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
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#171885 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>The bible messes with yo mund huh! 1 cor 2-14
Not at all!
I find it lousy reading, unfit for a child.

Any random sampling of the wanton violence and vulgarity in the Bible bears repeating because people tend to forget that it's there.

They pick and choose their Bible verses very carefully (looking for those pearls in the dung) and act like the other stuff doesn't matter.

It matters.

No "holy" book should include a description of women singing and dancing in the streets because "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands." (1 Samuel 18:7)

That calls for party time?

Not in a civilized world.

But in the Bible it's kill, kill, kill.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171886 Jul 13, 2013
My facts against others opinions you mean.

Facts win every time... And you know it.

Pssssst you have some man yogurt on your nose from your last men's room client.
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>its your word agaist billions! atheist the few the dumb!
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#171887 Jul 13, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
But this doesn't indicate that Tacitus didn't write it. This is clearly a case of a later scribe correcting what was believed to be a misspelling. In ancient Rome, Christians were commonly called Chrestians because they (and Tacitus) had previously thought that Chrestus was a name rather than a title. They had mistranslated "Christ" which is the Hebrew word for "Messiah". That a later scribe corrected the misspelling doesn't mean that Tacitus didn't write it. In fact, none of the original Annals of Rome exist anymore. We have copies. Spelling corrections were common in those days. It doesn't change the meaning at all. Teachers correct spelling errors every day. Does that mean the student didn't write the paper?
Now, as to your charge that I'm erecting straw men, go ahead and prove me wrong by answering my questions honestly.
1) Do you accept the Tacitus history of Augustus Caesar as accurate?
2) Do you accept the Josephus historical account of Herod Agrippa?
3) Do you accept Pliny the Younger's description of the Mount Vesuvius volcanic eruption as accurate?
I will accept answers of yes or no to these questions. They're simple. Either you accept them or you don't.
But-
If you do accept all of them as historically accurate, then it shows you have bias against only those passages that speak of Jesus or make any kind of reference to him as a historical person.
If you don't accept them as historically accurate, then we might as well just wipe out all we know of ancient Hebrew and Roman history since these are probably our very best historians from that era in human history.
Either way, you've cornered yourself. Now go ahead and wiggle out of this conundrum.
How many times must I remind you about your faulty logic?

Start wiggling!

Tacitus revisited!

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity.

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!

Caesar by comparison is easily verified.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171888 Jul 13, 2013
So you are really so ignorant to think a roman imperial would refer to Jesus as the Christ in his paperwork? You really think his superiors would accept that? Seriously. I have noticed you run and cower from this fact.

The passage has been altered and is an obvious forgery. Even if we forget and forgive the obvious forgery it is mere hear say of what Christians at the time, decades later by the way after the supposed events.

Oh and 1-3 are events the writers claim to have observed themselves during thief lifetimes whereas the Jesus forgeries happened decades of not over a century earlier. So your apologetic nonsense doesn't hold water and you know it.

The only person cornered is you in your cowardice. Lol Tacitus would call Jesus the messiah?! Hahaha! Sure just whenever he was sick of living!
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>But this doesn't indicate that Tacitus didn't write it. This is clearly a case of a later scribe correcting what was believed to be a misspelling. In ancient Rome, Christians were commonly called Chrestians because they (and Tacitus) had previously thought that Chrestus was a name rather than a title. They had mistranslated "Christ" which is the Hebrew word for "Messiah". That a later scribe corrected the misspelling doesn't mean that Tacitus didn't write it.
1) Do you accept the Tacitus history of Augustus Caesar as accurate?

2) Do you accept the Josephus historical account of Herod Agrippa?

3) Do you accept Pliny the Younger's description of the Mount Vesuvius volcanic eruption as accurate?

I will accept answers of yes or no to these questions. They're simple. Either you accept them or you don't.

But-

If you do accept all of them as historically accurate, then it shows you have bias against only those passages that speak of Jesus or make any kind of reference to him as a historical person.

If you don't accept them as historically accurate, then we might as well just wipe out all we know of ancient Hebrew and Roman history since these are probably our very best historians from that era in human history.

Either way, you've cornered yourself. Now go ahead and wiggle out of this conundrum.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171889 Jul 13, 2013
Much of the bible is stolen from the book of the dead. It is like source material for the myth writers.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>"only man liveth. He giveth life to man, He breatheth the breath of life into his nostrils--God is father and mother, the father of fathers, and the mother of mothers. He begetteth, but was never begotten; He produceth, but was never produced; He begat himself and produced himself. He createth, but was never created; He is the maker of his own form, and the fashioner of His own body--God Himself is existence, He endureth without increase or diminution, He multiplieth Himself millions of times, and He is manifold in forms and in members--God hath made the universe, and He hath created all that therein is; He is the Creator of what is in this world, and of what was, of what is, and of what shall be."

The Book of the Dead

See I can make meaningless quotes too from a book of myths.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171890 Jul 13, 2013
Well said and great post! History shows us how little of the bible was original.
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>RUBBISH!

Others... long before you're saviour said this... and it says a lot.

Essentially this concept is old as civilized man... There is nothing original about it in your religion.

"This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you." -- Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India, circa 3000 BCE

"What is hateful to you, do not to our fellow man. That is entire Law, all the rest is commentary." -- Talmud, Shabbat 31a, from the Judaic tradition, circa 1300 BCE

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself." -- Avesta, Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5, from the Zoroastrian tradition, circa 600 BCE

"Hurt not others in ways that you find hurtful." -- Tripitaka, Udanga-varga 5,18 , from the Buddhist tradition, circa 525 BCE

"Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness, do not unto others that which you would not have done unto you." -- Analects, Lun-yu XV,23, from the Confucian tradition, circa 500 BCE

"One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated." -- Agamas, Sutrakrtanga 1.10, 1-3, from the Jain tradition, circa 500 BCE

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss." -- Tai-shang Kang-ying P'ien, from the Taoist tradition, circa 500 BCE

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

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171891 Jul 13, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
My facts against others opinions you mean.
Facts win every time... And you know it.
Pssssst you have some man yogurt on your nose from your last men's room client.
<quoted text>
you have no facts

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171892 Jul 13, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Much of the bible is stolen from the book of the dead. It is like source material for the myth writers.
<quoted text>
myths are science books

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171893 Jul 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowardly liar with no proof of god, who tried to misdirect by changing the subject.
Now, tell me what has science revealed that proves God doesn't exist?
I want real proof not some sissy ass science guy's opinion... I have billions of testimonies of how GOD touch their lives... And how studying his holy word the bible changed their lives.. not some pumpkin head science guy telling big ol whoppers about the lie of evolution!!!!!(snicker)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#171894 Jul 13, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
But this doesn't indicate that Tacitus didn't write it.
No, what it shows is that a writing by Tacitus, that was based upon hearsay to begin with, was altered by a later scribe, and that up until after the scribe altered the writing, it had not been used or referenced by anyone previously, as an alleged reference to the Jesus! I was only after the text had been altered was it used as an alleged reference to "Christians".

What even further adds to the hearsay nature of Tacitus writing concerning this reference, is that there are no archaeological findings that point to a Christian movement of the period, and the textual references are very few, and of a hearsay nature, at absolute best.

Couple that with the interpolations and alterations done to certain of those very few references, and suddenly the references to anything "Christian" during the period quite literally vanishes.
Roman Apologist wrote:
This is clearly a case of a later scribe correcting what was believed to be a misspelling. In ancient Rome, Christians were commonly called Chrestians because they (and Tacitus) had previously thought that Chrestus was a name rather than a title.
It places the entire nature of the writing in a questionable state and other writings as well.

Just how many scribes over time have added to or subtracted from Christian writings in history, and possibly changed key points in doing so?
Roman Apologist wrote:
They had mistranslated "Christ" which is the Hebrew word for "Messiah". That a later scribe corrected the misspelling doesn't mean that Tacitus didn't write it.


So now you point out that this writer, who you want to be taken as above reproach...

Can't get a persons name spelled correctly, and that it takes a scribe centuries later to correct that.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#171895 Jul 13, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
In fact, none of the original Annals of Rome exist anymore. We have copies. Spelling corrections were common in those days. It doesn't change the meaning at all.
If the meaning was something else, and the spelling was corrected in error, then it certainly changes the meaning, of any document.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Teachers correct spelling errors every day. Does that mean the student didn't write the paper?
A meaningless statement, we aren't discussing teachers and students.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Now, as to your charge that I'm erecting straw men, go ahead and prove me wrong by answering my questions honestly.
1) Do you accept the Tacitus history of Augustus Caesar as accurate?
2) Do you accept the Josephus historical account of Herod Agrippa?
3) Do you accept Pliny the Younger's description of the Mount Vesuvius volcanic eruption as accurate?
All red herring arguments.

Part of your straw man argument you presented previously.

I'm not going to play your game concerning this.

Tacitus is the issue being discussed here.
Roman Apologist wrote:
I will accept answers of yes or no to these questions. They're simple. Either you accept them or you don't.
But-
If you do accept all of them as historically accurate, then it shows you have bias against only those passages that speak of Jesus or make any kind of reference to him as a historical person.
*see above*
Roman Apologist wrote:
If you don't accept them as historically accurate, then we might as well just wipe out all we know of ancient Hebrew and Roman history since these are probably our very best historians from that era in human history.
*see above*
Roman Apologist wrote:
Either way, you've cornered yourself. Now go ahead and wiggle out of this conundrum.
*see above*

Stick with the point of the discussion, and stop trying to divert away from that with these weak and fallacious forms of argumentation.

“1000 Sting of Scorpion to you”

Since: Feb 07

Jurassic, Indiana

#171896 Jul 13, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
Bozo number two
> Mikko ... nice pic! Reminds Osama of Jason Voorhees without the mask.
<:)
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#171897 Jul 13, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
But this doesn't indicate that Tacitus didn't write it. This is clearly a case of a later scribe correcting what was believed to be a misspelling. In ancient Rome, Christians were commonly called Chrestians because they (and Tacitus) had previously thought that Chrestus was a name rather than a title. They had mistranslated "Christ" which is the Hebrew word for "Messiah". That a later scribe corrected the misspelling doesn't mean that Tacitus didn't write it. In fact, none of the original Annals of Rome exist anymore. We have copies. Spelling corrections were common in those days. It doesn't change the meaning at all. Teachers correct spelling errors every day. Does that mean the student didn't write the paper?
Now, as to your charge that I'm erecting straw men, go ahead and prove me wrong by answering my questions honestly.
1) Do you accept the Tacitus history of Augustus Caesar as accurate?
2) Do you accept the Josephus historical account of Herod Agrippa?
3) Do you accept Pliny the Younger's description of the Mount Vesuvius volcanic eruption as accurate?
I will accept answers of yes or no to these questions. They're simple. Either you accept them or you don't.
But-
If you do accept all of them as historically accurate, then it shows you have bias against only those passages that speak of Jesus or make any kind of reference to him as a historical person.
If you don't accept them as historically accurate, then we might as well just wipe out all we know of ancient Hebrew and Roman history since these are probably our very best historians from that era in human history.
Either way, you've cornered yourself. Now go ahead and wiggle out of this conundrum.
It's time for you to wiggle little sheep!

please explain this... Take your time...

Crack open a Gideons and check this out.

Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.

So, since your Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C.

Irony meter goes boom!

Jesus could only have been born a minimum of four years before the birth of Jesus?

After you stop laughing though, consider the import of this paradox.
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#171898 Jul 13, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Well said and great post! History shows us how little of the bible was original.
<quoted text>
Thank you ;)
I find theist posters particularly uneducated and uninformed.

They remain deliberately ignorant in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Anyone that takes to time to research these various religions will find the same things I do.

One could make the argument that the desert religions all based on RA, the Egyptian God.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#171899 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>what you call a myth! Billions call the truth! only a hand full of lost dumb atheist call it a myth.. you are just one of the dumb
And people once said the world was flat, your point is?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#171900 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>myths are science books
What myths in what science books?

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171901 Jul 13, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
And people once said the world was flat, your point is?
thats science for you..

“1000 Sting of Scorpion to you”

Since: Feb 07

Jurassic, Indiana

#171902 Jul 13, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
ouch i think i've stepped on a Osama bin-Saban have to clean my shoe
Mikko, Mikko, Mikko… you should be thanking Osama for saving your pathetic life this morning! Yep ... Osama, while driving his Land Rover, ran over a shi+ eatin' dog!
<:)

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171903 Jul 13, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
What myths in what science books?
OMG dude!!! you have a computer use it.. I could copy & paste for yrs on science screw-ups and you would say prove it!

some peeps are just plain ol dumb!

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171904 Jul 13, 2013
Osama bin-Saban wrote:
<quoted text>Mikko, Mikko, Mikko… you should be thanking Osama for saving your pathetic life this morning! Yep ... Osama, while driving his Land Rover, ran over a shi+ eatin' dog!
<:)
1000 good mornings to ya Osama bin Sabin..

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) 1 hr johnplustwomore 1,155,536
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 28,452
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr cpeter1313 307,057
How to recover lost data from iPhone/iPad/iPod- (Jan '14) 5 hr Lora_14 10
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 5 hr sam 201,186
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 12 hr IBdaMann 2,731
Rashard Kelly's last-second putback gives No. 1... 17 hr dogman67156 1
More from around the web