The article you quoted < http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/2401... > didn't define causal, nor did it compare the lung functions of what it called casual and chronic smokers. I have enjoyed smoking pot most days of my life for over four decades, and my pulmonary functions, "are at or above average for my age and gender"
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Incidentally, that post and the tests I did on myself antedate this research. I was quite surprised by them myself, and didn't expect to be believed when I posted those results.
Interesting.

I've been smoking cigarettes for roughly 20 years and have started to notice heavier breathing.

Am I gonna quit? Unlikely. I rather enjoy it.

Stupid, I know.

But seriously? You've got healthy lungs after 40 years? How often do you smoke?
I don't accept the part about marijuana dependence. I have frequently gone a week or longer without pot - every time I travel or move to a new location - and there simply is no drug dependence. I experience no symptoms of withdrawal - no, "irritability, sleeplessness, anxiety, impaired appetite,[or] aggression."
I only have my brother to go off of. That's my "study".

He gets very irritable when he's out of weed. He's very, very dependent on it. He wakes up in the morning and grabs his pipe, not his coffee cup. Smokes weed all day long.
There is a huge industry dedicated to idea that marijuana use is a problem that needs rehabilitation, just as there is one for homosexuality. I see them as similar in their motivation and their scientific foundations.
In the end, what we have are two bodies of literature: science that consistently shows benefits to pot smoking, some of which I have previously shared with you < http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR... >, and nonscientific pieces that assume that pot smoking is dangerous. We see evidence of both in your post above.
Incidentally, the nonscientific part of your post that I rejected came from one of those treatment centers I was referring to:
http://www.caron.org/knowledge-library/addict...
That's why linking to your source is important. You need to know the motivations. JAMA's agenda is to further the knowledge of medical issues. Caron Treatment Centers has a different agenda.
I'm sorry, I couldn't link the source. My work computer is just a "terminal" and doesn't have a browser or anything. That's why I put it in quotes, I figured you go to the googlers and see for yourself.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190655 Dec 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
For me and a lot of other people, Christmas isn't much different in terms of significance from Halloween or Thanksgiving.
Buck Crick wrote:
I'll agree with you on Thanksgiving. I think Thanksgiving is superior to Christmas as a holiday. It lasts only one day. You don't have to buy anyone anything. And you get football on TV to watch. People have gotten crazy with the Christmas stuff. It's all about buying a bunch of fake, plastic junk, and doing so out of nothing but obligation.
Agreed. The holiday is a mockery considering of what Riverside Redneck thinks it is. I'd rather celebrate the "rebirth" of the (real) sun like the ancients. Pagan holidays rock compared to the empty remembrances I grew up with.

Halloween is also better than Christmas. The gifts are more reasonable and easier to shop for, the themes and decorations are more interesting, you get a little exercise, costumes are a big plus, and the colors - orange and black - are better. What is worse than red and green? Maybe pink and grey.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190656 Dec 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we have a different idea of what is important, and what the function of the government is. It's not about the economy:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That is about the economy.

Securing the blessings of liberty means the government should interfere with the economy as little as possible, and allowing the maximum freedom of enterprise helps insure domestic tranquility.

That's why the Constitution was written to prohibit income taxes.

But that was back when we had a Constitution.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190657 Dec 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder who promoted that idea to you.
How much do you think Bill Gates would have made if he had been born and educated in Cameroon? Forget that he would likely have be hypoliterate and had no access to computers. Suppose he overcame that, and then tried to develop and market his product in that infrastructure and economy? Do you still think that the American people are not entitled to even a percent of the profits from that success?
LOL, no way.

Bill Gates' fortune is his own. The American people aren't "entitled" to his earnings in no way, shape or form.

Even the promotion of the idea seem ludicrous to me.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190658 Dec 8, 2013
TheBigFisherman wrote:
However, Christmas is for Faithful Christians who like to praise our Lord Jesus Christ.
In that case, Merry Christmas to both of you. Most of the country has forgotten that.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190659 Dec 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You are ridiculous.
I'm sorry.

Catcher once called me amazing.

I left the money on the dresser.

Standard procedures and all...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190660 Dec 8, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Tax dollars? You're kidding?
It's a federal holiday!
You would have a point if employees were also instructed not to wish the public "Happy New Year", or "Have a nice Fourth of July".
No, the status quo has been that retail businesses consider it a gesture of good will and appreciation to wish patrons a merry Christmas.
Muddling the issue as you just did glosses over the main point.
That point is this: Advocates of secularism are bullying the public toward their point of view, which is, that expressions of a holiday with the word "Christ" in it should be suppressed.
We all know what is at work.
Last time I took notice, signs erected by taxpayer funds still welcome people to "San Fransisco", and "Corpus Christi".
And nobody has been instructed to call a menorah "Holiday Candles"
The actions alluded to are specifically anti-christian. Each can decide if that's good or bad, but it is the case.
<<standing applause>>

Bravo, sir!

Top marks.

I'd put a few dollars in your thong but I'm out.

Next time.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190661 Dec 8, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Raising the minimum wage would help.
No it wouldn't.

Raising the minimum wage would only raise the price of everything else.

Do you wanna pay $8 for a gallon of milk?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190662 Dec 8, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for my advice.
I gave it to you.
You aren't taking it.
Be smart enough to not take stupid advice.

-Me

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190663 Dec 8, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is about the economy.
Securing the blessings of liberty means the government should interfere with the economy as little as possible, and allowing the maximum freedom of enterprise helps insure domestic tranquility.
That's why the Constitution was written to prohibit income taxes.
But that was back when we had a Constitution.
I remember watching Little House on the Prairie many years ago.

They were talking about income taxes.

"An income tax?! Never happen in a thousand years..."

http://youtu.be/3zA2oLBvU7Q

If only.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190664 Dec 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a problem putting those two sentences down next to one another?
<quoted text>
What's the steep handling charge, and who is getting it?
By the way, are you willing to take on that responsibility?
The handling charge is paying a bereaucracy to sit on its ass.

One of my favorite handling charge examples is when President Obamajab flew his dog to Martha's Vineyard on Air Force One.

Another is Michelle's $5,000 purse. Or the motorcade tying up traffic and police manpower during the World Series so he'd be sure to be noticed.

In this particular discussion, I have addressed economic principles, not what responsibilities government should or should not have. My point is the cost to the economy.

It is an issue today, as we notice rank idiots like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama claiming that food stamps and unemployment payments help the economy.

Idiot Marxists. That's who we turned it over to.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190665 Dec 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand why that one dentist is always so damned stubborn.
Maybe it's acciDENTAL.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#190666 Dec 8, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Raising the minimum wage would make it worse.
That's simply a tax and a handout.
Jobs would be lost, more people on assistance.
If you want to help, eliminate the minimum wage.
...Liberals are incapable of understanding economics.
That's why they vote for democrats.
The Reagan era introduced the investor class. Monopoly players.

Costs were getting too high to invest in American industry, so that Monopoly money was invested in overseas manufacturing, helped by the Reagan foreign aid policies, and wealth was then derived from parasiting the transportation, marketing, and management of those endeavors. This is where the multinationals really came into being. American investment, which included those public corporations, pension funds, union and insurance company investments, and etc were then diverted into that stream. And the investor class had little inhibitions in building up this artificial wealth to keep their money flowing. This is why high dividends became the benchmark for the performance of CEOs. It's called greed. Of course the CEOs cut costs and cooked books to generate such to keep their jobs.

Goods got cheaper, but only because of labor that could be exploited.

This is fine if you are of the investor class. Plus you have the added benefit of a military that could protect your status and wealth. At the expense of the general public. What a life, eh?

They really need to make them invest more locally, and to make a higher contribution to the infrastructure, including the military, that sustains their wealth. They also need to put limits on executive salaries and dividend returns of publicly traded companies. Such will lead to more money pointed toward growth and security of that company and less toward the personal enrichment of a few that the Reagan admin put in charge of the henhouse.

Ronald Reagan was never anything more than a smooth talking narrator or front man for others. He was an actor, not an intellect.

Make those that got wealthy from that plundering pay more for the privilege.

No CEO of any publicly traded corporation is worth billions in salary. It is time to clear the smoke and mirrors of the last 3 decades and get back down to real business.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190667 Dec 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
YAY
<quoted text>
Interesting.
I've been smoking cigarettes for roughly 20 years and have started to notice heavier breathing.
Am I gonna quit? Unlikely. I rather enjoy it.
Stupid, I know.
But seriously? You've got healthy lungs after 40 years? How often do you smoke?
<quoted text>
I only have my brother to go off of. That's my "study".
He gets very irritable when he's out of weed. He's very, very dependent on it. He wakes up in the morning and grabs his pipe, not his coffee cup. Smokes weed all day long.
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I couldn't link the source. My work computer is just a "terminal" and doesn't have a browser or anything. That's why I put it in quotes, I figured you go to the googlers and see for yourself.
I had a girl once who smoked after we had sex.

I threw some water down there.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#190668 Dec 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, no way.
Bill Gates' fortune is his own. The American people aren't "entitled" to his earnings in no way, shape or form.
Even the promotion of the idea seem ludicrous to me.
Not exactly. He founded the company, but when he took it public he took on a whole different responsibility.

Him and his billionaire buddies skimmed the money thousands if not millions of small investors, both individually and through things such as pension plans invested to themselves first. Something like a Ponzi scheme.

THAT is what happened to America.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190669 Dec 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Agreed. The holiday is a mockery considering of what Riverside Redneck thinks it is. I'd rather celebrate the "rebirth" of the (real) sun like the ancients. Pagan holidays rock compared to the empty remembrances I grew up with.
Halloween is also better than Christmas. The gifts are more reasonable and easier to shop for, the themes and decorations are more interesting, you get a little exercise, costumes are a big plus, and the colors - orange and black - are better. What is worse than red and green? Maybe pink and grey.
I'm partial to red. Blue is not bad.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/07/ge...

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#190670 Dec 8, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the government give meth to truck drivers and housewives?
I knew a vet that was a heroin addict. The addiction was the prime motivator for most of his outfit to look forward to ambushing and killing NVA. The NVA carried rations of heroin on them. Their sacrifices weren't just because of their great patriotism and love of the communist system.
How about how about, huh?
So, how about since they are already here, how about everyone just get stoned and comfortably numb? Or super animated. You think the government should put those dealers out of business by supplying everyone? Bypass the middle men?
You did read that link about the lotus eaters? Hard to get things done when everyone is stoned. Great method for the advancement of mankind you have envisioned there, kid.
.. you wanted to know how the demand for Meth began not why truck drivers or housewives use the drug ..

.. to enhance combat performance, militaries distributed meth to troops then pharmaceutical companies marketed it to treat obesity and narcolepsy ..

"1996: Congress passes the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act, which regulates mail order and chemical companies selling precursor chemicals."

http://healthvermont.gov/adap/meth/brief_hist...

.. the demand was originally created by the military and accelerated by drug companies. The cat was out of the bag ..

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190671 Dec 8, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Reagan era introduced the investor class. Monopoly players.
Costs were getting too high to invest in American industry, so that Monopoly money was invested in overseas manufacturing, helped by the Reagan foreign aid policies, and wealth was then derived from parasiting the transportation, marketing, and management of those endeavors. This is where the multinationals really came into being. American investment, which included those public corporations, pension funds, union and insurance company investments, and etc were then diverted into that stream. And the investor class had little inhibitions in building up this artificial wealth to keep their money flowing. This is why high dividends became the benchmark for the performance of CEOs. It's called greed. Of course the CEOs cut costs and cooked books to generate such to keep their jobs.
Goods got cheaper, but only because of labor that could be exploited.
This is fine if you are of the investor class. Plus you have the added benefit of a military that could protect your status and wealth. At the expense of the general public. What a life, eh?
They really need to make them invest more locally, and to make a higher contribution to the infrastructure, including the military, that sustains their wealth. They also need to put limits on executive salaries and dividend returns of publicly traded companies. Such will lead to more money pointed toward growth and security of that company and less toward the personal enrichment of a few that the Reagan admin put in charge of the henhouse.
Ronald Reagan was never anything more than a smooth talking narrator or front man for others. He was an actor, not an intellect.
Make those that got wealthy from that plundering pay more for the privilege.
No CEO of any publicly traded corporation is worth billions in salary. It is time to clear the smoke and mirrors of the last 3 decades and get back down to real business.
That's Marxism, Dave.

It's been tried. Multiple times. It fails every time.

If you read some of the writings of Reagan on economics and politics that he wrote during the sixties and seventies, you could not fairly resist the conclusion that he was intellectually brilliant, and a visionary. Your conclusions are drawn erroneously, and from what source, I cannot guess.

You and I have no right to say what another man's talent and effort is worth in dollars.

Your bicycle, your shoes, your house are worth exactly what you can get someone to pay for them. No more, no less.

Anybody who says otherwise is advocating either tyranny or slavery.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#190672 Dec 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Nope. Spirituality is a state of mind. One leaves the mundane, workaday world behind in such moments, not not one's mind, body, or universe.
Buck Crick wrote:
I have never found this meaning applied to "spirituality" in any legitimate reference.In the most modernized and diluted sense of spirituality, it still contains at least an element of mysticism and the supernatural.
There is no requirement for invoking the supernatural. Many of us have spiritual experiences right here in the natural realm.

My definition of spirituality is a psychological state characterized by a sense of mystery, awe, gratitude and connection. Christianity severs that sense of connection to ourselves, our fellow man, and our universe, as I have previously noted in this thread:

"It's the Christian message of deep pessimism and disconnection from this world, everything in it, and even one's own flesh that is so antithetical to the authentic spiritual experience"

"... spirituality without superstition, its relationship to our physical world and a sense of connectivity to it, and how Christianity poisons the authentic spiritual experience"

"... your Christian education, which principle message includes a sense of detachment from our common world, a general disrespect for humanity, and a redirection of your focus from the here and now to pie in the sky there and then. "

The supernaturalism is poison. We live in the natural world. If your sense of mystery and awe are for some imagined realm, your gratitude to a nonexistent creature, and you have been psychologically detached from this world, how spiritual can your experiences be? How are they different from happy wakeful dreams?

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 11 min lightbeamrider 52,442
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 15 min Robert F 693,342
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 18 min texas pete 2,477
Walgreens is owned by Christ-rejecting Jews 18 min Doctor REALITY 12
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 31 min Gabriel 992,194
Skype gay sex (Dec '14) 1 hr daddy 28
Jake Tapper: I Lied About Trump S Hole Comment 3 hr Haha 2
More from around the web