Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#200618 Jan 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Barton has answered Throckmorton and Coulter in depth. The facts support Barton. One sample of Throckmorton's "debunking" of Barton I already gave, which is, to Barton's claim that Thomas Jefferson negotiated and signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe that agreed to use federal funds to build them a church and hire a priest. Throckmorton calls this a "lie". His basis? William Henry Harrison, who was Jefferson Secretary for Indian Affairs, did the face to face negotiating. He represented Jefferson. Just as other presidents negotiated treaties through their representatives. Barton backs up his claims, and his detractors are nothing but smear artists.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/downloads/newslet...
How are you doing, Buck? I appreciate your civility in this discussion.

I've looked into this matter a little now, relying mostly on this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmort...

What Throckmorton says is that Barton claimed more than that "Jefferson negotiated and signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe that agreed to use federal funds to build them a church and hire a priest." Throckmorton doesn't take issue with that claim, which appears to be historical fact.

Barton also claimed, "Jefferson put federal funds to pay for missionaries to go evangelize the Indians and gave federal funds so that after they were converted we’d build them a church in which they could worship." This is the point of contention. Throckmorton claims that the Kaskaskia were already Christians, and that the purpose of the treaty was not to evangelize the Indians, but to take their land without war. The link supports that case very well. This is from the treaty, and indicates that Jefferson considered them Catholic, which undermines Barton's claim that Jefferson wanted to evangelize them:

"And whereas, The greater part of the said tribe have been baptised 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."

Throckmorton goes on to say,

"To fully grasp how far off Barton’s story is, one must consider Jefferson’s stance toward negotiating with the Indians, and particular the Kaskaskia tribe. The tribe was small but they had claim to the highly desirable region of central Illinois between the Kaskaskia and Illinois rivers. Jefferson was keen to expand the borders of the United States and developed a strategy to attain land from the Indians without war. As indicated by at least two letters, one to Secretary of War, Henry Dearborn, and the other to territory Governor William Henry Harrison, Jefferson wanted to get the Indians into debt; and then when they could not pay their debts, negotiate a treaty favorable to the United States."

Then he supports that with these words from Jefferson to Dearborn:

"There is perhaps no method more irresistible of obtaining lands from them than by letting them get in debt, which when too heavy to be paid, they are always willing to lop off by a cession of land."

... and this to Harrison:

"we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands."

I think Throckmorton made his case that Barton's version is revisionist and contains factual errors.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200619 Jan 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Would you spell that, please?
That

T
H
A
T

That

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#200620 Jan 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
He did not react against the church, he reacted against the old school authority of the Czar acting as go between for god and taking his place just below that god and the church authorities for pandering to the Czar.
Once those injustices were disposed of then he rebuilt the church.
I on the other hand am not reinstating the churches and the priests and the religious institutions, what I do is highlight the lies and deceit and pain that the church (not just the christian church) can inflict. So no, nothing to compare really so we can assume you are talking out of you butt hole again because you have nothing else to do
You are a bald-faced liar.

Stalin did not react against the church?

"Anti-religious education was introduced from the first-grade up in 1928 and anti-religious work was intensified throughout the education system. A massive purge was conducted at the same time of Christian intellectuals, who mostly died in the camps or in prison, in order to take away the church’s intellectuals and assist official propaganda that only backward people believed in God.
The church's successful competition with the ongoing and widespread atheistic propaganda, prompted new laws to be adopted in 1929 on 'Religious Associations' as well as amendments to the constitution, which forbade all forms of public, social, communal, educational, publishing or missionary activities for religious believers...Numerous other measures were introduced that were designed to cripple the church, and effectively made it illegal to have religious activities of any sort outside of liturgical services within the walls of the few churches that would remain open, and even these would be subject to much interference and harassment. Catechism classes, religious schools, study groups, Sunday schools and religious publications were all illegal and/or banned."

Stalin pretended to revive Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort and because he wanted western help.

He continued to persecute Christianity for his entire reign.

Christinemc^2, you have now come out as an apologist for both Hitler and Stalin.

When will you publicly endorse Mao?

Is that next?

Moron.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#200621 Jan 8, 2014
Jim wrote:
The Wedge Strategy is a dangerous neopolitical ideology that seeks to redefine science according to the Cult of Creationism. The logo of the Wedge Strategy is the violent breaking of a log. It is supposed to symbolise the destruction of science, rational thought & what Cult Members wrongly call 'materialism".
I looked for that and couldn't find it. What I did find was this, the cover of the Wedge Document:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thum...
Jim wrote:
Make no mistake, the Wedge Strategy has been in operation since 1998, and made a resurgence in 2005. Wedge Strategy campaigns failed to get schools in Kansas to teach the Cult of Creationism in place of the established scientific fact of Evolution.
Since then, they have waged war on science, atheism & rational thought. Rather than win by providing evidence or reasoning or by being simply right - they have engineered a deceptive political campaign defined by the contents of the Wedge Document.
Thanks for that.

It's nice to see you offering information here rather than just insults and invective. Optimally, you will provide links in the future to resources that support any controversial claims or those not considered common knowledge. That is really the only way to make a nontrivial contribution to the dialog - by making arguments and offering information and insights that be supported.

Short of that, you can also make a contribution by bringing humor and interesting anecdotes.
king

United States

#200623 Jan 8, 2014
red
nex
lornapaden

onmeth
king

United States

#200624 Jan 8, 2014
red
nexonmeth
lornapaden redred
nexonmeth
lornapaden

onmeth
nexonmeth
lornapaden

onmeth

onmeth
king

United States

#200625 Jan 8, 2014
red
nexonmeth
lornapaden

onmeth
king

United States

#200626 Jan 8, 2014
lornapaden methwhitracist xtended family 1

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200627 Jan 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I looked for that and couldn't find it. What I did find was this, the cover of the Wedge Document:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thum...
<quoted text>
Thanks for that.
It's nice to see you offering information here rather than just insults and invective. Optimally, you will provide links in the future to resources that support any controversial claims or those not considered common knowledge. That is really the only way to make a nontrivial contribution to the dialog - by making arguments and offering information and insights that be supported.
Short of that, you can also make a contribution by bringing humor and interesting anecdotes.
Invective
insulting, abusive, or highly critical language.

That's about all Jim brings to the table.
king

United States

#200628 Jan 8, 2014
lorna lornapaden methwhitracist xtended family 1
rna
paden true yes
lornapaden methwhitracist xtended family 1

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200630 Jan 8, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
In what way do I deny rights to gays?!
<quoted text>
So I don't deny rights to gays.
Thanks for your help.
You would if you could,
But you can't so you don't.

See?

Catcher is a poet.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200631 Jan 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, man.
Any time, Buck.

Just say the word.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#200632 Jan 8, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Invective
insulting, abusive, or highly critical language.
That's about all Jim brings to the table.
Is that the fangle toof guy from the asylum?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200633 Jan 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a bald-faced liar.
Stalin did not react against the church?
"Anti-religious education was introduced from the first-grade up in 1928 and anti-religious work was intensified throughout the education system. A massive purge was conducted at the same time of Christian intellectuals, who mostly died in the camps or in prison, in order to take away the church’s intellectuals and assist official propaganda that only backward people believed in God.
The church's successful competition with the ongoing and widespread atheistic propaganda, prompted new laws to be adopted in 1929 on 'Religious Associations' as well as amendments to the constitution, which forbade all forms of public, social, communal, educational, publishing or missionary activities for religious believers...Numerous other measures were introduced that were designed to cripple the church, and effectively made it illegal to have religious activities of any sort outside of liturgical services within the walls of the few churches that would remain open, and even these would be subject to much interference and harassment. Catechism classes, religious schools, study groups, Sunday schools and religious publications were all illegal and/or banned."
Stalin pretended to revive Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort and because he wanted western help.
He continued to persecute Christianity for his entire reign.
Christinemc^2, you have now come out as an apologist for both Hitler and Stalin.
When will you publicly endorse Mao?
Is that next?
Moron.
You're wrong here, Buck.

But, as did IANS, I do appreciate your civility in this debate.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#200634 Jan 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Perhaps. Was that a rebuttal or just an additional observation?
<quoted text>
That comment was made for an unrelated purpose. It's purpose is to encourage docility submission, not leadership skills. Most of Christian ethics appears to be aimed at that - blessed are the meek, blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the merciful, blessed are the persecuted, blessed are the peacemakers, turn the other cheek, etc.
1) both 2) He is King of Kings, a leader yet able to be humble. Its often the braver man that refuses to fight. A soft answer turns away wrath. For peace to be had with the sordid human condition those tenets of docility are required. They are actually feats of strength, I Think it takes courage to turn the other cheek. Just think if you and skomby practiced Jesus words we would not have endured a two week argument over tiramisu. Hmm, its lunch time.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#200635 Jan 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Stalin began rebuilding the church in 1924, more than a decade before any nazi threat. Your history is not up to much is it?
And as abusers go, you are a mere child. I assume your wife has gone out on the game again and left you to masturbate over the girls on topix.
"Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[108]

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[109][110] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression during Khrushchev's rule. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Re...

Looks like I struck a nerve, and not about Stalin.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#200636 Jan 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How are you doing, Buck? I appreciate your civility in this discussion.
I've looked into this matter a little now, relying mostly on this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmort...
What Throckmorton says is that Barton claimed more than that "Jefferson negotiated and signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe that agreed to use federal funds to build them a church and hire a priest." Throckmorton doesn't take issue with that claim, which appears to be historical fact.
Barton also claimed, "Jefferson put federal funds to pay for missionaries to go evangelize the Indians and gave federal funds so that after they were converted we’d build them a church in which they could worship." This is the point of contention. Throckmorton claims that the Kaskaskia were already Christians, and that the purpose of the treaty was not to evangelize the Indians, but to take their land without war.
"To fully grasp how far off Barton’s story is, one must consider Jefferson’s stance toward negotiating with the Indians, and particular the Kaskaskia tribe. The tribe was small but they had claim to the highly desirable region of central Illinois between the Kaskaskia and Illinois rivers. Jefferson was keen to expand the borders of the United States and developed a strategy to attain land from the Indians without war. As indicated by at least two letters, one to Secretary of War, Henry Dearborn, and the other to territory Governor William Henry Harrison, Jefferson wanted to get the Indians into debt; and then when they could not pay their debts, negotiate a treaty favorable to the United States."
Then he supports that with these words from Jefferson to Dearborn:
"There is perhaps no method more irresistible of obtaining lands from them than by letting them get in debt, which when too heavy to be paid, they are always willing to lop off by a cession of land."
... and this to Harrison:
"we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands."
I think Throckmorton made his case that Barton's version is revisionist and contains factual errors.
Nope. Throckmorton is not just wrong, he's also lying.

I'm not letting this smear go. I'll spend enough time on it to prove Barton is dead solid right.

First, would it be beneficial, while observing this controversy about missionaries to Indians, to know that Throckmorton thinks is is abhorent to send Christian missionaries to Indians?

He does. And would it be logical that he would then persist that a hero, Jefferson, of the "separation of church and state" cabal would not support doing that?

From Throckmorton:

"...the federal government pushed Christianity on Native American tribes until early
in the 20th century. Native children were removed from their families in
elementary school and sent away to boarding schools, sometimes run by church
groups. They were forbidden to speak their language or follow their native
customs. Some recall harsh punishments if the rules were violated. Christian
Native Americans agree that the treatment was demeaning and offensive."

Throckmorton gets portrayed as a conservative evangelical. He is not. He departed his conservative roots and writes for the liberal Huffington Post and the ultra-liberal Salon. He has aligned himself with left-wing causes on gay rights, separation of church and state, and is praised regularly by George Soros-financed groups like "Right Wing Watch".

I will follow with the specifics on how Throckmorton mis-states the record on the Indian issue, and how Barton is right and he is wrong.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200637 Jan 8, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
You would if you could,
But you can't so you don't.
See?
Catcher is a poet.
No, Catcher's a dumb ass.

I can discriminate against gays.

I choose not to.

See how easy that works?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#200638 Jan 8, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong here, Buck.
But, as did IANS, I do appreciate your civility in this debate.
History backs me.

The Supreme Court hasn't changed that part yet.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200639 Jan 8, 2014
Bongo wrote:
Is that the fangle toof guy from the asylum?
It's pretty impressive that he can type with a straight jacket on....

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Dogen 81,527
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Dogen 32,927
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 8 hr Science 2,188
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Oct 11 old_moose 233
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) Oct 10 blacklagoon 3 94
Deconversion (Feb '17) Oct 10 Eagle 12 - 145
News Atheist Student Organization Faces Revolt From ... Oct 9 Opium for dummies 7
More from around the web