Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255511 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.

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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205179 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.
I'll bypass your insistence that you know more about the founding principles than John Adams, and get straight to the point.

The fatal flaw in your analogy is that "The credit goes to Bob and and Sue" is not the type of question in play. The question in play is properly analogized as a response to "The credit does not go to Bob"., as in "The founding was not based on Christian principles".

So then, the unearthing of the quotation "The credit goes to Bob..." is perfectly legitimate and proper, on point, and omits nothing relevant to the question.

You have no case.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205180 Jan 20, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
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.>
You childish Dumbass, Barton is answering criticism. He factually refutes the charges of Throckmorton and others WITH PROOF.

That is not "circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not using a person to support himself. Circular reason is a chain of propositions which ends where it started.

"A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

Citing a person's defense is not circular reasoning, and it is not reasoning at all. It is providing the third person's reasoning. It is citation of evidence from the person.

I don't have time to educate you about every subject.

Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#205181 Jan 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maglev is an incredible achievement.
And it's as thrilling as any amusement park ride.
Dave could have invented it. Its his area of expertise
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#205182 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You childish Dumbass, Barton is answering criticism. He factually refutes the charges of Throckmorton and others WITH PROOF.
That is not "circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not using a person to support himself. Circular reason is a chain of propositions which ends where it started.
"A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
Citing a person's defense is not circular reasoning, and it is not reasoning at all. It is providing the third person's reasoning. It is citation of evidence from the person.
I don't have time to educate you about every subject.
Any chance of foreging more talk about Crockthornton and discussing in depth the motives and agenda of the obstreperous atheist prevaricators?
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#205183 Jan 20, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
These fundies.
*rolls eyes*
I swear, they would love to go back to the good old days. When you had the smell of barbecued sausage jockey in the morning...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burning_of_...
You people have it rough, apparently Both man and God are against you. I can understand the blame and defensiveness
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#205184 Jan 20, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
There is little mention of "marriage" at all in the OT.
Adam and Eve were never "married" which makes the entire human race bastard children.
It is argued that 'Martha and Mary' were a lesbian couple and just as "married" as most hetrosexualss of the time.
Martha and Mary were sisters,(family).
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#205185 Jan 20, 2014
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
I better check that movie out.
I have seen "The Lone Ranger "
but I have not seen " The Long Ranger "
It's not porn is it ?
[laughing]
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#205186 Jan 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay Tarzan, now go eat a banana with cheetah...the perfect evolutionary treat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2z-OLG0KyR4XX
Ohhhh Jane, where is my underwear?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205187 Jan 20, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Warren Throckmorton's website says Simon and Schuster is in partnership with Mercury Ink to distribute the book.

Are you calling Throckmorton a prevaricator?

Do you recall what publishing house accepted and published Throckmorton's book refuting Barton, "Getting Jefferson Right"??

Barton's book is a best-seller. Do you know how many of Throckmorton's have been sold?

Ran across a couple of reviews of Throckmorton's "Getting Jefferson Right" on Amazon's customer reviews:

"Author spends entirely to much time and effort to criticize someone else's work. After these criticicisms the author makes grand statements followed by a diatribe filled with unrelated events and little to no credible evidence of their remark. It is clear that this author was more interested in smearing the reputation of another person rather than presenting a fact based historical narative."

"I read this book and David Bartons book The Jefferson Lies.. I found Mr. Bartons book to be far more accurate and informative.
Did a little research on both men, appears to me Mr. Throckmorton has a very intense personal dislike toward Barton, however Barton doesn't seem to return that same dislike to Throckmorton.
I used google books to read the original writings of Jefferson, seems to me Barton gives a far more accurate account of Jefferson."
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#205188 Jan 20, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Seriously. "We start counting with the number 1, therefore adam and eve existed."
You can't make this stuff up.
All numbers are connected to the number one. Without the number one you don’t have the following numbers. I know it's hard for you to understand. "One"....."two "......"three". ......

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205189 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You childish Dumbass, Barton is answering criticism. He factually refutes the charges of Throckmorton and others WITH PROOF.
That is not "circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not using a person to support himself. Circular reason is a chain of propositions which ends where it started.
"A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
Citing a person's defense is not circular reasoning, and it is not reasoning at all. It is providing the third person's reasoning. It is citation of evidence from the person.
I don't have time to educate you about every subject.
You are still quoting Barton to prove Barton, whether or not you consider it Barton answering criticism. Come up with someone credible responding to the criticism of Barton. Like someone that really has a degree in history. You have failed completely to do that.

You might note that so far all you have accomplished is to convince fence sitters that Barton really has no credibility. You have failed on an epic scale in you attempt to defend Barton.

Someone says Barton has no credibility and gives evidence of Barton's distortions. Barton replies Yes I do and here is the (distorted) evidence I presented earlier to prove it." That is so convincing...NOT.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205190 Jan 20, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Dave could have invented it. Its his area of expertise
Bongo, Dave has yet to demonstrate an area of expertise.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#205191 Jan 20, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Any chance of foreging more talk about Crockthornton and discussing in depth the motives and agenda of the obstreperous atheist prevaricators?
So, Bongo, do you agree with Buck that "There is no God" is an exact quote from the Bible?
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#205192 Jan 20, 2014
Savage lesbians kill 2 kids in exorcism.........http://news.m sn.com/crime-justice/police-mo m-charged-in-kids-death-feared -devil

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#205193 Jan 20, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>Bongo, Dave has yet to demonstrate an area of expertise.
Paper clips?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205194 Jan 20, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Any chance of foreging more talk about Crockthornton and discussing in depth the motives and agenda of the obstreperous atheist prevaricators?
Yeah. I'm almost done.

Take this hint:

If you ever want to be a public personality and sell books, DO NOT cross the militant gay smear industry.

What happened to David Barton is like the scene in True Grit where the donkey is tied to the porch and the two boys are poking him with sharp sticks. Jeff Bridges, rightfully, slaps them off the porch.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#205195 Jan 20, 2014
Bongo wrote:
Savage lesbians kill 2 kids in exorcism.........http://news.m sn.com/crime-justice/police-mo m-charged-in-kids-death-feared -devil
Exorcisms are a christian invention drongo and why are you still in topix?

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) 1 hr Incognito4Ever 1,395,639
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 6 hr Into The Night 9,870
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 16 hr Todd for Real 311,342
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mon Barbi A 201,865
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Mon Trojan 32,289
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... (Jun '15) Jun 20 Tretre 6
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jun 6 James Harry 41
More from around the web