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.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#205159 Jan 20, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, Qu_in, but how does that support the contention that teaching a Christian that his god considers homosexuality an abomination not imply that that god hates homosexuals?....
In many translations of the Bible, ".... is an abomination to the Lord" is translated as "God hates....."

I wish these Christians would get their stories straight. As it is they call their only source of authority a pack of lies.

What a joke of a religion.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205160 Jan 20, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Good luck with this one ...
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but I missed the Christian part there. That's the way a deist would write.
Incidentally, that phrase appears in the Declaration, not the Constitution.
<quoted text>
Even if we stipulate that the god reference was sincere and not just rhetoric for hortatory purposes - it always helps to invoke a god to a religious audience - there is no mention of Jesus, Yahweh, or any other specific or named god, and no way to connect the ideas in the Constitution to the Christian bible.
And you're improvising with your mention of sin. The idea of members in a community supporting one another and punishing those in their midst that do harm is universal, and predates civilization, let alone Christianity.
It doesn' matter what it pre-dates. If the founders recognized these as Christian principles, and acted on that recognition, then their actions were based on Christian principles.

You don't get the luxury of retroactive motive assignments.

Thomas Jefferson:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

-Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia" (Philiadelphia; Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237

Sure sounds like a specific god.

This one gets even more specific:

"The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He has taken care to impress on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses".

-Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor; Washington D.C., Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809

Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Father of American Jurisprudence:

"And, at all events, is is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as a Divine revelation, to doubt that it is the especial duty of GOVERNMENT <emphasis added> to foster and encourage it among all citizens and subjects. It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God and the support of religion constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape."

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205161 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thomas Nelson publishing is no longer a Christian publishing house. It was bought out by Harper Collins.
Then why does HarperCollins have the following web page...

http://www.harpercollinschristian.com/

"HarperCollins Christian Publishing Inc. is a world leading Christian publisher. Comprised of the Thomas Nelson and Zondervan publishing groups..."

<Oops. Buck strikes out again.>

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#205162 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Wrong. It can be "exactly", and also say more. If I say "DS is a dumbass and a liar", then someone quotes me as saying "DS is a dumbass...", his quote is exactly right. If someone quotes me as saying "Darwin is only a dumbass...", then the quote would be false. The addition does not diminsh the accuracy of the selected point, particularly when it is connected by "and".
How about, "The credit goes to Bob and and Sue" being recopied as "The credit goes to Bob"? Does it matter that I didn't say ONLY Bob? It's possible that the author actually credited Sue more.

Adams was giving credit to a variety of sources providing "general principles on which the fathers achieved independence" - Christian, English and American. Changing it to just one misrepresents his beliefs. I happen to believe that Christianity played no part, and Adams doesn't mention specifically what part he thinks it played. He may mean a tiny part. That is for the reader to judge.

But when the other sources are omitted, it appears that Adams meant that Christianity alone provided the principles of which he speaks, which it is assumed was Barton's intent when he deleted the others.

In any even, you can take heed of how this kind of thing is perceived, or just keep insisting that it doesn't matter. It appears that you have little hope of convincing most of us that Barton can be trusted to report facts without distorting them in defense of his thesis. He is tendentious, which Throckmorton addressed:

"The duty of Christians as scholars is first to get the facts correct ... First, scholars labor to uncover the facts about a subject, whether they relate to a historical figure or an aspect of social science. Second, scholars follow the data where they lead. To achieve these objectives, Marsden counsels the Christian scholar to avoid tendentiousness. Tendentiousness might best be described as the kind of argumentation made by lawyers in support of a client where every fact is turned and twisted to be in support of the client. Scholars cannot look like lawyers finding any fact to support their case and excluding or distorting those facts which undermine the case."

This is what the ID scientists are accused of as well.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205163 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not remotely what circular reasoning is.
Does Barton proving his point by including a photograph of his document claim in his book qualify as circular reasoning?
Do you join Throckmorton and Coulter in rejecting their own eyes?
I bet you do.
Buck, if I only quoted Darwin to support Darwin, you would be chastising me for circular reasoning...and rightly so.

But your demented little brain thinks that quoting Barton to support Barton is not circular reasoning.

You are assuming Barton is true. You then argue using Barton to "prove" that point. That is EXACTLY circular reasoning.

<Buck strikes out again.>

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205164 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to mention Barton's book was subsequently reviewed and then picked up by Simon & Schuster.
You also forgot to mention it was on the NY Times Bestseller List.
You also forgot to mention that when Barton submitted his manuscript to Thomas Nelson Publishing, they assigned 18 editors to scrub and fact check it, and then approved it for publication.
You also forgot to mention Thomas Nelson Publishing never contacted Barton to verify any fact called into question.
You also forgot to mention that prior to publication, Barton warned Thomas Nelson Publishing about Gay Activist Psychologist Warren Throckmorton, who poses as an evangelical Christian, his underhanded tactics, and the amount of clamor he could generate with his ties to anti-Christian groups like Right Wing Watch.
Buck...

It has been almost a year and a half since Barton made the claim that the Jefferson Lies was to be published by Simon & Schuster.

Go to Simon & Schuster and search for the book. It isn't there. It isn't even on their list of books to be published.

In September, Chris Rodda asked the question, "Where is That Simon & Schuster Edition of The Jefferson Lies That David Barton Has Been Promising?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/whe...

It wasn't there in September. It is there now.

It appears that Barton has prevaricated once again.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205165 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
Barton's inclusion of the quote was in the context of asserting Adams reliance on "general principles of Christianity verses principles of a particular sect.
He did it like so, quoting Adams:
"Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Methodists? Or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? Or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were...the general principles of Christianity..."
The quote is legitimate and on point, with nothing relevant to the specific discussion being omitted.
You have no case.
I am certain that if I looked hard enough I could find a Buck post that would fit my purposes. After all, he has posted 10' of thousands of times.

So, looking hard enough, I could probably find a Buck post that by selective editing would say...

"Buck...is a dumbass."

And this would be an exact quote (using Buck logic).

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205166 Jan 20, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
And thank you, my friend. I couldn't be more pleased that we have learned to discuss ideas with mutual respect rather than attack one another. We may disagree about almost everything else, but we seem to agree that we want to get along.
When Buck was first here, it appeared I could have a reasonalbe conversation with him.

The he wrote something about Barton's "truths". I countered that Barton was not credible and linked to several sites pointing out Barton's prevarications.

Buck went ballistic, call me a "liar" and even more vile things...and has not been civil to me since.

Since that time, Buck has never attempted to be civil with me, and I gave up on trying to be civil with him a long time ago. Though I do think my incivility toward Buck is fairly mild. Buck's incivility toward me verges on the vile.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#205167 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thomas Nelson publishing is no longer a Christian publishing house. It was bought out by Harper Collins.
Notice no specifics on anything untruthful about Barton's book.
That's because critics have yet to find anything. Did you see a specific mistake mentioned?
It is based on a critique, not by any historian, but by a Gay Activist Psychologist and Pamphleteer - Warren Throckmorton.
Throckmorton managed to whip up enough pressure from Gay Activist groups that they intimidated the publisher into pulling the book. It's a public smear job.
Yeah. TEH GAYS are responsible for barton's lack of credibility. Pretty much everything is because of TEH GAYS.

Anyways, let's not get finicky about labels like historian. Because barton, by any reasonable measure, has no right to call himself one. He has a BA in religious studies from a religious organization, and his only interest lies in pushing a radical reinterpretation of history. Sounds more like a stubborn, ideologically extreme polemicist.

"Jay W. Richards, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and author with James Robison of Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late, spoke alongside Barton at Christian conferences as recently as last month. Richards says in recent months he has grown increasingly troubled about Barton's writings, so he asked 10 conservative Christian professors to assess Barton's work.

Their response was negative. Some examples: Glenn Moots of Northwood University wrote that Barton in The Jefferson Lies is so eager to portray Jefferson as sympathetic to Christianity that he misses or omits obvious signs that Jefferson stood outside "orthodox, creedal, confessional Christianity." A second professor, Glenn Sunshine of Central Connecticut State University, said that Barton's characterization of Jefferson's religious views is "unsupportable." A third, Gregg Frazer of The Master's College, evaluated Barton's video America's Godly Heritage and found many of its factual claims dubious, such as a statement that "52 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were 'orthodox, evangelical Christians.'" Barton told me he found that number in M.E. Bradford's A Worthy Company."

These guys agree that christian principles were influential in early america, and have every reason to endorse his views, but even they cannot bring themselves to accept the "embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims."

Let me guess... Part of the gay agenda?

http://www.worldmag.com/2012/08/the_david_bar...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205168 Jan 20, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How about, "The credit goes to Bob and and Sue" being recopied as "The credit goes to Bob"? Does it matter that I didn't say ONLY Bob? It's possible that the author actually credited Sue more.
Adams was giving credit to a variety of sources providing "general principles on which the fathers achieved independence" - Christian, English and American. Changing it to just one misrepresents his beliefs. I happen to believe that Christianity played no part, and Adams doesn't mention specifically what part he thinks it played. He may mean a tiny part. That is for the reader to judge.
But when the other sources are omitted, it appears that Adams meant that Christianity alone provided the principles of which he speaks, which it is assumed was Barton's intent when he deleted the others.
In any even, you can take heed of how this kind of thing is perceived, or just keep insisting that it doesn't matter. It appears that you have little hope of convincing most of us that Barton can be trusted to report facts without distorting them in defense of his thesis. He is tendentious, which Throckmorton addressed:
"The duty of Christians as scholars is first to get the facts correct ... First, scholars labor to uncover the facts about a subject, whether they relate to a historical figure or an aspect of social science. Second, scholars follow the data where they lead. To achieve these objectives, Marsden counsels the Christian scholar to avoid tendentiousness. Tendentiousness might best be described as the kind of argumentation made by lawyers in support of a client where every fact is turned and twisted to be in support of the client. Scholars cannot look like lawyers finding any fact to support their case and excluding or distorting those facts which undermine the case."
This is what the ID scientists are accused of as well.
Buck claims Barton is a seeker after truth. But if so, why does Barton leave out a significant part of the quote? And it isn't just with this one quote that Buck has zeroed in on. It is with practically every quote Barton publishes. He keeps the part about Christianity and leaves out all other influences.

Every time.

Those are not the actions of someone seeking truth. They are the actions of someone with an agenda. In Barton's, the Christian Dominion agenda.

And it isn't just limited to quote mines. From Wikipedia...

"In an article titled "Unconfirmed Quotations", Barton conceded that he has not located primary sources for eleven alleged quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (hence, the title of the article), but maintained that the quotes were "completely consistent" with the views of the Founders"

In other words, Barton in the past has had no qualms about merely creating quotes out of whole clothe.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#205169 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to mention Barton's book was subsequently reviewed and then picked up by Simon & Schuster.
You also forgot to mention it was on the NY Times Bestseller List.
You also forgot to mention that when Barton submitted his manuscript to Thomas Nelson Publishing, they assigned 18 editors to scrub and fact check it, and then approved it for publication.
You also forgot to mention Thomas Nelson Publishing never contacted Barton to verify any fact called into question.
You also forgot to mention that prior to publication, Barton warned Thomas Nelson Publishing about Gay Activist Psychologist Warren Throckmorton, who poses as an evangelical Christian, his underhanded tactics, and the amount of clamor he could generate with his ties to anti-Christian groups like Right Wing Watch.
I suppose some publishers have a level of credibility they'd like to maintain.

"Proof of Heaven" was also a best seller (I know you'll like this one).

I can't deny the power of the homosexual agenda, however. They have placed a fruity blood curse on barton, and they shall not rest until he is dead or converted.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205170 Jan 20, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah. TEH GAYS are responsible for barton's lack of credibility. Pretty much everything is because of TEH GAYS.
Anyways, let's not get finicky about labels like historian. Because barton, by any reasonable measure, has no right to call himself one. He has a BA in religious studies from a religious organization, and his only interest lies in pushing a radical reinterpretation of history. Sounds more like a stubborn, ideologically extreme polemicist.
"Jay W. Richards, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and author with James Robison of Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late, spoke alongside Barton at Christian conferences as recently as last month. Richards says in recent months he has grown increasingly troubled about Barton's writings, so he asked 10 conservative Christian professors to assess Barton's work.
Their response was negative. Some examples: Glenn Moots of Northwood University wrote that Barton in The Jefferson Lies is so eager to portray Jefferson as sympathetic to Christianity that he misses or omits obvious signs that Jefferson stood outside "orthodox, creedal, confessional Christianity." A second professor, Glenn Sunshine of Central Connecticut State University, said that Barton's characterization of Jefferson's religious views is "unsupportable." A third, Gregg Frazer of The Master's College, evaluated Barton's video America's Godly Heritage and found many of its factual claims dubious, such as a statement that "52 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were 'orthodox, evangelical Christians.'" Barton told me he found that number in M.E. Bradford's A Worthy Company."
These guys agree that christian principles were influential in early america, and have every reason to endorse his views, but even they cannot bring themselves to accept the "embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims."
Let me guess... Part of the gay agenda?
http://www.worldmag.com/2012/08/the_david_bar...
Do you think Buck has embarrassed himself enough yet?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#205171 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You omitted facts from the story.
"She named the baby boy, who weighed 7.7lbs, Francesco – apparently in tribute to Pope Francis."
This omission on your part could change the author's perceived intent, and force the reader to obtain the full story on his/her own.
Her naming of the baby after the Pope suggests her continued devotion to her faith.
Why would you attempt to deprive the reader in such a way?
Joke? Who cares if she "continued devotion to her faith?" More likely she was trying to curry favor from easily impressed religious people after committing a big no no.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#205172 Jan 20, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Chris, you and several other Christians oppose the Gospel of Jesus.
You rely on Popes and Paul to tell you to ignore Him.
What part of "Love everyone" are you having difficulty understanding.
I do not love you at all. That is my sin. I regret that I don't. I will be judged by God for that.
You seem to think that Jesus' commandment doesn't apply to you. I wish you would just get honest and stop using God as an excuse for your own sins.
Ben, I am honest. You just lied as you do countless times. Is this you?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205173 Jan 20, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose some publishers have a level of credibility they'd like to maintain.
"Proof of Heaven" was also a best seller (I know you'll like this one).
I can't deny the power of the homosexual agenda, however. They have placed a fruity blood curse on barton, and they shall not rest until he is dead or converted.
When I first engaged Buck about Barton, I posted a link to a site called "Barton Lies". This was before the publication of the Jefferson Lies, but it still listed a large number of misrepresentations of history that Barton had made.

Buck's response was along the lines of "You're a liar. There is nothing at that site that says Barton lied."

This was my first experience of Buck twisting reality to fit his own delusions. It hasn't slowed since.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#205174 Jan 20, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Chris Clearwater is married to a homosexual. When they have sex, is he committing a homosexual act?
Yet another lie and a smear. Its easy to see why so many target Barton as well.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#205175 Jan 20, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Ben, I am honest. You just lied as you do countless times. Is this you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =UpQRwcFGvyEXX
A lot older but still better done.

http://youtu.be/8QjrBjdb2T8

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#205176 Jan 20, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Yet another lie and a smear. Its easy to see why so many target Barton as well.
You told us your poor wife was a homosexual Chris, did you lie?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205177 Jan 20, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Second try:
<quoted text>
That's like saying that the inclusion of yellow with blue (making green) in no way negates the blue. The deleted clause changes the way the sentence reads the way that deleting yellow from green changes the way green appears. Adams said green, not blue.

Nope.

It's like being asked "How far is it to New Orleans?"; then answering "the sign says it's 5O miles", and being accused of dishonesty because you didn't report that the sign also says "130 miles to Baton Rouge".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205178 Jan 20, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of us have all gotten that impression, as did Barton's publisher. The Wiki on him is pretty damning:
"According to the New York Times, "many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible." Barton's 2012 book The Jefferson Lies was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website.The book's publisher, the Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson, disavowed the book and withdrew it from sale. A senior executive said that Thomas Nelson could not stand by the book because "basic truths just were not there.""
What is confusing is why Buck trusts him and stands by him.
You didn't quote the full entry. You also omitted other important facts. Why would you omit important details?

You forgot to mention Thomas Nelson Publishing was bought by the secular Harper Collins.

You forgot to mention Barton's book was subsequently reviewed and then picked up by Simon & Schuster.

You also forgot to mention it was on the NY Times Bestseller List.

You also forgot to mention that when Barton submitted his manuscript to Thomas Nelson Publishing, they assigned 18 editors to scrub and fact check it, and then approved it for publication.

You also forgot to mention Thomas Nelson Publishing never contacted Barton to verify any fact called into question.

You also forgot to mention that Thomas Nelson offered not one single incidence of Barton's lack of "basic truths".

You also forgot to mention that prior to publication, Barton warned Thomas Nelson Publishing about Gay Activist Psychologist Warren Throckmorton, who poses as an evangelical Christian, his underhanded tactics, and the amount of clamor he could generate with his ties to anti-Christian hate-groups like Right Wing Watch.

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) 8 min southern at heart 1,497,484
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 7 hr Rshermr 10,990
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) 13 hr Worker 289
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Wed Faith Michigan 313,382
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Wed ResidentPhartx 32,756
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Feb 21 TrumpsPhartsx 99
How my search of $450000 dollars became real. Feb 14 Kesby Karen 1
More from around the web