Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 249560 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: 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:
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.


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.


“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???


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....


Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205032 Jan 19, 2014

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.


“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.

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

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


Bwahahahahahahahah...oh, 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 !


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.)

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 26 min Victorious One 14,937
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr Ozada 14,724
Scientists believe in the supernatural! 2 hr Uncle Sam 1
Scientists believe in the supernatural. 3 hr Uncle Sam 1
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Chimney1 1,234
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Chimney1 22,263
Being Gay Is a Choice 3 hr USA R0CKS 30
More from around the web