Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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

#191615 Dec 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Secular humanist morals are superior to Christian morals, most of which seem to be about other people's sex lives anyhow.
What do you care if Clinton got a hummer? That's between him and his wife. Talk about embracing nanny values!
Apart from sex with unconsenting and/or underage partners, my morals about sexual behavior are limited to my own and my wife's. And that is superior to Christian nannying.
Clinton made it our business when he took it into the people's house.

Also when he violated federal statutes in the aftermath.

Whatever Christian morals he violated were not prosecuted.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#191616 Dec 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Back at the time, I suspected she had him killed, and was screwing him.(Before she had him killed)
Then I found out she prefers women.
I now think he committed suicide. I think, as does his wife, that Waco played a role.
This gives me some respect for Foster. He had a conscience.
Too bad Reno and Clinton didn't have the decency to pump a round into their own heads.
His friendship and job covering her tracks is what killed him. It appears the demonizing of her crowd of their opponents may have got to him, too. Hence the reference he made to ruining people.

She is a meglomaniac. She has hypnotized a portion of the population that resonates with her psychosis. The same happened with Hitler.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191617 Dec 12, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If they were terrorist Humanists, would it have bothered you so much? I dunno. You don't seem very frazzled that the seige on Waco was okayed because of a lie from Reno.
Are you making this into a religious persecution thing, too, as if I have a double standard for believers and unbelievers because I don't give the religious a pass that I also wouldn't give unbelievers that behaved like these extremists? That's a nonstarter with me, as is any interest only in the perceived excesses of Democratic administrations trying to pass as an interest in justice. Being religious does not give you permission to endanger children or your neighbors, and my calling them religious nut jobs is not grounds for you implying that I am invoking a double standard against the religious.

And if you can find any humanist cult leaders armed to the teeth, entrenched in compounds, resisting a lawful order to stand down while babbling incoherently about the end of the world, then you have my blessings to do whatever is necessary to make the neighborhood safe again. I bet you can't.

There is nothing about humanism that would support such a thing. You can read Kurtz, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, and the like all day and you won't find any support for any of that. You pretty much need to go to sources like the Qur'an and the Book of Revelation for support for that kind of thing, and take it to people willing to believe on faith to build a following.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191618 Dec 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
People don't need a reason to celebrate. Look at New Years Eve, Cinco de Mayo, Halloween, Superbowl Sunday, and St. Patrick's Day. How is Christmas different?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The big difference is you don't hear "Happy Holidays" for New Years Eve, Cinco de Mayo, Halloween, Superbowl Sunday, or St. Patrick's Day.
That's the big difference between Christmas and New Years Eve, Cinco de Mayo, Halloween, Superbowl Sunday, and St. Patrick's Day.

That's sort of what I said, isn't it?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191619 Dec 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I say that Bush used the Constitution as toilet paper: "I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way." "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Buck Crick wrote:
I concur with you on W's disdain for the Constitution.
OK, and thanks for that.

Does that have any bearing on your response to my comment that, "the Constitution is dying" that called that "your side's doing - liberals. Liberals have been on a relentless campaign to kill the Constitution for nearly a hundred years"? Are we calling Bush a liberal here?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#191620 Dec 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The Preamble is about the purpose of the government that was being formed by the Constitution, which was written in the name of "We the people" to serve the people. Where is the confusion coming from for you?
<quoted text>
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
<quoted text>
And who in America is telling others how they should live their lives? Who are these nannies?
Who is telling whom who they can have sex under the desk with, and judging others as immoral for not obeying his Christan ethics?
Who judges people that want to use illicit drugs criminals and lumps them in with welfare frauds?
Who approves of Big Brother reading his emails?
<quoted text>
Is that right? I outlined my vision for government, which is much, much, MUCH smaller, cheaper, and less intrusive than yours.
Try thinking rather than just repeating talking points you've heard. They're simply wrong.
<quoted text>
This is so frigging depressing to read. You have been captured 100%. And they have generated tens of millions just like you. I leave you to YOUR utopian vision of surveillance, military and police. Good luck
You are a paranoid. In addition to being a potential cult member.

You are way too detached from the realities of this world and looking through a very small window at it. Such has tremendous impact on your logic.

"I outlined my vision for government, which is much, much, MUCH smaller, cheaper, and less intrusive than yours."

Hey, Cheech, that surveillance, military, and police is what allows you and others of your pathology to survive and rant. You do understand your ideas are not real popular? That totalitarianism and muscle on the grand scale is what keeps the local boys from frying your ass.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191621 Dec 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Even if all of that were true, we don't hand out the unlitigated death penalty for such things.
People die in police actions all of the time. Do you call those unlitigated death penalties as well, or only when a political party you disesteem is associated with them?

The Branch Davidians were welcome to surrender and have their day in court. They opted to settle the matter their way.
Buck Crick wrote:
We also don't use military assets, including tanks, to assault citizens. And we especially don't kill them when they are posing no threat.
The FBI and the ATF are not the military. And if they use tanks, then you are mistaken about what is used.
Buck Crick wrote:
That's a violation of federal law, not to mention reckless and indifferent to human life.
Are those your principles in every situation in which they might apply? As I told Eagle and Riverside Redneck, I don't consider arguments like those from people that apply them according to political affiliations as sincere.

How do you feel about the invasion of Iraq as a response to 911? Or drone strikes resulting in civilian deaths?
Buck Crick wrote:
We also cannot ignore the government's role in setting the wheels in motion. A bunch of macho agents wanted to play cowboy, and thought it would be a good PR show for funding considerations.
None of you taking this position has mentioned the egregious actions of the Branch Davidians in your assessment of blame. It's all about Clinton and Reno. isn't it?
Buck Crick wrote:
They, Janet Reno, and Bill Clinton murdered those people. That's the rational conclusion that can be drawn.
Maybe they did. I don't have a good handle on what happened, what could or should have happened instead, or how much Reno and Clinton were to blame for any failure.

But I don't see reason as the method you used to arrive at that conclusion. I see partisan politics and inculcation with the output of think tanks as the method.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#191622 Dec 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>And a major misunderstanding of the role of corporal punishment in the private sector.
Agreed.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191623 Dec 12, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I gotta look up half the words you post.
My pleasure. And kudos for bothering to do so.

Would you agree that hanging out with us "liberal elites" and reading what we have to say has been of some value to you?

I suspect that before Topix, which brings an unusual mix of people together, that you weren't exposed to a lot of things that you have found interesting and useful. The same applies for me with regard to prolonged and in depth exposure to the faithful.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#191624 Dec 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This is how you summarize my position? You're despicable.
And a whiny, dissembling, professional victim to boot. You poor religious people! Everyone should pity you for the unfairness of people like me who want you all systematically murdered for nothing more than peacefully exercising your faith.
Quick! Somebody call an waaaaaahhmbulance.
even if Buck and Dave confabulate a little, the world still ends because of religion and militancy.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#191625 Dec 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
People die in police actions all of the time. Do you call those unlitigated death penalties as well, or only when a political party you disesteem is associated with them?
The Branch Davidians were welcome to surrender and have their day in court. They opted to settle the matter their way.
<quoted text>
The FBI and the ATF are not the military. And if they use tanks, then you are mistaken about what is used.
<quoted text>
Are those your principles in every situation in which they might apply? As I told Eagle and Riverside Redneck, I don't consider arguments like those from people that apply them according to political affiliations as sincere.
How do you feel about the invasion of Iraq as a response to 911? Or drone strikes resulting in civilian deaths?
<quoted text>
None of you taking this position has mentioned the egregious actions of the Branch Davidians in your assessment of blame. It's all about Clinton and Reno. isn't it?
<quoted text>
Maybe they did. I don't have a good handle on what happened, what could or should have happened instead, or how much Reno and Clinton were to blame for any failure.
But I don't see reason as the method you used to arrive at that conclusion. I see partisan politics and inculcation with the output of think tanks as the method.
"Increasingly aggressive techniques were used to try to force the Branch Davidians out (for instance, sleep deprivation of the inhabitants by means of all-night broadcasts of recordings of jet planes, pop music, chanting and the screams of rabbits being slaughtered)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#Siege

There were children inside. Bright lights, loud noises, men with guns and tanks, and scared parents inside.

Bill, Hillary, and Janet probably watched that on TV like the rest of the country.

So they went in and killed them all to save the children from abuse. Including the children.

Worked real well. The children were saved from abuse.

Read the whole article.

The government instigated that action, not the Davidians. The top officials of the country witnessed the actions being perpetrated on those inside. Which you can imagine caused considerable stress.

Did the President or his wife pick up the phone and talk to Koresh or do anything else to defuse the situation?

No. They let their minions apply more stress, kill them, and then demonized them,

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191626 Dec 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I can't say you are amusing
But I can say that you are.
Dave Nelson wrote:
"Blame the parents. And blame faith, not law enforcement."

[QUOTE who="Dave Nelson"]Would you feel the same about law enforcement if they raided your house because someone thought they smelled marijuana coming from it? And you might have a gun, so they come in shooting? Oh, yes, you also play rock guitar.
How is that relevant? Do you think that that epitomizes or is analogous to the showdown at Waco?
Dave Nelson wrote:
Federal agents came in guns blazing. They shot dogs as a preventative measure. That was not a please step out of the car measure.
Maybe. I don't know. My position is not to defend the specific methods used by law enforcement, but to say that I blame the Davidians either exclusively or as well, depending on what the government actually did compared to what it could have done to arrest those people, disarm them, and get the criminals among them off the streets, and break up their paramilitary religious cult.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191627 Dec 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Even if they didn't fire back they knew they were going to be crucified. They would have been arrested and hauled into jail for who knows how long, the children would be taken away by the state. Their community and life would have been destroyed.
That's a good thing. If they would rather die, fine. Everybody pretty well knows the repercussions of killing a cop. Christopher Dorner did.
Dave Nelson wrote:
They were all political pawns.
They were dangerous lunatics in open, armed defiance of the law that preferred religious martyrdom to life, not political pawns. They had every opportunity to make better choices and live, and for 51 days, they said hell no.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You may not think illicit drug use is illegal and injurious to individuals, but there are doctors higher up the ladder than you that think so, and the government believes them more than you.
Another nanny statist.
Dave Nelson wrote:
May law enforcement catch up to you and your evil ways, IANS. Submit peacefully. You will only have your nose in the dirt for a while.
May nothing in your life change.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#191628 Dec 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Increasingly aggressive techniques were used to try to force the Branch Davidians out (for instance, sleep deprivation of the inhabitants by means of all-night broadcasts of recordings of jet planes, pop music, chanting and the screams of rabbits being slaughtered)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#Siege
There were children inside. Bright lights, loud noises, men with guns and tanks, and scared parents inside.
Bill, Hillary, and Janet probably watched that on TV like the rest of the country.
So they went in and killed them all to save the children from abuse. Including the children.
Worked real well. The children were saved from abuse.
Read the whole article.
The government instigated that action, not the Davidians. The top officials of the country witnessed the actions being perpetrated on those inside. Which you can imagine caused considerable stress.
Did the President or his wife pick up the phone and talk to Koresh or do anything else to defuse the situation?
No. They let their minions apply more stress, kill them, and then demonized them,
In Rambo, the Colonel asked the douch bag police chief to let it go, theyll pick him up without a problem at some car wash in a couple weeks.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191629 Dec 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
"State government spends more money dealing with the burden
s of substance abuse than on its prevention or treatment"
"In 2006, 54,161 Missouri hospital and emergency room visits were related to alcohol and 43,981 were drug-
related.
Costs for these visits totaled $77.2 million.
During the same year, 808 deaths in Missouri were drug-related and 369 were alcohol-related.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates the economic cost of premature death due to alcohol and drugs
is $350,000 per person.
For the loss of Missouri lives due to substance abuse, this amounts to $411.9 million per year."
http://dmh.mo.gov/docs/ada/burdenofsaonmissou...
That is just in Missouri.
That is why there are laws against it.
Small potatoes.

"Tobacco use remains the single largest preventable cause of disease and premature death in the US, yet more than 45 million Americans still smoke cigarettes. As of 2010, there were also 13.2 million cigar smokers in the US, and 2.2 million who smoke tobacco in pipes.

"Society pays and so do you. The burden of death, disease and disability by the use of tobacco products doesn't just lie with the smoker, but with society as well. Tobacco related health costs and productivity losses in the US:$193 billion

How are you doing with your smoking, Dave? Do you mind being a burden on society?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191630 Dec 12, 2013

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#191631 Dec 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a good thing. If they would rather die, fine. Everybody pretty well knows the repercussions of killing a cop. Christopher Dorner did.
<quoted text>
They were dangerous lunatics in open, armed defiance of the law that preferred religious martyrdom to life, not political pawns. They had every opportunity to make better choices and live, and for 51 days, they said hell no.
<quoted text>
Another nanny statist.
<quoted text>
May nothing in your life change.
IANS, did you get an erection watching those "dangerous lunatics", and their children, die in a fire on live TV? Good riddance!!! SECULAR HUMANISM TRIUMPHS!!

I bet your wife remembers that day.

You are a sick person.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#191632 Dec 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
IANS is truly a piece of work. It is morally wrong to arrest a drug dealer or drug user.
You're a drug user - an addict so addicted to his drug that you will go out into the freezing cold that you despise with your last dollars to buy your drug.

And you are also a financial burden on society. Should you be arrested?
Dave Nelson wrote:
But it is quite OK to kill women and children because they are Christians and their husbands and daddies didn't submit to The Man.
It's the other way around: You're a whiner in victim mode making excuses for armed and dangerous criminals because they were Christians. They don't get a pass.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#191633 Dec 12, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
We hold the execs' and CEO's pay where it is (already obscenely out of proportion) instead of passing it on to the consumers.
We outnumber them, you know.
About 99 to 1.
I agree with ya there. The ceo's are way too overpaid.

We should distribute their wealth amongst the people that don't strive like they did.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#191634 Dec 12, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey look.
It's Mr. Free Market.
What's 27 years worth to you?
The gang member stole a guys tools.

And you got him off.

For money.

Go figure.

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
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 min Dec 2017 News 445,848
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 6 min my oh my 46,183
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 min Aura Mytha 990,677
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 14 min Eagle 12 - 6,707
Jeffreys: Evangelicals will vote for Moore 33 min ALL Libs R Liars 5
__POPE & ISRAEL to SIGN Historic Agreement__ 44 min True Reporter 3
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 47 min Classic 4,404
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr trumpthedotard 691,975
More from around the web