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

#205032 Jan 19, 2014
BARTON CONTINUES TO MAKE FOOLS OF THROCKMORTON AND COULTER:

Furthermore, while my collection does include a “nice collection of Bibles and signatures,” it also has scores of full-length books by Founding Fathers as well as countless legal works, court rulings, religious sermons, military writings, original documents from black history, women’s history, and writings in scores of other areas. Yet even if it were nothing more than a “nice collection of Bibles and signatures,” that would still be significant, for that collection contains Bibles such as the John Thompson Bible of 1798, which documents Jefferson’s role in helping print that Bible – an aspect of Jefferson’s actions that these professors foolishly dismiss as being insignificant.

Bwahahahahahahhaa....

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#205033 Jan 19, 2014
Senecus wrote:
<quoted text>
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
:)
I read a speech Churchill gave a very long time ago, good stuff. The part that sticks with me is to not give in. Never.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeche...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#205034 Jan 19, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
A thief can make the same argument...
Did you know that if a bird pecks your eyes out, you'll be blind?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205035 Jan 19, 2014
DAVID BARTON CONTINUES TO MAKE FOOLS OF THROCKMORTON AND COULTER:

But aside from their flawed view about the importance of specific types of original documents, consider some of the absurdities contained in their critique. For example, Throckmorton and Coulter object to my statement that,“In 1803, President Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe to provide them Christian ministry and teaching.” 6 To prove their objection, they quote the treaty, including the part stating:

And whereas, the greater part of the said [Kaskaskia] tribe have been baptised [sic] and received into the Catholic church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church. 7
This treaty is signed at the bottom by President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison.

So, let’s see: I state that Jefferson signed a treaty “with the Kaskaskia tribe to provide them Christian ministry and teaching,” and the two provide the part of the treaty proving that it does. I made the simple statement; they show documentation that the statement was correct; end of story, right? Hardly! After proving that the treaty does indeed have that provision, they then launch into a lengthy explanation attempting to show why that provision is really not important. It is amusing to see the lengths to which they go in their convoluted attempts to explain why historical documents do not really mean what they actually say.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205036 Jan 19, 2014
DAVID BARTON PROVING THROCKMORTON AND COULTER...

DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE THEIR OWN EYES!!!!

Bwahahahahahahahah...oh, sorry...here it is:

Similarly, I state that “Other presidential actions of Jefferson include ... closing presidential documents with the appellation,‘In the year of our Lord Christ’.” 8 I then include in the book a picture of such a signed document. But Throckmorton and Coulter dismiss that document with the statement that “we know of no other document signed by Jefferson with the phrase ‘in the year of our Lord Christ’ printed on the form.” 9 So apparently, since they personally know of no other similar documents, then the one I showed apparently means nothing (at least to them). Significantly, however, we personally own other such Jefferson documents; and literally scores, if not hundreds, of similar Jefferson documents are contained in other libraries and archives. But because these professors don’t personally know about them, then they apparently don’t exist! Clearly, so strong are their own personal predilections about Jefferson that they won’t even allow what they see with their own eyes to alter their predetermined conclusions.

Bwahahahaha....Throckmorton refuses to believe his eyes so he can maintain his position against Barton ! Sounds like Darwin's Dogpile !

Bwahahahaha...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#205037 Jan 19, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I did.

Your wife can put on a pair of contact lenses and change the colour of her eyes. A causal observer may be fooled. I'm not a casual observer.

You can change your sexual habits, Chris. You can't change your sexuality.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205038 Jan 19, 2014
David Barton, coolly proving Warren Throckmorton is a fraud:

Throckmorton and Coulter also object to my statement that “in 1798, Jefferson personally helped finance the printing of one of America’s groundbreaking editions of the Bible. That Bible was a massive, two-volume folio set that was not only the largest Bible ever published in America to that time, but it was also America’s first hot-pressed Bible.” 10 That Bible, published by John Thompson, is known as the Thompson Bible; but Throckmorton and Coulter claim that Jefferson subscribing, or helping fund this Bible, is an insignificant and irrelevant thing:

At the completion of the effort [the Bible], the printers compiled a list of subscribers for placement at the end of the second volume....[A]ccording to the subscriber’s list, 1272 people paid to receive one [sic] these Bibles, with Jefferson’s name listed among the subscribers.... Certainly, several Founders subscribed.... The subscribers were not investors in the project. The investors in the project were printers, John Thompson and Abraham Small. 11
As they do so often throughout their critique, they entirely miss the primary point obviously being made in that section of the book – which is that individuals associate their name and money only in projects with which they have a general philosophical agreement, as Jefferson did here. But if they are right that being a subscriber is trivial and irrelevant, then if we should someday see a racist anti-Semitic publication with Throckmorton’s name listed as a subscriber, we should dismiss it as meaningless??? Hardly! Being a subscriber to a work tells us something of what that person believes and supports – which is why it is significant that Jefferson’s name appeared in the Thompson Bible and that he also offered to help finance other Bibles as well.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205039 Jan 19, 2014
DAVID BARTON, casting off Gay Activist Warren Throckmorton like a flea:

Furthermore, the Thompson Bible was one of many examples I provided to demonstrate occasions where Jefferson helped promote/fund/print the traditional unedited Bible. But Throckmorton and Coulter deliberately ignore this broader point and devolve into a pointless discussion about what a subscriber is. On multiple occasions, these two acknowledge that the particular fact I set forth did indeed happen but then try to shift the focus away from the self-evident simplicity of that which appears in the original documents.

(By the way, contrary to their errant claim, subscribers definitely were investors, for frequent was the occasion when printers were unable to publish a work due to a lack of subscribers. 12 It was common that if printers or authors did not have sufficient up-front, in-hand funds from subscribers, the work was not printed; so subscribers definitely were investors in the work.)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#205040 Jan 19, 2014
Okay...






























Who gave Buck coffee?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205041 Jan 19, 2014
DAVID BARTON;

Exposing the bias of Psychologist and Gay Activist Warren Throckmorton, who poses as a critic of historical works:

Another of their oft-repeated complaints is that I don’t include enough of what they personally consider to be negative things about Jefferson. But part of the reason I wrote my book was to reintroduce the numerous good things about Jefferson that so many of today’s Deconstructionist scholars refuse to acknowledge. Strikingly, if most of today’s academics were to write a biography about the Biblical David, they would undoubtedly include what occurred with Bathsheba, Uriah, Absalom, and Adonijah but completely ignore David’s role as the courageous shepherd who slew the lion and the bear, the fearless youth who defeated Goliath, the beloved leader venerated by his nation, and the tender and repentant individual who was a devout worshipper of God – they would highlight the bad and downplay the good.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205042 Jan 19, 2014
DAVID BARTON....Another critic falls behind his sword of truth:

Clay Jenkinson also wrote a scathing review of The Jefferson Lies. He is described as “an American humanities scholar, author, and educator” who “co-hosts public radio’s The Jefferson Hour” and “lectures at Dickinson State University and Bismarck State College.” 14 Interestingly, to prove me wrong, Jenkinson uses the very historical malpractices that my book is written to expose – including lifting very short phrases from lengthy historical writings and making them say the reverse of what they actually say.

For example, I provide scores of Jefferson’s own writings and declarations to conclusively demonstrate that he was not a deist; but Jenkinson completely dismisses all of that documentation on the basis of six words that Jefferson told his nephew:“Question with boldness the existence of God.” However, I also used that same six-word phrase in my book – only I printed the entire part of that letter (several pages long) containing that phrase. Jefferson explained that if someone was willing, with an open mind, to “question with boldness the existence of God,” that he would end up proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that there truly was a God. 15 But Jenkinson lifted and used the six-word phrase completely out of context to make it say the opposite of what Jefferson said.

( I wonder if Jenkinson is a Gay Activist too, or just a regular liberal revisionist.)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205043 Jan 19, 2014
David Barton:

Additionally, Jenkinson, like Throckmorton and Coulter, admits major points I make in The Jefferson Lies but then also tries to explain them away. For example, I show that even though modern scholars repeatedly claim that Jefferson omitted everything related to the Divine and the supernatural from his so-called “Jefferson Bible,” that he actually included Jesus raising the dead, healing the sick, casting out demons, calling Himself the Son of God, speaking of His Second Coming, etc. 16 Jenkinson admits that Jefferson did include these passages but then dismisses them as unimportant by (1) first pointing out that all other scholars similarly dismiss those passages, and (2) then giving his own personal opinion that Jefferson really didn’t believe what he included in that work. 17 This ploy is called “psychohistory,” and results when a modern so-called “psychological” analysis is applied to the actions of a person long dead; “psychobabble” is the result of such an analysis. This trick enables folks like Jenkinson (and scholars like him) to assert that he personally knows what Jefferson was secretly thinking two centuries ago, so therefore whatever Jefferson actually said or did should be completely ignored.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

#205044 Jan 19, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is recruited into homosexuality.
Now go forth and lie no more.
Your God considers lying to be an abomination.
It reminds me of the other doozy I heard: Kids can be turned gay, just by watching our G & L Mardi Gras parade.

Honestly, there's a lot of them out there today.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205045 Jan 19, 2014
David Barton nails it again:

"It is striking that the negative critiques of The Jefferson Lies revolve around the academic arrogance that says “Unless we tell you so, it just can’t be; we are the sole gatekeepers of historical truth.” But Governor Mike Huckabee, in speaking of my approach to history, stated:“In typical Barton style, every syllable is given scholarly research and backed up with source documents. Those who hate America and God’s Word won’t like it, but they won’t be able to discredit it.” Clearly, academics such as Throckmorton, Coulter, Jenkinson, Crawford, et. al., simply don’t like what the self-evident documentation actually proves."

That is correct, Dave. They don't like it, and they don't like you for telling it. As a matter of fact, they hate you.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

#205046 Jan 19, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say anything.
You're confusing me with somebody else.
But I have now read enough about David Barton.
And I'll be happy if I never see his name again.
I can't believe you have taken up his "cause", or have attempted to support him in any way whatsoever.
You should have better causes.
Hi Catch. I looked him up, after all that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_ (author)

It goes without saying, anything a man like that says should be taken with a grain of salt.
Helhuiuytrlo

Pittsburgh, PA

#205047 Jan 19, 2014
youtube.com/watch... ……Religon is a lie it takes no energy pissing on the churchs floors

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#205048 Jan 19, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I did.
Your wife can put on a pair of contact lenses and change the colour of her eyes. A causal observer may be fooled. I'm not a casual observer.
You can change your sexual habits, Chris. You can't change your sexuality.
You can repeat this lie as much as you need to, its still a lie. If a person says yes to Christ that person becomes a new creation, the new has come the old is gone. You may very well be an excellent observer but you are the one that is fooled here.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205049 Jan 19, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Here is where you got it, not from the alleged Locke papers to your left.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-polit...

"Natural law is also distinct from divine law in that the latter, in the Christian tradition, normally referred to those laws that God had directly revealed through prophets and other inspired writers. Natural law can be discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God's special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound."

You are a fraud.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205050 Jan 19, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like you did.
You can insist that this is all legitimate, but you have to convince your reader if you want him to agree.
These readers?

You're kidding me again.

The excised portions of the quote are irrelevant to Barton's point, and also to mine.

The full text proves that.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#205051 Jan 19, 2014
Have to gov Cuomo. So Cuomo shot off his mouth and said certain people are not welcome in New York. Funny thing is they are running adds here in Fl. begging people to come to New York and do business. You are reaping what you sow Andrew. Lol.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo: Some Conservatives ‘Have No Place in the State of New York’

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/18/an...

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) 3 min Nuculur option 1,190,181
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr HitMan 201,368
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 4,117
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr Pearl Jam 308,914
NCSU vs UNC from the Coach's Perspective by Jam... 12 hr IdeasandTruth 1
Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) 21 hr KHS Alumni 69
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Fri Trojan 29,057
More from around the web