Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258461 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.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#203255 Jan 15, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. So predictable. Rage on little man.
.. Catcher & I love you Chris ..

P.S. Say "Hi" to Mrs. Clearwater for me, OK? I've been rather busy lately.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#203256 Jan 15, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they did.
To their great credit, in my view.
There are close cases, such as a religious student group holding meetings on campus.
But this was an easy one.
Government promotion of a religion is clearly unconstitutional. Government entanglement with religion is enough, even without promotion.
"Government promotion of a religion is clearly unconstitutional"

If it was clear, how come the Engle court failed to cite one single precedent?

Did it just become clear that day?

You keep saying that, but never back it up.

Show us where the Constitution says or even implies that government promotion of religion is unconstitutional.

So far, all we have is elevated lawyers saying so.

I have, on my side, the actual Constitution. Remember that? How come you never quote it on this issue? Could it be quoting the actual document hurts your argument?

I quote it frequently. It says, on this issue, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Just 10 words. Notice what words are not included in those 10: "government"; "promotion"....

The activity in the Engle case violated nothing - NOTHING - in the Constitution, and you cannot show otherwise.

Was Jefferson promoting religion when he built the Indians a Catholic church and hired a them a priest with taxpayer funds?

Are Presidents promoting religion when they call for a national day of prayer?

Seems so.

The Constitution of several states contains a written prayer as a preamble.

Can students read their state's Constitution in school, or is their state Constitution unconstitutional?

If the prayer in Engle is unconstitutional, most state Constitutions are unconstitutional.

You know why these inconsistencies exist? Because none of it is unconstitutional, and everybody knows that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#203258 Jan 15, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Really?
How many "fiscal conservatives" voted for:
Medicare Part D on borrowed money
Two wars on borrowed money
Tax rebates on borrowed money
"Temporary" tax cuts on borrowed money
Allowing Pay As You Go to elapse
Enormous expansion of government bureaucracies
This all happened under Republican control of the Executive and both branches of legislature.
This liberal would have seen these go forward ONLY with the means to pay for them.
Too many people today confuse partisan labels with actual fiscal responsibility.
Was that supposed to have a point?

Being republican doesn't make one a conservative.

Since: Sep 08

Saguache, CO

#203260 Jan 15, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. the purpose of public education is to prepare children for the real world which, unless you're fabulously wealthy, includes the skills to obtain/keep a job and prepare a meal ..
.. all sports, including basketball, promote a lifetime commitment to physical fitness ..
.. choir is an elective ..
.. most public schools suck at all of the above. If you can afford it, send your children to a private school ..
Public schools are secular.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#203261 Jan 15, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Take away his diploma? For exercising a constitutionally protected right?
Clearly, you are all American....
Absolutely. He broke the rules.

It's your constitutionally protected right to carry a shotgun. I wouldn't recommend taking one to a school.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#203262 Jan 15, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. Catcher & I love you Chris ..
P.S. Say "Hi" to Mrs. Clearwater for me, OK? I've been rather busy lately.
Sure, lets remember some examples of your love. "Thank God you and your wife don't have children." Dumb as a box of rocks. Still not sure if Christians are like air pollution was Catcher or not? Be honest please. Btw my wife was blessed to share this week how the Lord set her free from drugs and that lifestyle (her words).

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#203263 Jan 15, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court struck down voluntary prayer in school in Engle v. Vitale in 1962.

The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive.
It's pure bull shit, of course. But that's what they ruled.
And among the primary plaintiffs were Jewish orgs, not "secular humanists".

The problem was in prescribing the exact verbiage, which constitutes state-sponsored endorsement. Secondly, making it an official school prayer time, which again signifies official religious endorsement.

Beyond that, I would argue that it is in fact coercive. Any event held in an ostensibly authoritarian environment such as a school, with the added peer pressure universal at this age, is inherently coercive. Even the appearance of non-conformity brings down the wrath of teacher and student alike.

In any case NO one is barred from voluntary prayer of their own conception. Civil authorities just can't set aside an official "prayer time", much less write the prayer.

It's only "bullshit" to you because you would like to see a Christian prayer, which is bullshit to me because you've admitted not praying as a child, in school or out, and to harboring some of the very sentiments that are at root of the moral decline you bemoan. I hate the way the word hypocrite gets thrown around so easily here, but Riv, man, you are doing it without even blushing. You are a walking contradiction.

Hopefully you are at least consistent. What was your stand on the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque"? Were you so willing to stand for everyone's freedom of religious expression, or just Christian?
Richardfs

Australia

#203264 Jan 15, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> If a guy who does not think much can perceive the accuracy in Bucks positions , imagine how much thinking theists will back him.
A person who does not think much can believe in anything, as you repeatedly demonstrate.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#203265 Jan 15, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that supposed to have a point?
Being republican doesn't make one a conservative.
True words. Like that hack in New Jersey, exactly like the pretender in the white house today.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#203266 Jan 15, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’
http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-...
I say bring it cowards. I won't shut up.
wow

While I think there are times the 1st Amendment has been used to protect things it was never intended to, this is a dangerous precedent that Canada is willing to engage in.

I expected to click on the article and see some sort of harassment where someone was essentially assaulting and targeting an individual and then claiming freedom of speech. Which is what the Alberta ruling was and said it was legal because it did not target an individual. But now even saying or writing the Biblical position on homosexuality is considered hate-speech?

It is basically legislating personal morality and making it illegal for someone to express their position. It is also essentially using the law to allow legislators to use their personal opinion to criminalize a portion of a religion.

I would think regardless how people felt about it personally that they would see the danger in this. Allowing the government to decide opinions are illegal is pretty nuts. It'll be interesting to see if this has a slippery slope effect. What will be next? But I saw this in a different way with the Patriot Act. People make knee-jerk decisions and give away what used to be rights that were considered sacred based on an over-reaction to a single event.

So many people died on battlefields to ensure certain rights. It's sad to see us to hand them over because of fear or political correctness. All these rights, be it privacy or free speech or legal or etc are so much bigger than any one situation. I don't see how people don't get that
Richardfs

Australia

#203267 Jan 15, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci encetech/article-2539100/How-r eligion-cuts-crime-Attending-c hurch-makes-likely-shoplift-dr ugs-download-music-illegally.h tml
"A survey from Manchester University found a direct correlation between higher visits to religious places and lower crime figures, especially in relation to shoplifting, drug use and music piracy."
.....
So there is no crime in Rome can you spell Mafia or how about Dublin can you spell I.R.A. or what about the Vatican.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#203268 Jan 15, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. don't forget sex education ..
I'll do my homework. I have a study partner.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#203269 Jan 15, 2014
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
A person who does not think much can believe in anything, as you repeatedly demonstrate.
You have analysis paralysis. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed..

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#203270 Jan 15, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>wow
While I think there are times the 1st Amendment has been used to protect things it was never intended to, this is a dangerous precedent that Canada is willing to engage in.
I expected to click on the article and see some sort of harassment where someone was essentially assaulting and targeting an individual and then claiming freedom of speech. Which is what the Alberta ruling was and said it was legal because it did not target an individual. But now even saying or writing the Biblical position on homosexuality is considered hate-speech?
It is basically legislating personal morality and making it illegal for someone to express their position. It is also essentially using the law to allow legislators to use their personal opinion to criminalize a portion of a religion.
I would think regardless how people felt about it personally that they would see the danger in this. Allowing the government to decide opinions are illegal is pretty nuts. It'll be interesting to see if this has a slippery slope effect. What will be next? But I saw this in a different way with the Patriot Act. People make knee-jerk decisions and give away what used to be rights that were considered sacred based on an over-reaction to a single event.
So many people died on battlefields to ensure certain rights. It's sad to see us to hand them over because of fear or political correctness. All these rights, be it privacy or free speech or legal or etc are so much bigger than any one situation. I don't see how people don't get that
Nor do I. I have no doubt people right in this forum would like it if certain peoples word's were labeled hate speech to silence them. But you really think the government should have that power? While this is in another nation its too close to home for me. And I would say this for EVERYONE, religion/ politics aside. I can't stand rap music and happen to think it devalues both women and men but I thank God the government doesn't tell us what is or isn't valid speech. The direction we are moving isn't good bro.
Richardfs

Australia

#203271 Jan 15, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
To believe in Atheism requires one to believe in nothing.
And nothing can not heal a broken heart.
Were you born a dipstick or do you work on it daily?

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#203272 Jan 15, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>wow
While I think there are times the 1st Amendment has been used to protect things it was never intended to, this is a dangerous precedent that Canada is willing to engage in.
I expected to click on the article and see some sort of harassment where someone was essentially assaulting and targeting an individual and then claiming freedom of speech. Which is what the Alberta ruling was and said it was legal because it did not target an individual. But now even saying or writing the Biblical position on homosexuality is considered hate-speech?
It is basically legislating personal morality and making it illegal for someone to express their position. It is also essentially using the law to allow legislators to use their personal opinion to criminalize a portion of a religion.
I would think regardless how people felt about it personally that they would see the danger in this. Allowing the government to decide opinions are illegal is pretty nuts. It'll be interesting to see if this has a slippery slope effect. What will be next? But I saw this in a different way with the Patriot Act. People make knee-jerk decisions and give away what used to be rights that were considered sacred based on an over-reaction to a single event.
So many people died on battlefields to ensure certain rights. It's sad to see us to hand them over because of fear or political correctness. All these rights, be it privacy or free speech or legal or etc are so much bigger than any one situation. I don't see how people don't get that
Man I guess this struck a never with someone. These icons are a gas.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#203273 Jan 15, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Backwards? Many have rendered themselves unemployable even if they really are stable persons underneath the tats piercings and pony tails.
Exactly

I would assume anybody who has ever worked in a professional setting knows that first impressions set the tone and the very first thing used to firm an impression is appearance.

Like you said, the person themselves may be very different than an assumption someone might make based in appearance. But it won't matter. Even as human beings it is pretty common knowledge that we tend to form opinions based on appearance. But when someone only has one shot to impress someone, the last thing they want to have to do is combat preconceived notions about then that they caused. It's just common sense

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#203274 Jan 15, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks
The story seemed a little crafted IMO
On a side note , I have never got a tattoo because I was concerned later in life I would not be as convinced whatever I got was a good idea. Looking back now I'm glad I didn't go thru with some of the ones I had been considering. Although a few I think I'd still be good with
You have any tattoos?
Or for anybody, any tattoo regrets? Or ones you have always liked and never regretted it? I've always been on the fence, even now, so would be curious to hear any stories
While in AIT in Georgia, I ran across a tattoo shop, I was gonna do it on payday. I can now say 'thankfully' they screwed up my check and I didnt get paid, in fact they said I owed them money. Anyway I never went through with it, I was back in MN. before they got it straightened out.

I was gonna get the Pink Panther in a trench coat and shades, a baggy of reefer in one hand and a doobie up to his lips in the other on my left upper arm..........

So glad i didnt get paid that payday..... LOL..........

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#203275 Jan 15, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do. Let me help you out as I will now quote you are you jet again smear and lie about Christians...
Good summation of the differing thought processes.
When I was first confronted with this dichotomy, I didn't recognize it. I was baffled. What a ludicrous proposition! I was certain they were just posing for effect. But after considerable discussion with multiple faithers repeating this same view, with little variation, I came to realize that there apparently were individuals who required, all the way thru adulthood, an external "Rulegiver/Enforcer" . They actually seem to need someone to restrain their murderous, larcenous impulses. More than that, it has to be an "all-powerful Deity", because, by God, society can't tell them what to do.

And as you say, since it seems that being self-absorbed goes hand-in-hand with these personality types, they assume, no, insist, that everyone else suffers from the same moral turpitude.
Bilgewater - ever ready to play the victim.

The statement above is quite specific. Tell me, do you harbor murderous, larcenous impulses, held in check only because of your belief in eternal punishment? If you were to somehow fall away, would you take to robbing and killing? Do you further believe that everyone else on the planet is a closet murderer and and thief?

If you do, then yes, you are described above and by all means, I'm glad your Christianity protects us from you.

If not, then the statement doesn't apply to you.

Stop being on such sharp lookout for personal offense, and you'll be amazed how little there really is directed your way.
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Show me where any Christian here insist on anything. I can spend days giving you examples of people that confess to have tolerance and show little to none and try to insist, usually by political correctness folks live the way they want or shut up. I have no problem with how people live but as long as I have breath will stand up for EVERYONE'S right to speak. Make no mistake the day will come when just like in Canada Christians will be forced by a benevolent government to sit down and shut up or locked up for hate speech. At least that's the direction I see this nation moving.
I have no doubt that your mind runneth over with nightmares of victimhood and dire apocalyptic prophecies of your own making. It is apparent in your every utterance. The one fruit which you've never seemed to be able to attain thus far, much less display, is simple peace. I do hope you find it somehow, someway in >this< life.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#203276 Jan 15, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. He broke the rules.
It's your constitutionally protected right to carry a shotgun. I wouldn't recommend taking one to a school.
You're comparing praying in school to bringing a shotgun to school.

Does that mean you find them both equally dangerous?

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) 11 min truth 667,636
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 20 min Rosa_Winkel 92,414
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 28 min Gabriel 979,330
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Qu_innocence 619,214
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr bad bob 183,614
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 445,564
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr MUQ2 285,972
More from around the web