Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205011 Jan 19, 2014
WARREN THROCKMORTON WILLING TO LIE FOR AN AGENDA

Former homosexual Michael Glatze, who once published the national magazine Young Gay America and now speaks out against the homosexual lifestyle, is condemning Throckmorton for his permissive stance towards homosexuality, and for distorting his own statements.

"He, like so many professing Christians, peddles a false gospel about homosexual sin that includes the lie that homosexuality 'might be OK for some people.' Of course, this false gospel will seem preferable for many because it requires less moral responsibility than the true gospel. But that does not make it right."

"I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek 'my side' of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth," writes Glatze.

Throckmorton has responded to LaBarbera's criticisms by claiming that the American Psychological Association's guidelines require him to take a neutral stand with regard to the sexual morality of the client. However, the texts he cites by the APA do not mention sexual morality, and do not prohibit value judgments by the therapists, only prohibiting the imposition of values that are not directly related to the therapy.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#205012 Jan 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
WARM WISHES TO THROCKMORTON FROM GAY ACTIVIST GROUP
Warren Throckmorton Hospitalized after Heart Attack
8By Dave Rattigan on September 20th, 2012
Dr Warren ThrockmortonDr Warren Throckmorton underwent triple heart bypass surgery on Tuesday, after suffering a heart attack on Sunday.
A professor of psychology at Grove City College, PA, Throckmorton has held to a conservative Christian theology while staunchly advocating against the false promises of conversion and reparative therapy, and claims of sexual orientation change.
He has also been vocal in opposing Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and has done good work countering the pseudo-history of the Religious Right as it relates to America’s Founding Fathers, especially in the work of David Barton.
Ex-Gay Watch will keep readers updated with Warren’s progress, and wishes him and his family all the best as he recovers in hospital.
(They forgot to mention he was for it before he was against it)
(Totally coincidentally, David Barton is on the other side of this issue. I repeat, totally coincidentally)
(A total coincidence)
Incidentally, the hard-line anti-gay Uganda legislators (some of whom have called for the death penalty for homosexual acts) have cited U.S. Christian evangelical views in support of their legislation.

Agendas can lead to unexpected consequences.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205013 Jan 19, 2014
August 10, 2012

Attacks on David Barton Same as Tactics of Saul Alinsky

Question: What do elitist professors have in common with Adolf Hitler & Saul Alinsky?

Answer: They masterfully use the powerful art of innuendo to falsely defame those with which they disagree.

Definition of Innuendo: A derogatory hint or reference to a person or thing.

The internet is abuzz today with leftwing bloggers, elitist professors, and downright jealous peers licking their chops and rubbing their hands in excitement as they repeat the juicy quotes about David Barton books being full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.”

Yet not a single article can point to a single factual error, quote out of context, or misleading claim.

How ‘bout that.

http://rickgreen.com/attacks-on-david-barton-...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205014 Jan 19, 2014
August 10, 2012

Attacks on David Barton Same as Tactics of Saul Alinsky

How ‘bout that.
These articles are all celebrating the fact that Thomas Nelson is pulling “The Jefferson Lies” because “…there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported.”

Does “not adequately supported” mean the same as “not supported?”

Of course not!

It means that those who disagree with Barton have pressured the publisher to side with their slanted views regarding how much support is needed for this claim or that claim.

Let’s see if I get this right. Barton has about 100,000 original documents and backs up everything he says with original sources, yet some critics claim the stack of evidence is not quite enough, so that makes it “not adequately supported?”

How about simply letting free speech occur, let people read Barton’s book and the support therein (756 footnotes), and then compare to the critics?

But do you follow the innuendos and the power of destruction they have? These people have not pointed out even one inaccuracy or false statement. Yet through innuendo they have painted a picture that universally gives the reader the feeling that Barton is just making stuff up out of thin air, has nothing at all to back up what he is saying, and is clearly not a “historian.”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205015 Jan 19, 2014
Attacks on David Barton Same as Tactics of Saul Alinsky

None of this, of course, is even close to being true.

But the innuendo is so, so powerful. No one is bothering to ask for evidence of such claims. No one seems to care about the details and the truth because the headline is just too juicy.

Hitler and Alinsky were both masters of this tool. Having just read Eric Metaxes’ great book about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Hitler’s tactics are on my mind and he said:“All propaganda has to … accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”[Darwin's Stepchild]

These elitist professors and reporters attacking David Barton know that most people will not actually go read the supporting material behind David’s books…certainly not the bloggers and reporters who have so quickly jumped on the attack wagon. They are exactly the “least intelligent” Hitler was able to fool, Alinksy taught radicals to fool, and now even Christian “leaders” are joining.

Barton’s Jefferson book has 756 footnotes. These critics could not possibly be reading the supporting material because their claims of inaccuracy just do not match up.

In fact, most of the book is simply quoting and allowing Jefferson to tell his own story, rather than some boring professor’s “interpretation” of Jefferson’s words.

And that’s exactly where the rub is with Barton. These elitists do not enjoy seeing themselves replaced.

They believe they are the high priests of history and the law.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205016 Jan 19, 2014
Attacks on David Barton Same as Tactics of Saul Alinsky

They do not want you to read the actual writings of the Founders because that negates the need for their position of being the keeper of the keys to history.

I was debating an elitist professor at Baylor once over the issue of “separation of church and state” and our freedom of religion. He got so frustrated when I kept quoting the founding fathers that he finally said “well, these concepts are very complicated, but we professors and the judges on the Supreme Court are trained and equipped to deal with them and work out the details for you.” I looked at the crowd and said “what he just told you is that you are too stupid to understand this very basic concept of freedom, but that’s okay because he and his elitist friends will take care of all that complicated stuff for you.”

The exact same thing is happening here with David Barton’s scholarly works. The elitist professors like Kidd, Throckmorton, Coulter, & Jenkinson write boring books that very few people read and they give boring lectures that are only attended by students forced to do so in order to get a grade.

When these guys see Barton telling history in a way that is BOTH accurate and fun and they see millions of people are captivated and want to learn more, then perhaps it could be just a little jealousy could be causing them to lash out at Barton with innuendoes backed by no actual merit. But the bigger issue is that they do not want to lose the power of being the keepers of the keys to history. They want their “interpretation” of historical figures to control how generations view history, rather than letting historical events and historical figures speak for themselves.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#205017 Jan 19, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>.. Jesus is probably a real historical figure, a hero of sorts. A myth surrounding Him was inevitable ..

.. hey, did you hear the doomsday clock "has frozen at five minutes to midnight, unchanged from last year." Does that mean we're in the final days ??..

.. be sure to read the latest doomsday predictions at http://rt.com/news/doomsday-clock-nuclear-con...
So you found your life on mere opinion?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#205018 Jan 19, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>So you are not comfortable with any sentence structure that doesn't end in a question mark?
You could engage in the discussion, these dancing around the edge comments waste your time and mine.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205019 Jan 19, 2014
Attacks on David Barton Same as Tactics of Saul Alinsky

The exact same thing is happening here with David Barton’s scholarly works. The elitist professors like Kidd, Throckmorton, Coulter, & Jenkinson write boring books that very few people read and they give boring lectures that are only attended by students forced to do so in order to get a grade.

When these guys see Barton telling history in a way that is BOTH accurate and fun and they see millions of people are captivated and want to learn more, then perhaps it could be just a little jealousy could be causing them to lash out at Barton with innuendoes backed by no actual merit. But the bigger issue is that they do not want to lose the power of being the keepers of the keys to history. They want their “interpretation” of historical figures to control how generations view history, rather than letting historical events and historical figures speak for themselves.
If you want the real skinny on these empty innuendoes about The Jefferson Lies, then read David Barton’s well-documented response to their unfounded attacks.(click here)

And by the way, if you’re wondering why Thomas Nelson would pull the book, perhaps you should know that HarperCollins (secular publisher) recently purchased Thomas Nelson (Christian publisher). I wouldn’t have expected Deepak Chopra (New Age Atheist) and David Barton to remain under the same publisher for long.

In the meantime, I’m still waiting for someone to show me a specific inaccuracy or false claim by Barton. Every author, including these elitists, makes mistakes and we could do several more blogs about the hilarious publishing mistakes by some of the most respected authors in history.(quick read here for some famous ones) That’s not what I’m talking about and that’s not what these critics are claiming. They are claiming that Barton is purposefully presenting a false picture of history and using inaccuracies and distortions to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is these critics who are using inaccuracies, innuendo, and distortions to attack Barton in the first place.

If you can show me specifics that back up the image created by the critics innuendo, I’ll post it right here for the world to see.

Waiting, waiting.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#205020 Jan 19, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>Yes he died but he lives.

Yes she was but she isn't.

Chris, if God told you to be a homosexual, could you do that? If God told you to walk backwards for the rest of your life, could you do that?

Or would you try as hard as you could?

People weren't born drinking alcohol. That's something you learn.

People weren't born smoking crack. That's something you learn.

You don't learn homosexuality. You either are or you're not.

I've had sex with heterosexual girls who wanted to be lesbian.

It's not something you can do. It's something you are.
A thief can make the same argument...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#205021 Jan 19, 2014
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Quite possibly, in many cases. but there are many differences between paedophilia and homosexuality.
"Most experts regard pedophilia as resulting from psychosocial factors rather than biological characteristics."Unquote. Source...
Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia...
I think that homosexuality is far more commonly genetic.

Dave Nelson wrote, "<quoted text>
Why would they do that?"

That's obvious. Clerics have access to children and a position of trust within their cult. The celibacy of RC priests possibly doesn't help any psychological pre-disposition to paedophilic tendencies.

My apologies for where I may be mistaken, or for any misunderstanding due to my coming in halfway through an exchange of views.
Surely evolution would have dealt with homosexuality if it was genetic...

Hardly seems in line with the doctrines of evolution.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#205023 Jan 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are full of shit.
You copied and pasted your alleged distinction of Locke on natural law and divine law straight off the net.
You say Locke believed "natural law is that which can be deduced universally through reason and logic"? Those aren't his words.
These are his words:
"The Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must ... be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God."
For emphaisis, "Law of Nature, i.e., the will of God."
John Locke, "Two Treatises on Government" (London: J. Whiston, etc., 1772), Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI
"Laws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made."
If I c&p'd it, then surely it would be easy for you to demonstrate from where it came, right? Yet you don't. Your accusations are the mark of one thrashing wildly out of impotence.

Your stock in trade is to excise quotes from context, and maintain that this represents the all. This is the mark of willful ignorance.

Of course Locke spoke in the language of his times. of course his words will be sprinkled with reference to deity. It would be remarkable if they weren't. But one must examine the context in which he wrote - the motivations and goals he sought to refute or reinforce.

Locke's work on civil gov't came out within two years of the Glorious Revolution, in which "divinely-appointed" monarchy was overthrown by the forces of Cromwell. Locke's was a voice in opposition to those who maintained that the hereditary monarchy was appointed by God, going clear back to Adam (see Hobbe's "Leviathan"). Locke was an original Liberal, and his aim was to go beyond status quo conservative thinking that divine law (as understood by current English political philosophy) was the origin and base for all government. He sought to harmonize new and modern ideas of reason which were just beginning to flourish, with the ideas of divine authority of his heritage.

This is why, in the opening chapter he summarized his First Treatise with the opening lines:
*********
i. That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood or by positive donation by God, any such authority over his children, nor over the world, as is pretended.

ii. That if he had, his heirs yet had no right to it.

iii. That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined.
**********

See that? "...there being no law of nature NOR positive law of God..."? Why does Locke make the distinction if they are one and the same?

Obviously, at the very outset, Locke does make the distinction between divine law and natural law.

Then you repeat the theme yourself, apparently without even seeing it:

"Laws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made."

Again, why does Locke make a distinction? How could one be in "contradiction" with the other if they are one and the same?

You may continue to excise self-serving quotes.....well, we know you will. The hallmark of the rockhead is to rest their entire argument on quote-mined selections, to never bother to educate themselves on the whole (whether through laziness or for the fear of what they may find, who knows), and finally to deny, deny, deny.

Barton et al are rockheads. Follow their lead at your intellectual peril.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205024 Jan 19, 2014
From David Barton:

I have penned numerous best-selling history works, and characteristic of each is a heavy reliance on primary-source documentation. Across the past twenty years, I have amassed a collection of some 100,000 originals (or certified copies of originals) predating 1812, including hand-written documents and works of those who framed and signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Not many individuals in America have read more original works (or fewer modern ones) than I have; and the general public has responded enthusiastically to this history based on original documentation.

In fact, notice how these types of history books regularly appear on the New York Times bestseller list. Whether it is David McCullough’s John Adams, Glenn Beck’s Being George Washington, Newt Gingrich’s Valley Forge, or my own The Jefferson Lies, people are willing to pay good money to learn the simple uncomplicated history that used to be taught in school.

Conversely, typical history works by modern elitist professors generally sell very poorly; and seeing their own influence wane, they often lash out and condescendingly criticize the more popular documentary works. But this practice is not new. After all, when the Apostle Paul began to attract a growing following,

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#205025 Jan 19, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>You're wrong. I quit going to church because of the people in it. People like you. Arrogant, ignorant, judgmental assholes that twist The Lord's words into something they're not.

The last time I went to church, the pastor was "preaching" that if you don't tithe, God gets mad at you.

I walked out when he said that.

Walked out for good. I had had enough of the damn church people and their damn fake personas and the God damned Sunday Christians that fuck it up for the rest of us.

I have asked forgiveness for my sexual behavior in my past. There was no adultery.

I have repented.

I am forgiven.

Now. You can shit that cock holster you call a mouth and make me a sammich, bitch.

And this makes you a representative of Jesus, your language clearly indicates otherwise.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205026 Jan 19, 2014
From David Barton:

After The Jefferson Lies, rose to a New York Times best-seller, similar attacks were launched against it from academic elitists. I will address three of these attacks below, but first, I must tackle their oft-repeated talking-point that I am not a qualified historian – a claim they make to cast a shadow of doubt over all the facts I present. However, this charge, like their others, is completely false. After all, I am:

-Recognized as an historical expert by both state and federal courts;

-Called to testify as an historical expert by both the federal and state legislatures;

-Selected as an historical expert by State Boards of Education across the nation to assist in writing history and social studies standards for those states;

-Consulted as an historical expert by public school textbook publishers, helping write best-selling history texts used in public schools and universities across the nation.

<Barton nails it here...>

Their real objection is that I make history uncomplicated, and thus make them irrelevant. In fact, the very point of The Jefferson Lies was to allow Jefferson to speak for himself through his 19,000 letters, thereby eliminating the need for the educational elitists who for the past fifty years have anointed themselves as Jefferson’s sole interpreters.

Bingo

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#205027 Jan 19, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>You write:
"Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

According to ALL of the scientific evidence Adam and Eve never existed, as written in the Bible.

Modern humans have been roaming the globe for about 200,000+- years. What about all those people? When and by whom do you think marriage was instituted?
Are you saying you have empirical evidence Adam and Eve did not exist?

:-)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205028 Jan 19, 2014
From David Barton:

Professors Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter, in their work penned against The Jefferson Lies, begin by candidly admitting that they are critiquing “Barton and religious conservatives in general,” 2 thereby openly confessing their hostility toward me and my personal religious beliefs. As they acknowledge up front, and as will be evident below, their real problem with The Jefferson Lies is much more about its worldview than its historical content.(Throckmorton is a psychology professor at Grove College currently writing about sexual orientation and identity, and Coulter teaches political science there.)

For example, early in the book I applaud American Exceptionalism, which I define as “the belief that America is blessed and enjoys unprecedented stability, prosperity, and liberty as a result of the institutions and policies produced by unique ideas such as God-given inalienable rights, individualism, limited government, full republicanism, and an educated and virtuous citizenry.” 3 But Throckmorton and Coulter launch into a lengthy exegesis, quoting a number of liberal professors to prove that American Exceptionalism is a bad thing, not something good. 4 So from the start, these two make clear that they object to the philosophy I set forth that America’s blessings, prosperity, and liberties are the result of God-given rights and ideas.

Bingo!

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#205029 Jan 19, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
It's my moral obligation to tell you the truth.
Not trying to offend you.
Let me know when you do. What you posted, "1. Your wife is lying to you.
2. You married a once, present and future lesbian." is a lie. I understand why you posted it.

Just saying.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205030 Jan 19, 2014
From David Barton:

Another insightful moment in their critique occurs when these two try to explain away those 100,000 originals that form much of the basis of my historical works. They attempt to dismiss those works by stating,“While he [Barton] does have a nice collection of Bibles and signatures, he also has a lot of old newspapers which have little relevance to the claims he makes.” 5

Notwithstanding the fact that they’ve never seen my collection and therefore don’t know what I do have, their comment about old newspapers is particularly revealing. Every genuine historian knows that old newspapers have great significance; in fact, it is hard to underestimate the importance of old newspapers in the way that these two have done. While newspapers do not replace primary source writings when such are available, there are definitely many times that newspapers themselves become the primary source documents and therefore cannot be dismissed out of hand as these two professors have done.

Bwahahahahah...."Barton has some Bibles and old newspapers"...

Bwahahahahahah....Throckmorton and Coulter call themselves academics???

Bwahahahahahaha..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205031 Jan 19, 2014
From David Barton:

Significantly, many of the writings of the Founding Fathers, including the indispensable Federalist Papers, first appeared as newspaper articles; and old newspapers regularly contain noteworthy historical information found in no other source. For example, nowhere in George Washington’s writings does he say that he leaned over and kissed the Bible at his inauguration, but numerous old newspapers reporting those proceedings establish that fact (along with reporting the six other religious activities that occurred at his inauguration). So, contrary to their preposterous claim, old newspapers do have much relevance, not only to my claims but also those made by many other historical writers as well.

Bwahahahahahahahahah... Throckmorton doesn't believe in newspapers....

Bwahahahahahahah....

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min red and right 1,174,087
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr Earthling-1 3,182
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Brew In 28,742
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr R C Honey 308,039
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 20 hr HitMan 201,321
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Jan 27 Pinoyboyguy 734
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Jan 24 RICK SERVICE 32
More from around the web