Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256652 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.

Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#200348 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your morals.
Your morals aren't everyone's.
Capisce?
I wonder if Catch we be ok with your alledged bigotry if it emanated for a pneumbra
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#200349 Jan 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Gargle my nuts.
caution, you could end up like BLOB , crushed
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#200350 Jan 7, 2014
them dang homersexshulls are livid because the supreme court revoked ssm in Utah. They court said it was unconstitutional. What state is next.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#200351 Jan 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He is correct. Any precursor that is missing parts is nonfunctional with respect to the function of the entire system. The beneficial function of the system would have to be present in order for it to be selected by natural selection.
Never mind that what you just typed doesn't make any sense.

That must be why it was proven wrong.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200352 Jan 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. That's very interesting information.
If the Supreme Court issues an opinion holding a law to be unconstitutional, the law IS unconstitutional.
By the same token, if the Supreme Court issues an opinion holding a law to be constitutional, it IS constitutional.
And they are the final arbiter.
It is settled.
//////////
So tell me. Does that mean Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" law is still in force?
The U.S. Supreme Court decided it. They are the final arbiter. Right?
They said separate-but-equal IS constitutional.
So it IS constitutional - according to you.
And I thought the Pope was the only infallible human.
Very good. You have the fundamentals down.

Now I'll give you a brief response to your second question. Here goes:

As I said, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.

This doesn't mean the Supreme Court's edicts are unchangeable--the Supreme Court itself, as the final arbiter, is free to reassess (although the principle of stare decisis, of which you are aware, often hinders change ), if it considers that an earlier decision was wrongly decided. This is what happened in the case of Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court determined separate but equal is not equal for constitutional purposes, and disavowed earlier decisions to the contrary.

In discussions with me, please be very careful and precise with your language, and don't misstate what I write. In this case, for instance, you use the word "infallible." This is highly improper and dishonest on your part, and I hope it was unintentional. I have never stated that the Supreme Court is infallible. I stated that it is the final arbiter--not that its decisions are cast in concrete, but that the court itself is the ultimate decisionmaker on issues of constitutionality. In other words, "final" modifies "arbiter." Of all the arbiters, the Supreme Court is the final one.

I hope this is clear.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200353 Jan 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
OK, so your bigotry emanates from your religious views.
I don't really care how people try to justify their bigotry.
Bigotry?! What bigotry?

Oh wait, I forgot. Any reference against the liberal American is seen as bigotry.

Never mind.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#200354 Jan 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
"A group of ten conservative Christian professors reviewed the work (The Jefferson Lies) and formed a negative view of its claims, reporting that Barton has misstated facts about Jefferson."

No, they did not. The article is a lie. It is from Warren Throckmorton quoting an assessment done by Jay Richards. Of the 10 professors contacted, 6 refused to participate, but were cited by Richards as criticizing the work anyway. The 4 who participated were Glenn Moots, Glenn Sunshine, Greg Forester, and Gregg Frazer. Of these 4 only 1 - Frazier - specializes in history of the founding. And he ADMITTED HE DID NOT READ BARTON'S BOOK.

Are we starting to get a flavor of the "debunking of Barton's lies"??
How could we? All you have provided us with are your claims. You know what you need to do to make them more than that.

But for whatever your reason, you choose not to, You certainly can't expect your readers to fact-check your claims for you.

I did Google the quote, which took me to the Wiki article. The words surrounding the quote were even more damning:

"In August 2012, Christian publisher Thomas Nelson withdrew the book from publication and stopped production, announcing that they had "lost confidence in the book's details" and "learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported."

Why do you suppose he did that?

=========

I've looked into this matter a little more, and discovered that you paraphrased Barton's claims about himself until your last sentence, then took it further than Barton did. From http://www.worldmag.com/2013/01/no_i_m_not_wr...

"In August 2012, several media outlets reported that Jay Richards, a philosopher and theologian with the Discovery Institute who was also a public endorser of Throckmorton’s book, had asked “10 conservative Christian professors to assess my work.” It was reported that their responses were “negative.” However, some of the 10 listed by him had flatly refused to participate in his quest but yet were still listed as providing “negative” responses against me. And in direct conversations I had with Richards after he coordinated these attacks, he openly confessed to me that he knew very little about history. Only four of the 10 scholars contacted by Richards actually provided any critiques of my work: Glenn Moots, Glenn Sunshine, Greg Forester, and Gregg Frazer. Of these four, only Frazer specializes in religion and the American founding, but his critique did not even address The Jefferson Lies, and it is not clear that he even bothered to read it. "

Please tell me what is the basis of your comment, "And he ADMITTED HE DID NOT READ BARTON'S BOOK." Barton didn't say that in the piece you seem to have used as your reference. Barton said there that it appeared to him that Frazier didn't read the book. Where did you get that Frazier admitted not reading the book? I couldn't find anything on the Internet that agreed with that.

And why would I believe Barton's claims, which also weren't sourced or supported? I found this link at http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/1030895... , which is a 39 page rebuttal from which the paragraph above by Barton apparently originated. I skimmed it, and found nothing to support your claim about Frazier there, either.

Then I looked at this
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmort... , which also didn't support your claim about Frazier.

I'm not trying to embarrass you, Buck. I'm just showing you why unsourced claims like yours shouldn't be trusted, especially in areas like this.

Unless you can provide some justification for having gone much further than Barton did himself, you have given me good reason to remain agnostic about anything you post without a supporting citation.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200355 Jan 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good. You have the fundamentals down.
Now I'll give you a brief response to your second question. Here goes:
As I said, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.
This doesn't mean the Supreme Court's edicts are unchangeable--the Supreme Court itself, as the final arbiter, is free to reassess (although the principle of stare decisis, of which you are aware, often hinders change ), if it considers that an earlier decision was wrongly decided. This is what happened in the case of Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court determined separate but equal is not equal for constitutional purposes, and disavowed earlier decisions to the contrary.
In discussions with me, please be very careful and precise with your language, and don't misstate what I write. In this case, for instance, you use the word "infallible." This is highly improper and dishonest on your part, and I hope it was unintentional. I have never stated that the Supreme Court is infallible. I stated that it is the final arbiter--not that its decisions are cast in concrete, but that the court itself is the ultimate decisionmaker on issues of constitutionality. In other words, "final" modifies "arbiter." Of all the arbiters, the Supreme Court is the final one.
I hope this is clear.
I got it.

The Supreme Court is the final answer.

The Supreme Court is right.

Except when the Supreme Court is wrong.

Then they make a new final answer.

Whew.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#200356 Jan 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I said that I wouldn't quibble with you over the word discriminatory. Doing so seems like a pointless exercise.
But that doesn't mean that I concede the point to you or agree with you. Allowing only heterosexuals to marry is discriminatory. It is also irrational, arbitrary, unjust and unkind.
I also consider it unconstitutional - equal protection - but that's not a point I feel qualified to argue, nor even important to my moral argument. That would be a legal matter.
<quoted text>
This argument has no traction.
You're probably right. Pointing out the dishonesty of their position will not provoke a noisy interest group into being honest.

But still good to know - when we see them yelling about discrimination and carrying signs, we know the gay rights movement cannot be believed on anything.

You recall what a fraud they made of that Matthew Shephard incident.

Are there any persons that could be rationally and justly prevented from marrying by law?

At the rate it's moving, I just hope they don't make same-sex marriage mandatory.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200357 Jan 7, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I wonder if Catch we be ok with your alledged bigotry if it emanated for a pneumbra
I wonder where Feltcher1's anti-Christian bigotry comes from......

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200358 Jan 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Emanates??
Is he a penumbra?
I thought twice before using the word "emanates".

Perhaps I should clarify, for people who like country music, to emanate means to come from a source.

In this case, I was telling the Redneck that the source of his bigotry is his religion.

I can also discuss penumbras, if you like.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200359 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Bigotry?! What bigotry?
Oh wait, I forgot. Any reference against the liberal American is seen as bigotry.
Never mind.
Stop it.

You have repeatedly agreed that you are a bigot.

And don't start with the word jumble, redneck.

We're onto your crap.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#200360 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder where Feltcher1's anti-Christian bigotry comes from......
I suspect its partly because he does not approve of God being at the top, he wants that space.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200361 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I got it.
The Supreme Court is the final answer.
The Supreme Court is right.
Except when the Supreme Court is wrong.
Then they make a new final answer.
Whew.
That's correct--a simpletonian way of stating it, which reduces your grade from an A to a B+, but nevertheless correct: The holdings of the Supreme Court are indeed subject to reassessment by the Supreme Court at a later time.

I realize this is troublesome for you, so I have a suggestion to make you feel more comfortable: Go to your bookcase and rearrange all the books, from the tallest to the smallest. This will reinforce the sense of structure that your personality requires, without disrupting the healthy development of the law.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200362 Jan 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:

Stop it.
You have repeatedly agreed that you are a bigot.
And don't start with the word jumble, redneck.
We're onto your crap.
No. I admitted to being a little racist and a misogynist.

No bigotry was conceded. You're lying.

But you go first. Admit you're a bigot.

Go.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200363 Jan 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably right. Pointing out the dishonesty of their position will not provoke a noisy interest group into being honest.
But still good to know - when we see them yelling about discrimination and carrying signs, we know the gay rights movement cannot be believed on anything.
You recall what a fraud they made of that Matthew Shephard incident.
Are there any persons that could be rationally and justly prevented from marrying by law?
At the rate it's moving, I just hope they don't make same-sex marriage mandatory.
If they do, I'm sure you will receive numerous proposals.

Take your time in making a decision--marriage is a very important institution, and the divorce rate is far too high in today's society.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#200364 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Bigotry?! What bigotry?
Oh wait, I forgot. Any reference against the liberal American is seen as bigotry.
Never mind.
liberal America learned a lot from the Jews and from deviant desire for internecine warfare over fairness and morality. Their motto, piss on the last piece of bread, now no one gets any.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200365 Jan 7, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I suspect its partly because he does not approve of God being at the top, he wants that space.
There are no gods.

Catcher IS at the top of the pile.

Just ask Dave Nelson.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200366 Jan 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If they do, I'm sure you will receive numerous proposals.
Take your time in making a decision--marriage is a very important institution, and the divorce rate is far too high in today's society.
Alcatraz is also an institution....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200367 Jan 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's correct--a simpletonian way of stating it, which reduces your grade from an A to a B+, but nevertheless correct: The holdings of the Supreme Court are indeed subject to reassessment by the Supreme Court at a later time.
I realize this is troublesome for you, so I have a suggestion to make you feel more comfortable: Go to your bookcase and rearrange all the books, from the tallest to the smallest. This will reinforce the sense of structure that your personality requires, without disrupting the healthy development of the law.
Alright then.

Don't bother saying anything resembling "The Supreme Court has dictated this or that to be constitutional."

They could change their minds later.

I just wanted you to admit that.

And what the hell makes you think I have books let alone enough books that would necessitate a bookcase?

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min OzRitz 1,421,475
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr zef 311,633
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Trojan 32,341
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 14 hr RiccardoFire 201,890
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Tue Earthling-1 10,070
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) Aug 14 Alex 17
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Aug 11 Ceren 9
More from around the web