Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Jul 18, 2009 Read more: Webbunny tumblelog 237,766
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. Read more

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191154 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How much aptitude do you need to believe in airy fairy stuff?
You call him a great thinker - second only to yourself - except for his ability to think analytically. By that measure, a cat can be a great thinker.
Dave is very smart. But he is a socialist.

I didn't know that until now.

Socialism/Liberalism is a temperament that warps thinking.

Same for you.

Socialists like you and Dave can be intelligent, but you have some sort of meme that attacks your rational thinking centers.

I have studied it a good bit. But the explanation of the phenomenon is very elusive.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#191155 Dec 10, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>I used to like you. Do you remember in the fall of 1973, President Nixon was giving a speech and he said, "The future ruler of the world will have an X in the center of their name"? That is because 4 years earlier, the Messiah was "crucified" in a government (naval) hospital. Psalm 22 is very detailed and there were many witnesses. That is why Jesus said the end would come within a generation which is 40 years. 22:30 Don't call me a liar, you're only projecting.
Good grief.

*walking away, slowly shaking head*

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191156 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pleasantly surprised to see you arguing this position, and am happy to give credit where credit is due.
And notwithstanding Buck's comments to the contrary, this is analysis - political analysis. You have looked at data bit by bit and understood its implications. Somehow, "they" have not reached you in this department. You are supposed to adore Reagan and despise liberals.
In this arena, Dave, you outshine Buck by orders of magnitude.
This is analysis?

I proved his analysis bogus.

Dave attempted to refute my evidence that Reagan's tax cuts led to an increase in federal revenue, but he queered the data by expressing it as a percentage of GDP.

He also attempted to show that Reagan made the tax code more regressive by pointing to the relative rise in payroll taxes.

I showed he was wrong by proving, first, that Reagan's measures only affected income taxes, and also by showing that, with the cuts, lower income earners' share of federal taxes went down.

Rational skeptics like me catch those kinds of things. You obviously didn't.

I am quite experienced at defeating revisionist arguments against the Reagan record.

Maybe you would like to join Dave and lose with him?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#191157 Dec 10, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Good grief.

*walking away, slowly shaking head*
Lol. I slowly backed out, nodding and smiling.

Hya mac :)
Bongo

Coram, NY

#191158 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave is very smart. But he is a socialist.
I didn't know that until now.
Socialism/Liberalism is a temperament that warps thinking.
Same for you.
Socialists like you and Dave can be intelligent, but you have some sort of meme that attacks your rational thinking centers.
I have studied it a good bit. But the explanation of the phenomenon is very elusive.
I suppose a benefit of being locked in a cell is you do a lot of reading.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#191159 Dec 10, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. I slowly backed out, nodding and smiling.
Hya mac :)
You do that a lot, Juci

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191160 Dec 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Christianity won as the ethics
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Christian ethics? Seriously?
Dave Nelson wrote:
You can't seem to get Christianity off your brain, IANS.
What are you ranting about here Dave? You mentioned Christianity, and I answered you.

It really is pointless discussing anything with you, isn't it?
Dave Nelson wrote:
God works through economics.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
And Jehovahn economics?
Dave Nelson wrote:
"Jehovahn economics"? How did you associate that with corporations?
It's a mystery, huh?[See above]
Dave Nelson wrote:
Hey, Bub, your contrary self is not on here ranting against Buddhist, Hindu, Greek, or Roman ethics. You are railing against the ethics of the religion du jour. Same old thing for almost 2000 years. No soup for you.
I'll leave the ranting to you. You're doing just fine, as when you crowned Christian ethics - the religion du jour - champion.

And sorry to contradict you with reality again, but I have criticized the Hindu's within the last 48 hours.

"To the extent that they deal in superstition, afterlives, spirits or otherworldliness, as with Shinto ancestor worship and the Hindu pantheon, Eastern philosophy can be as sterile and useless as its Western counterpart."
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

And I mock the Greek pantheon regularly. And the Aztecs. And the Vikings. Zeus, Quetzalcoatl and Thor are favorite references of mine. And the Kraken.

You don't really care about accuracy, do you?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191161 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hard to believe that that comment was controversial or confusing. Buck demurred over it as well.
Yeah, I'll elaborate. The government has a job - a purpose for which it was established. Here it is:
"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."

You will search in vain in that statement for anything indicating government should take care of people economically.


“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
&#8213; Alexis de Tocqueville

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191162 Dec 10, 2013
UdiotRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>You make easy for Buck naked the Simpleton to understand , i make to complicated for him ; see like you doing better job in explaining department! Kudos to you IANS, try wake up the little jughead! ABbabbabaaa
Thanks, but let's all try to be nice. It's an area I need to work on myself.

It's about criticizing ideas and maybe bad behavior. I think Buck is wrong, but he is not a simpleton or a jughead. Nor is he an enemy, nor arguing in bad faith.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191163 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. I guess it's been done.
Incidentally, there isn't much that ol' Charlie could get on his own. He needs an environment that supports him in his pursuit of happiness, without which he's pretty much busy just staying alive,as was once the case.
And it could be that way again for his great-grandchildren. I suspect that it will be.
The obligation of Charlie's government is to provide the environment for his pursuit of happiness.

That's far different than government transfers of money from the haves to the have-nots.

Totally different.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191164 Dec 10, 2013
davy wrote:
Do you think society should be financially responsible for a person's fuckups?
davy wrote:
Are you talking about Bank of America?
Good point. Apparently only corporations should be bailed out with welfare checks from the taxpayer.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191165 Dec 10, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Republicans will call it Obamacare until it has proven successful. Then they will call it the Affordable Care Act.
Then they will take credit for it.
You best not hold your breath.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#191166 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave is very smart. But he is a socialist.
I didn't know that until now.
Socialism/Liberalism is a temperament that warps thinking.
Same for you.
Socialists like you and Dave can be intelligent, but you have some sort of meme that attacks your rational thinking centers.
I have studied it a good bit. But the explanation of the phenomenon is very elusive.
It's only elusive to you because you refuse to see it in yourself.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#191167 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Courageous?
We were told that we were too weary to go on and see justice done, and that it just needed to end. How weak would that be were it true - too tired for justice?
Sorry, but I prefer justice, especially in a case like that. What message did it send? I don't think Reagan had much reason to worry about any repercussions when he broke the law in a much bigger way. A similar message was sent when Oliver North was given immunity for what he had done. People should feel safe breaking the law in the White House or for it - unless they are named Clinton.
Letting Reagan walk was pretty much all Cheney and Bush needed to see to be even bolder. Likewise with their pardon of Libby, which sent the same message as the North thing.
Do you think that you would be pardoned for breaking the law? Probably not. Nor should you be. Nor should Nixon have been. How do you feel about the moral foundation of a legal system that applies only to some? Do you respect it? It seems you do.
Anyway, the cat is way out of the bag now in large part due to that first sin against the rule of law with Ford and Nixon, and presidents understand by a now firmly established precedent that they are above the law - conservative ones, anyway.
What law did Reagan break?

Specifics, please.

They had Clinton cold on federal perjury.

He suffered no legal penalty.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191168 Dec 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
REAGAN'S RECORD:
* The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.
* While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.
* These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit, which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.
* Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the INCOME TAX, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.
Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the SHARE OF TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
* On the other hand, the SHARE OF TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:
For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.
Why do you almost never feel any burden to source your claims?

Your material came from the Heritage Foundation, the very think tank I cited in my discussion of conservatives generating and disseminating propaganda, which may be why you chose not to link to it:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001...

The Heritage Foundation, which could easily be renamed the Inheritance Foundation, has the same credibility in political philosophy as the Discovery Institute does in natural philosophy, and for the same reason: they are both agenda driven in the service of a special interest - unbridled capitalism in the one case, and the Christian church in the other. Given their values and methods, there really is nothing coming from either of them that I would accept at face value.
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#191169 Dec 10, 2013
I shout, "Look, a squirrel!" pointing one way, whilst walking off in the other direction.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Good grief.
*walking away, slowly shaking head*
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#191170 Dec 10, 2013
Reagan is still funny, though.

&t= 162
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, but let's all try to be nice. It's an area I need to work on myself.
It's about criticizing ideas and maybe bad behavior. I think Buck is wrong, but he is not a simpleton or a jughead. Nor is he an enemy, nor arguing in bad faith.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#191171 Dec 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Oh.
"The kids"...
Well geez thanks a bunch.
I didn't know "the kids" celebrated Saturnalia.
<quoted text>
Oh geez, I didn't think you were serious.
Ok, I'll play.
What kids, Chris?
What kids celebrate Saturnalia?
My kids, do you really think that I can speak for anyone else’s kids?

Not necessarily Saturnalia, you could include Yule, Mid Winter, Winter Solstice, Yalda, Kwanzaa, M&#333;draniht, Hanukkah, Pancha Ganapati and not forgetting Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. All as good an excuse as christmas and for the most part they are all far older celebrations with real events to celebrate.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191172 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
And you are far from alone in that opinion. With all due respect, Buck, these conversations remind me of why I opted out of America. I concluded that your side is going to prevail, and I don't share your vision even a little.
Buck Crick wrote:
Ironic. I'm tempted to opt out because my side is losing.
Almost everybody is losing, and both liberal and conservative citizens are very disillusioned. That's a huge clue.

When I say your side, I'm talking about the people you facilitate by repeating their think tank output. You are correct that they are not your friends, and they will not include you. Nobody with the microphone is your friend. In my opinion, your actual friends are disempowered and have no voice, and you distrust and disesteem them to boot.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#191173 Dec 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you see hope for people like that in America? I agree: that is America's future.
It's interesting that you lump liberals and progressives, who you call "hypocrites," in with the conservatives.
Liberals can't help that girl. We would if we could, but we can't - not given how so many Americans feel about people like her and about people like us, and not given the character, loyalties, and motivations of government representative.
There you with your ismic thinking.

There is no ism to cure that. That is the condition of a fragmented mankind. A result of evolution and survival. Any excuse is used to support the system where you derive your wealth, and thus survival. That is where your isms come from. Religious and political.

Man fights man for control. That is why you need a higher authority to transcend that. A sheet of music all sing from. The big honcho of the village that no one can displace. A God dictating morality, not a group of men.

You will not understand the significance of that on a global scale. You are stuck in your ism attempting to seize control.

Civilization needs to be reorganized more along the lines of a single village, the health and welfare of all the main concern. It will not be idyllic because man has to be trained to think that way. Responsibilities have to be trained into people. Your secular humanism of today is just a hollow bunch of words to get some into power. It just isn't realistic enough.

A belief in a higher power othr than a committee of men is a prime need for all of mankind. That committee will have to be committed to the belief in that higher morality and not to their egos. Good luck on that.

Yes, a higher power needs to reveal itself and kick some ass, but if it doesn't, then you just have to have the belief it exists and wants you to come together and join it. After you display responsibility and can be absorbed in the larger scheme of things. The Tower of Babel story covered that.

Man can't advance blind to the greater realities. That universe you see out there is probably a lot more advanced and intelligent than you think.

Now I have to work up the nerve to go get cigarettes in 9 degree weather. Don't have a one left. Ugh. Poor planning on my part.

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 Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min June VanDerMark 583,160
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min BenAdam 826,427
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 11 min MUQ2 270,579
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 15 min GodFreeByChoice 5,808
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 19 min rbphoenix80 98,917
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 20 min MUQ2 198
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 21 min James 442,586
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 55 min lisw 176,425
More from around the web