Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255507 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: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171443 Jul 9, 2013
Decades after the event and merely quoting what others in your religion happen to be saying for starters.

So would you accept a letter written by a Hellenistic worshipper that Perseus existed because he wrote something Perseus was supposed to have said as proof that the son of god Perseus really existed?
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't they count? This should be good. I can't wait.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171444 Jul 9, 2013
No I answered it in detail, go look.

Waiting for this historical proof that Jesus existed old man. Stop cowering from my question or just admit you are unable to provide said proof.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>You dodged the Socrates question.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171445 Jul 9, 2013
Yet not a word was written about him for decades? And the story of his life kept changing even centuries later?

Again it seems a man rising from the dead and walking into Jerusalem with hundreds of risen from the grave famous Jews would have gotten some attention right?

Christianity started like all mystery cults at the time. It even follows the formula down to the letter. What's even funnier is all the errors in the NT myth when it tries to refer to the Torah! Hahaha!

This shows the NT writers were poorly educated on Jewish writings and history. Humiliatingly bad in fact.

Again we have secular proof for Jesus Ben Strada the Egyptian magician who was caught and executed but not a shred for this so called Jesus of Nazareth who raised the dead! The Egyptian magic man with his slight of hand tactics garners more secular notice than your precious Jesus who receives none whatsoever. Fact.

And the gospels don't match up.
And the letters of so called Paul come before the gospels when they should come way after.
And not even Jesus' own followers didn't bother to write about him.

You'd think one of the multitudes of people he supposedly healed or raised from the dead would have chipped in for a statue or scroll or something...
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>They became believers because of what they witnessed, and because they wanted to preserve it, they wrote it down. First century Israeli culture was an orally dominated culture. Historical event was memorized and passed on within specific communities and groups. Look it up. Not only that, they were what is known as a "high context culture." Many things were left unsaid (or unwritten) because the assumption of the culture was that if you were a part of that culture, you knew what everybody else in that culture knew. It didn't have to be defined or discussed in detail.

If you're trying to imply that their bias fed into their beliefs, then you would be partially correct, but not in the way that you as a skeptic might think. The bias of the early Christians (the apostles specifically) existed because of what they witnessed with their own eyes, and grew in proportion to their faith. Your implication that believers words don't count because they're believers also fails in another way.

This history mattered to them because they saw it as sacred and holy. It wasn't a matter of discussing why their camel or donkey was getting old. This was a big deal to them, so of course they had bias. Would you expect a passionate sound engineer to write a 50 page doctoral thesis on the subject of Victorian era plumbing and sanitation? You have bias, I have bias, everybody has bias. Your unstated (yet implied) charge isn't a logical argument.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171446 Jul 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does this 10^34 come from?
Did I mention a 10^34?
Your professing of what science says keeps evolving. Keeps wandering off in a different direction.
No, I am pointing out the different possibilities that science has uncovered. Without extra data we cannot tell which of the possibilities is reality.
Time started when something was set into motion so you could mark it.
In other words, when matter started. Matter is always in motion (even at absolute zero).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171447 Jul 9, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You do...... You just don't like them explained in there simplest form.
You hide behind long drawn out babble.
Sometimes a short form is so inaccurate that it is a lie.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171448 Jul 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>yes.

[QUOTE]Was there always time?"

This is an ambiguous question.

[QUOTE]If time was always, then so matter and energy could have always existed and of course that would mean science is wrong on the date of the universe. So is science wrong? or did time come from nothing?
"

Once again, you failed to read what I wrote. Science says that the current expansion phase began about 13.7 billion years ago. Whether the 'universe' began at that point is as yet undecided.

*If* the universe started at the BB, then time did also.

And, once again, time did not 'come from' anything. To 'come from' requires time.
"time did not 'come from' anything. To 'come from' requires time"

So Time is impossible!

Thanks you summed it nicely. Time could not have happened outside of Gods creation.

Box!!!!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#171449 Jul 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Are there religions formed around him that dictate people's lives? But even if Socrates didn't exist and was just made up it would be meaningless because even if Plato, let's just say for argument's sake just made him up for whatever reason, the important thing is we have the Socratic method of reasoning. Nobody is saying believing in Socrates gives you immortal life in heaven or hell. Nobody is claiming Socrates died for our sins and if you don't believe you should be abused or even put to death.
Now we have Plato's writings of Socrates which are secular, not religious.... Never heard of Plato? Aristophanes wrote and produced a play mocking him.
Oh another thing, Plato wrote about him while he was alive, he didn't wait until decades later or worse other people wrote about him claiming to be Plato.
Glad to educate you again senile Dave. Your ignorance is astounding.
<quoted text>
LOL!!

That was your answering in detail?

You have more accounts of a Jesus being alive than Socrates.

Bwahahahaha

Prove he was alive and not a figment of Plato's imagination. Give us some secular records or something.

Interesting how he was killed for his beliefs, eh?

JC gave you a way of thinking, too.

You are such an immature thinker.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#171450 Jul 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I mention a 10^34?
<quoted text>
No, I am pointing out the different possibilities that science has uncovered. Without extra data we cannot tell which of the possibilities is reality.
<quoted text>
In other words, when matter started. Matter is always in motion (even at absolute zero).
"No, I am pointing out the different possibilities that science has uncovered. Without extra data we cannot tell which of the possibilities is reality."

Possibilities. Could be this, could be that, or maybe that there. Keep sending money, we will figure it out some time. Promise, maybe.

Christine DingaLing uses it all the time, as do others. Why haven't you corrected them?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171451 Jul 9, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"time did not 'come from' anything. To 'come from' requires time"
So Time is impossible!
Thanks you summed it nicely. Time could not have happened outside of Gods creation.
Box!!!!
No. Once again, time is uncaused. So, it does not 'come from' anything. That does NOT mean it is impossible. Just that it is uncaused.

Why do you insist on making the same mistakes over and over again?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171452 Jul 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"No, I am pointing out the different possibilities that science has uncovered. Without extra data we cannot tell which of the possibilities is reality."
Possibilities. Could be this, could be that, or maybe that there. Keep sending money, we will figure it out some time. Promise, maybe.
Christine DingaLing uses it all the time, as do others. Why haven't you corrected them?
Uses what all the time? 10^34?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171453 Jul 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No. Once again, time is uncaused. So, it does not 'come from' anything. That does NOT mean it is impossible. Just that it is uncaused.

Why do you insist on making the same mistakes over and over again?
"(Time) it does not 'come from' anything. "

Correct! You've cleared this up once again, thanks.

Times existence is impossible got it!

Uncaused funny!

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#171455 Jul 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yet not a word was written about him for decades? And the story of his life kept changing even centuries later?
Again it seems a man rising from the dead and walking into Jerusalem with hundreds of risen from the grave famous Jews would have gotten some attention right?
Christianity started like all mystery cults at the time. It even follows the formula down to the letter. What's even funnier is all the errors in the NT myth when it tries to refer to the Torah! Hahaha!
This shows the NT writers were poorly educated on Jewish writings and history. Humiliatingly bad in fact.
Again we have secular proof for Jesus Ben Strada the Egyptian magician who was caught and executed but not a shred for this so called Jesus of Nazareth who raised the dead! The Egyptian magic man with his slight of hand tactics garners more secular notice than your precious Jesus who receives none whatsoever. Fact.
And the gospels don't match up.
And the letters of so called Paul come before the gospels when they should come way after.
And not even Jesus' own followers didn't bother to write about him.
You'd think one of the multitudes of people he supposedly healed or raised from the dead would have chipped in for a statue or scroll or something...
<quoted text>
Ben Stada was executed in Lydda, not Jerusalem, and the Roman governor at the time was Felix, not Pilate. It's also a century after the execution of Jesus. This comparison is dismissed by most Hebrew scholars.

Now as to your assertion that nobody wrote about Jesus during his own time is nothing more than a speculative assumption. If you're going to make that assertion then you need to show some evidence or a plausible argument to support your claim.

If you want to really examine the probability of anyone writing about Jesus in His own lifetime, it might be helpful to start by looking at other figures from the first century. But when we look at them, we must consider a number of factors.

1) Jerusalem was not highly regarded by Roman authorities as a center of culture and intellectual growth. It was troubled by revolts, a strict mono-theistic culture, and was generally regarded with contempt. The only extra-biblical historical account of any contemporary of Jesus from first century Judea was Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, and James, the brother of Jesus, and even then it was written by Josephus decades later. And that's not even the TF.

2) We don't know what happened to any written material that might have existed. We're talking about 2,000 years here. How long is a piece of papyrus supposed to last? What's the shelf life of animal skin scrolls? We have precious few writings from the first century Roman province of Judea.

3) Factor in the 66-70 AD revolt and subsequent destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans and let's ask how much of the city was burned. The temple was destroyed, and because the temple was also where written records were kept, is it any surprise to logically reason that such contemporary writings (assuming they existed) would have been lost to the flames?

So what are your thoughts on this?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171456 Jul 9, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"(Time) it does not 'come from' anything. "
Correct! You've cleared this up once again, thanks.
Times existence is impossible got it!
Uncaused funny!
Why do you confuse 'uncaused' with 'impossible'?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#171458 Jul 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The authorship of the gospels has always been in dispute in the modern era, but we have no evidence of a dispute from the first three centuries of Christianity. This is most likely when any dispute would have surfaced, and to date, there's no record of such a dispute.
The early church historian Eusebius records that Mark's gospel was written first, and was essentially the eye-witness account of Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus. Eusebius was the very first historian of the early Christian church and had to assemble his extensive history from early letters, gospels, and written quotations. It's interesting to note a few items for your consideration before you form your rebuttal.
Peter was executed in Rome right around 66-67 A.D. during the Neronian Persecutions. This is accepted as true by both secular and Christian scholars as historically accurate.
Therefore, if Mark really was the scribe of Peter, then it's only logical to conclude that Mark started writing before the death of Peter. The language in Mark's gospel seems to protect Peter's feelings, which in turn suggests that Mark wrote while Peter was still alive.
Mark also accompanied Paul to Rome, and we know this from Paul's letters. Therefore, Mark was likely writing to a Greco-Roman audience and would have written in Greek which the universal language of the time. I mention this, because in Mark's account of Jesus dying on the cross, Jesus says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" and the curious thing about it is that Mark wrote it in Aramaic, which is the language that Palestinian Jews spoke then. If Mark was writing to a Greco-Roman audience, then why would he write in Aramaic, far removed from the place where Aramaic was the primary language? He wouldn't have written it to add detail to the story for literary creativity. That kind of writing hadn't developed yet. If Mark wrote his gospel in Greek, but certain phrases in Aramaic, then it's logical to say he was writing down somebody's memories. They may not have been his own memories, but that raises a question also. If not his memories, then who's memories? If he was inventing it, it would have been written in Greek or Latin but it wasn't.
So here we have good reason to accept that at least one gospel is early and is likely based on eye-witness testimony. Now this is only one small piece of evidence. I could bring a lot more to the conversation, but it would be counter-productive to overwhelm you all at once.
You should supply links to substantiating information in a post with this many assertions.
Imhotep

United States

#171459 Jul 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Ben Stada was executed in Lydda, not Jerusalem, and the Roman governor at the time was Felix, not Pilate. It's also a century after the execution of Jesus. This comparison is dismissed by most Hebrew scholars.
Now as to your assertion that nobody wrote about Jesus during his own time is nothing more than a speculative assumption. If you're going to make that assertion then you need to show some evidence or a plausible argument to support your claim.
If you want to really examine the probability of anyone writing about Jesus in His own lifetime, it might be helpful to start by looking at other figures from the first century. But when we look at them, we must consider a number of factors.
1) Jerusalem was not highly regarded by Roman authorities as a center of culture and intellectual growth. It was troubled by revolts, a strict mono-theistic culture, and was generally regarded with contempt. The only extra-biblical historical account of any contemporary of Jesus from first century Judea was Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, and James, the brother of Jesus, and even then it was written by Josephus decades later. And that's not even the TF.
2) We don't know what happened to any written material that might have existed. We're talking about 2,000 years here. How long is a piece of papyrus supposed to last? What's the shelf life of animal skin scrolls? We have precious few writings from the first century Roman province of Judea.
3) Factor in the 66-70 AD revolt and subsequent destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans and let's ask how much of the city was burned. The temple was destroyed, and because the temple was also where written records were kept, is it any surprise to logically reason that such contemporary writings (assuming they existed) would have been lost to the flames?
So what are your thoughts on this?
There isn't any proof that Jesus existed.

Nor is there any proof of Moses & Mohammad.

Take away those holy books... and they don't exist in history.

The Egyptians didn't record anything about Moses, and the Romans did not record anything about Jesus.

You have a problem with Cro-Magnon and. Neanderthal man. A problem with dinosaurs.
A much larger problem with fossils. All Of which existed long ago, Before the emergence of Homo sapiens.

I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction.

The Christian God may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon.

But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad."
~ALDOUS HUXLEY

;)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#171460 Jul 9, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
You should supply links to substantiating information in a post with this many assertions.
Google it.
Imhotep

United States

#171461 Jul 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You dodged the Socrates question.
You need to get some sleep Davy!

You've been giving the devil two black eyes for too long!

Hmm... something about Socrates?
OK

"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." -- Socrates (the Greek philosopher), circa 470-399 BCE

In ancient Greece, Socrates was reputed to hold knowledge in the highest esteem.

One day an acquaintance met the great philosopher and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about your friend?"

"Hold on a minute," Socrates replied. "Before telling me anything I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test."

"Triple filter?"

"That's right," Socrates continued. "Before you talk to me about my friend, it might be a good idea to take a moment and filter what you're going to say.

The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is absolutely true?

"No," the man said, "I actually just heard about it and..."

"All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my friend something good?"

"No, on the contrary..."

"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him, but you're not certain it's true. You may still pass the test though, because there's one filter left: the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my friend going to be useful to me?"

"No, not really."

"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?"

This is why Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.

It also explains why he never found out his best friend was banging his wife.!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171462 Jul 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you confuse 'uncaused' with 'impossible'?
Why do think that's a legit reason that time can exist from nothing.(Which of course is impossible)

Uncaused - is this the name of your Deity?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171463 Jul 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing like having conflicting accounts and beliefs in your official documentation to prove it was all one gigantic conspiracy, eh? Adds that touch of real experts, don't you know? All without the benefit of mass communications or rapid transportation.
Gee, you know what, come to think of it? THE WHOLE ROMAN EMPIRE MAY NOT HAVE EXISTED!! It could have just been a conspiracy to believe it existed for some nefarious purpose.
You are ridiculous.
There was major league social disruption in the area for a hundred years after, and Rome had lots of other problems to deal with besides Judea. Lots of building and records burned during the revolts. Not only destruction from the war, but also competing ideologies and religions of the area.
It is beyond ridiculous that christians believe that the Romans would not have documented Jesus Christ's being. If he was around doing the things that is claimed in the bible it would have been documented, and it wasn't. Now that is obvious, and if you deny that then you are simply being stubborn and ignorant about history.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171464 Jul 9, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>
And atheist are
slaves to sin,
homosexuals,
thieves,
drunkards,
slanderers,
swindlers,
wicked,
Just to name a few!
I am none of these things, and I am a non-believer.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Denny CranesPlace 1,395,061
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 14 min Into The Night 9,849
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr cpeter1313 311,337
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Sat Bruin For Life 32,288
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... (Jun '15) Jun 20 Tretre 6
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 13 Dump Trump 201,862
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jun 6 James Harry 41
More from around the web