Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#190899 Dec 9, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Buck hasn't got the time to do that and post his fantasies about anally inserting toothbrushes.
<quoted text>
So that’s how he cleans his teeth? How strange.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#190900 Dec 9, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> hmmm bwhahahahahahahahha gufawww
What?

But it's true.

Whoever Tammy really is, I have to say they are one of the better creations I have run across on the internet. Masterful. Appeals to everyone.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190901 Dec 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't listen to what Reagan said, I saw what he did. Rather what his handlers did.
Ronnie was a professional spokesmen and rah rah guy. Watch his Army training films and various narrations. He knew how to deliver the lines. They are all delivered the same way.
BTW, he started as a Democrat. His wife Nancy and the very conservative sponsors of his TV shows, read pussy and paycheck, changed his world view.
He was a huckster and hustler all of his life.
Sorry, Buck, I don't buy the image of Reagan that has been peddled.
Bull shit, Dave.

You have bought a pack of lies and now repeat them.

Reagan was a democrat because both his parents were democrats, and in his early political activity he identified with the strong anti-communist wing of the democrat party.

He worked in "Democrats for Eisenhower" in 1952 and 1956, because he was a natural conservative, not because of sponsors. His support for democrats waned when Kennedy ran in '60, and he supported Nixon. He distrusted Kennedy, and the democrat party's drift to the left. He changed his registration to support Nixon for governor against Pat Brown in 1962.

So much for your bull shit on party affiliation.

In 1964, Reagan gave a nationally-televised speech for Goldwater, complaining that the central government was too over-reaching and not forceful enough against Soviet communism. He blamed democrats for the drift in that direction. He was a Republican on principle.

Again, so much for your bull shit.

Ronald Reagan campaigned on 3 promises: Cutting taxes to revive the economy, rebuilding the military, and resisting Soviet expansion.

He kept all 3. He embodied an optimism for America that was contagious. He made the office noble again.

A review from a political writer and critic of Reagan (James Nuechterlein), turned supporter:

"And he was good not primarily because of his Hollywood skills. He was the real thing, a man whose impression of integrity and grace under pressure held up under scrutiny. It went back to those scores of lives he had saved while a teenage life guard, but it did not end there. No one rehearses for death, and Reagan revealed in the wake of the assassination attempt in the spring of 1981 the depth of courage, character, and wit that lay behind the public persona. This was an authentic man, and Americans thereafter could not be persuaded, despite what his enemies said, that their President had no more substance than did the Wizard of Oz."

Become a student of history, Dave. You'll feel better than being duped by whatever Lyndon LaRouche or whatever lying turds you are relying on.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#190902 Dec 9, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. that's one philosophy ..
.. then, there's the flip side of the coin ..
.. why do you think Henry Ford decided to pay his employees twice the going hourly wage ??.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
He was able too , the unions have workers making so much money and benefits they make 3x in one hour, than some Mexican factory workers make in a week. So you do the math on why they left US soil, and the union workers make 2x what Japanese car makers make, and even with a 100% import duty were able to compete here.
If you doubt this and think I'm wrong just remember the bail outs and look at Detroit now .
.. Henry Ford paid his workers twice the prevailing pay scale because ..

1. He could.
2. He wanted everyone to have the financial ability to purchase his cars.
3. He knew his employees would be loyal and more productive.

.. it worked. Production increased, more cars were sold and America entered the Golden Age ..

.. yes, some unions became too powerful and Big Biz fought back by outsourcing jobs but today's business leaders send jobs overseas to maximize profit and create wealth. The only things 'Made in America' are hamburgers, homes and military weapons ..

.. some people have figured the system out. Why work for $7.25 @ hour when there's no incentive or opportunity ??..

.. as much as I respect you Aura, I must agree with Henry Ford - if you pay a person a decent wage, they'll work harder, be loyal and fuel the economy ..

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190903 Dec 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Carter was a good and moral man caught in a snake pit, and a world that was in turmoil.
No, Carter was an incompetent, petty, spiteful man who had no clue how to do anything in leadership except follow his leftist instincts. He has spent his entire post-presidency back-biting his successors and campaigning for Global Warming.

He wrote a book in which he lies about his record and lies about his opposition.

And I won't even get into his report of being attacked by a giant white rabbit while on a rowboat in the middle of a lake.
Bongo

Yonkers, NY

#190904 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull shit.
The facts are just as I stated them concerning minimum wage and inflation and job growth.
These are facts. The only contentious element is the degree.
Thanks for the lecture about "facts".
But I'm not one of your illiterate clients.
Catchers whole life is disputing facts even if theyre facts. btw, Have you considered possibly not taking meds anymore? Would it make a difference?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190905 Dec 9, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Reagan met some Star Wars scientists who were trying to get 10^20W out of an anti missile laser. They had actually achieved 10^10W. Reagan said "Half way there, then."
<quoted text>
Star Wars scientists?

Star Wars is a movie, Tinky.

It's fiction.

Learn the difference, or live stupid. Up to you.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#190906 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull shit, Dave.
You have bought a pack of lies and now repeat them.
Reagan was a democrat because both his parents were democrats, and in his early political activity he identified with the strong anti-communist wing of the democrat party.
He worked in "Democrats for Eisenhower" in 1952 and 1956, because he was a natural conservative, not because of sponsors. His support for democrats waned when Kennedy ran in '60, and he supported Nixon. He distrusted Kennedy, and the democrat party's drift to the left. He changed his registration to support Nixon for governor against Pat Brown in 1962.
So much for your bull shit on party affiliation.
In 1964, Reagan gave a nationally-televised speech for Goldwater, complaining that the central government was too over-reaching and not forceful enough against Soviet communism. He blamed democrats for the drift in that direction. He was a Republican on principle.
Again, so much for your bull shit.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on 3 promises: Cutting taxes to revive the economy, rebuilding the military, and resisting Soviet expansion.
He kept all 3. He embodied an optimism for America that was contagious. He made the office noble again.
A review from a political writer and critic of Reagan (James Nuechterlein), turned supporter:
"And he was good not primarily because of his Hollywood skills. He was the real thing, a man whose impression of integrity and grace under pressure held up under scrutiny. It went back to those scores of lives he had saved while a teenage life guard, but it did not end there. No one rehearses for death, and Reagan revealed in the wake of the assassination attempt in the spring of 1981 the depth of courage, character, and wit that lay behind the public persona. This was an authentic man, and Americans thereafter could not be persuaded, despite what his enemies said, that their President had no more substance than did the Wizard of Oz."
Become a student of history, Dave. You'll feel better than being duped by whatever Lyndon LaRouche or whatever lying turds you are relying on.
Buck, I love you like a brother, but I have to tell you that you got trapped in an ideology concerning this. You are repeating a mantra based upon edited history.

Reagan's crowd were opportunists and mealy mouthed as much, in fact better at, than the worst of the liberal left loony charlatans. You are talking the full weight of Hollywood mass hypnosis coupled with opportunistic greed coming together when it comes to Reagan.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#190907 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Star Wars scientists?
Star Wars is a movie, Tinky.
It's fiction.
Learn the difference, or live stupid. Up to you.
Not only a film but a series of scientific projects and initiatives on both sides of the iron curtain.

“The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983,[1] to use ground-based and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defens...

The projects were dubbed Star wars by the media.

That's the fact, you are capable of learning facts

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#190908 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Carter was an incompetent, petty, spiteful man who had no clue how to do anything in leadership except follow his leftist instincts. He has spent his entire post-presidency back-biting his successors and campaigning for Global Warming.
He wrote a book in which he lies about his record and lies about his opposition.
And I won't even get into his report of being attacked by a giant white rabbit while on a rowboat in the middle of a lake.
Jimmy Carter was real people, not a plastic shape shifting politician.

Buck, do you know what a Yellow dog Democrat was? That was one that would vote for a yellow dog before a Republican, That WAS the South. Carter was a moderate, but after the national Democrats turned left he was identified as one by shape shifting Republicans. Politics, son, politics.

Carter and Ted Kennedy were not best buds.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#190909 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, you are a liberal.

Meaning, you despise profit, prosperity, and the American way.

You believe compassion is determined by how many people we can get living on the government tit.

You believe we are servants of government, they own everything, and we deserve only what they are willing to dole out.
I despise greed.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#190910 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>**PORTIONS SNIPPED**Meaning, you despise profit, prosperity, and the American way. You believe compassion is determined by how many people we can get living on the government tit.
.. profit is fine, greed isn't ..

.. living off the government tit? Yah, many Americans have figured that one out, they have no option ..

.. my lawnmower woman charges $40 @ month to maintain my grass and sprinkler system. She owns her own truck and equipment but it's in a relative's name. She receives ADFC, free food and has health insurance. She owns a huge HD LCD television and the latest X-Box ..

.. she represents America's new middle class ..

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#190911 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know anyone who asks a poor man for a job?

Jobs are good, right?

If you mowed lawns for money, would you prefer the lawns of poor people?

It's not a static pie. One person's profit does not subtract from the pie of another.

Fundamental misconception abounds.
You've been listening to Rand Paul again, haven't you.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190912 Dec 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, I love you like a brother, but I have to tell you that you got trapped in an ideology concerning this. You are repeating a mantra based upon edited history.
Reagan's crowd were opportunists and mealy mouthed as much, in fact better at, than the worst of the liberal left loony charlatans. You are talking the full weight of Hollywood mass hypnosis coupled with opportunistic greed coming together when it comes to Reagan.
Those are assertions, Dave.

How about one fact that supports your view of Reagan?

You gave us inuendo about movie sponsors and conspiracy theories.

Combatting the Reagan record is not a welcome place for facts.

I'll give you a couple more facts, since my side of the argument is carrying the entire share of that duty:

What was the biggest threat to American security when Reagan took office?

I remember as a kid being in fear of attack from the Soviet Union.

Where is the U.S.S.R. now? Are they in the phone book?

Why did this happen?

Margaret Thatcher was asked what brought down the Soviet Union. Some wanted to credit her. She said it was Reagan - his deployment of ICBM missiles in Europe, and his refusal to drop SDI to get concessions in summits with Gorbachev, and persevering while being savaged for doing it by the liberal American press.

That's principle and courage, Dave.

"Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot" -Thatcher.

Kissinger called it "the most stunning diplomatic feat of the modern era".

No Dave, the Reagan revisionism is on your side. It's no-man's-land for facts.

Oh,...almost forgot.

When Reagan cut taxes, did revenue to the federal treasury go up, or did it go down?

UP. A lot. Fact.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190913 Dec 9, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. profit is fine, greed isn't ..
.. living off the government tit? Yah, many Americans have figured that one out, they have no option ..
.. my lawnmower woman charges $40 @ month to maintain my grass and sprinkler system. She owns her own truck and equipment but it's in a relative's name. She receives ADFC, free food and has health insurance. She owns a huge HD LCD television and the latest X-Box ..
.. she represents America's new middle class ..
The distinction between profit and greed is subjective.

It's in the eye of the beholder.

If the greedy man follows the law, his greed is beneficial to the common good, not detrimental.

The "greed" of entrepreneurs who build that second and third production facility or office, even though he already has plenty of money, creates jobs, so people can buy things.

Then when people buy things, that creates commerce, profit, and more jobs. Then people who get those jobs can buy things,....etc.

The example you gave is the result of government expansion and wealth redistribution.

My philosophy opposes that. Your lawn keeper should rely on herself, not others.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190914 Dec 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been listening to Rand Paul again, haven't you.
No, I got the reality of economics way before Rand Paul.

He is right on most things, however.

You can't dispute that.

So now you will insult his hair, or employ some likewise insipid tactic.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#190915 Dec 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I despise greed.
No, you like greed.

You like it when it benefits you; despise it for benefiting others.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#190916 Dec 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Oh.
"The kids"...
Well geez thanks a bunch.
I didn't know "the kids" celebrated Saturnalia.
ChristineM wrote:
There is such a lot you don’t know about if it’s not in the babble
Oh geez, I didn't think you were serious.

Ok, I'll play.

What kids, Chris?

What kids celebrate Saturnalia?
nogod

UK

#190917 Dec 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are assertions, Dave.
How about one fact that supports your view of Reagan?
You gave us inuendo about movie sponsors and conspiracy theories.
Combatting the Reagan record is not a welcome place for facts.
I'll give you a couple more facts, since my side of the argument is carrying the entire share of that duty:
What was the biggest threat to American security when Reagan took office?
I remember as a kid being in fear of attack from the Soviet Union.
Where is the U.S.S.R. now? Are they in the phone book?
Why did this happen?
Margaret Thatcher was asked what brought down the Soviet Union. Some wanted to credit her. She said it was Reagan - his deployment of ICBM missiles in Europe, and his refusal to drop SDI to get concessions in summits with Gorbachev, and persevering while being savaged for doing it by the liberal American press.
That's principle and courage, Dave.
"Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot" -Thatcher.
Kissinger called it "the most stunning diplomatic feat of the modern era".
No Dave, the Reagan revisionism is on your side. It's no-man's-land for facts.
Oh,...almost forgot.
When Reagan cut taxes, did revenue to the federal treasury go up, or did it go down?
UP. A lot. Fact.
Are you Sarah Palin's son?
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#190918 Dec 9, 2013
Just listening to The Infinite Monkey Cage. Prof Cox is getting really bent out of shape with the non mathematicians that still don't get infinity and unlistable infinity. Buck and Dave would be so far out of their depth, it would be embarrassing.

I see the TIMC podcasts have about 15 minutes extra content in this series. Good news.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So that’s how he cleans his teeth? How strange.

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 3 min positronium 26,373
Glorious ECLIPSE coming TODAY @10:45 am in Arka... 28 min Doctor REALITY 1
Got any good jokes?? (Mar '07) 1 hr Ricky F 1,834
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr Robert F 985,710
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Robert F 685,775
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 2 hr Doctor REALITY 35
How To Recover Yahoo mail account Password Quick 3 hr johnwick91 1
More from around the web