Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258041 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.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#205342 Jan 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A club is what you have used in the past.
You mean his violent assault on a motorist ?

Yeah. RR is a fine representative of his deity. Violent and dishonest.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#205343 Jan 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In my world there are no reasons for ever disowning family.
It's unthinkable to any of us.
Us? Who do you speak for? Because my friend that has a sister that basically disowned him did so because he is a Christian today. It may not be a narrative you'll often hear but many people that claim tolerance and being open to other points of view prove in word and deed its a joke.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#205344 Jan 20, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said its the hardest thing. You lie about me with most of your postings and its not easy to let it go. Truth is this is one area where I do question my faith because I haven't been able to do it (yet) I do hope that changes.
Then remove the log from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from mine.

You have not demonstrated you try to follow a single thing Jesus preached.

You have nothing to offer anyone. You are a fraud.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#205345 Jan 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Dave.
Testerone.
You understood what I meant.

:-)

Keeps you young, huh? I know that is important to you. Maybe the most important.

If you can't produce it, buy it, right?
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#205346 Jan 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You quoted Throckmorton. Does he have a degree in history?
Barton is recognized as a historical expert by both state and federal courts. Is Throckmorton?
Barton has been called to testify as a historical expert by both the federal and state legislatures. Has Throckmorton?
Barton was selected as a historical expert by State Boards of Education to assist in writing history and social studies standards for those states. Has Throckmorton?
Barton has consulted as a historical expert by public school textbook publishers, helping write history texts used in public schools and universities. Has Throckmorton?
The answers are no, no, no, no, and no.
Pursuant to Ians criteria for causing another to agree and change their mind , this is adequate. Im sure this will be anti-processed . Double standard of topix atheists observed. They will do anything to subvert truth where it suits their reasoning. Possibly alinski style. Its glaring dishonesty.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#205347 Jan 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
A club is what you have used in the past.
On glass, not on kids.

Ya liberal loon.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205348 Jan 20, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
The criticism for Barton (and not just for the Jefferson Lies) is for piss-poor scholarship and out-right misrepresentation of history. If you are implying a political motive, then you should look very closely at your buddy Barton, who has a political motive in spades.
Barton wants a nation of Christians, by Christians, and for Christians, run by Christians. This is why everything he writes is promoting the idea that the US was founded as a Christian nation and that the Founders were overwhelmingly Christian. It is his rationalization of his views, and an attempt to convince the rubes this is so. That way he can claim that a Christian Dominion would be a return to the original US. He certainly seems to have convinced you.
But his "scholarship" is nothing more than apologetics, shoe-horning history into his rewritten version. He certainly isn't out to discover any truth. As I have noted before, historians after the truth don't throw out over half the evidence since it does not fit the story they want to tell. Barton does, as you have so kindly pointed out by giving us some of the "quotes" he has presented. Barton has preconceived conclusions that he then cherry picks quotes, or even makes them up, to support.
Barton has made a place very high in fundamentalist Christian political circles for himself. He has become the adviser to numerous right-wing politicians that also seek to increase the political power of fundamentalist Christianity.
That you can't see this astounds me. It is right there before your face. My only conclusion is that you don't WANT to see it for some reason. What that reason is, since you are not a Christian, escapes me.
As for Green's review, it is apologist poppycock. So what if you can read "extended passages" without seeing mention of Barton's core theme? It is the totality of the book that matters, and the book in its totality is a pro-Christian nation argument. The Bible has extended passages which do not mention God. To claim therefore it is a book that is not about God is ridiculous. Green's statement is just as ridiculous.
As for "...Barton relies extensively on original documents...", well I will admit he does use SOME original documents. What is the problem is that he also IGNORES a great many original documents, as has been noted again and again. He only uses those documents that agree with his story, or ones he can distort to fit his story...as, for example...using the "exact" quotes you have provided.
Barton is very much guilty of dishonest scholarship. You may not like hearing it, but it is most definitely true.
You keep saying it. Nobody shows it.

I'm about done with this one, unless you can come up with some substance. I'm not optimistic about that.

You never answered whether a circular argument is infinite in length.

Bwaha.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#205349 Jan 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Blob who?
voodoo

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#205350 Jan 20, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. I seem to have convinced you. And I will never convince Buck. But then my posts were never really intended to convince the unconvicible Buck. They have made him say some really stupid things...like "exact" quotes. LOL.
I just about blew a gasket when I saw that this monster Lively supports Barton.

Lively is an advisor to the Ugandans who want to punish homosexual behavior with death. These Ugandans rely heavily on support from U.S. evangelical Christians for their anti-homosexual agenda.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#205351 Jan 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I may just clean yours, if you're not careful.
ewwww, decorum, please

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#205352 Jan 20, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean his violent assault on a motorist ?
Yeah. RR is a fine representative of his deity. Violent and dishonest.
And what's worse, he's proud of it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#205353 Jan 20, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you still don't name this "expert". What are you hiding?
And I will point out that just publishing textbooks does not necessarily make one credible. There are quite a number of fundamentalist "textbooks" out there that are filled with academic garbage. Cf. Of Pandas and People.
BTW...I never said what you are implying I said in that last question. Dishonest of you, much.
But then, I have come to expect nothing but dishonesty from you. I see it in nearly every post.
Yadda, yadda, yadda,..

Is a circular argument infinite in length?

Like a circular donut?

Bwaha.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#205354 Jan 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Dave.
Testerone.
You should be more careful with the overuse of that underarm roll on stuff.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#205355 Jan 20, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No reasons at all?!
I find that hard to believe.
That's cuz I don't believe unconditional love exists.
There's always a condition.
I said in MY world, RR.

I know yours is very, very different.

It has nothing to do with unconditional love, but I won't bother trying to explain it to you. You lack the ability to understand.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#205356 Jan 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
The law would promptly be found to be unconstitutional.
A corporation is a person.

That's Constitutional.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#205357 Jan 20, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean his violent assault on a motorist ?
Yeah. RR is a fine representative of his deity. Violent and dishonest.
I attacked no motorist.

I "attacked" a vehicle.

I think I give it a black eye.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#205358 Jan 20, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Us? Who do you speak for? Because my friend that has a sister that basically disowned him did so because he is a Christian today. It may not be a narrative you'll often hear but many people that claim tolerance and being open to other points of view prove in word and deed its a joke.
By "us", I mean the members of my family.

We love and respect one another. We stick together. We may have differences, but they are always overcome by love and caring. I understand that you cannot understand this, any more than the redneck can.

We live in different worlds, you and I.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#205359 Jan 20, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Then remove the log from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from mine.
You have not demonstrated you try to follow a single thing Jesus preached.
You have nothing to offer anyone. You are a fraud.
And here we have another lie. I could say more but won't, its clear to me you are not remotely interested in anything other than the same old thing. I don't answer to you nor you me, we will one day both stand before a righteous judge.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#205360 Jan 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You understood what I meant.
:-)
Keeps you young, huh? I know that is important to you. Maybe the most important.
If you can't produce it, buy it, right?
You mean the testerone?

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#205361 Jan 20, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No reasons at all?!
I find that hard to believe.
That's cuz I don't believe unconditional love exists.
There's always a condition.
With people you bet. I have found one :)

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min Regolith Based Li... 23,543
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 42 min scientia potentia... 48,729
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr Uncle Sam 72
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 3 hr Richardfs 5,706
News In defense of faith 9 hr karl44 6
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 13 hr Thinking 21,881
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 18 hr Amused 3
More from around the web