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

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..

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171905 Jul 13, 2013
YO Osama bin Saban you being from up in Indiana, are you a Notre Dame fan? Or maybe a big ten sissy I-I-I mean fan...

Clownie a SEC guy!
ROLL TIDE ROLL

“1000 Sting of Scorpion to you”

Since: Feb 07

Jurassic, Indiana

#171907 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>1000 good mornings to ya Osama bin Sabin..
And 1000 God given sunrises to you, Clown El Sheik! Allah blesses Osama and Clown with another day of magnificent health, and intellectual knowledge, and wisdom. So it was said ... so it was done!
<:)

“1000 Sting of Scorpion to you”

Since: Feb 07

Jurassic, Indiana

#171908 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
YO Osama bin Saban you being from up in Indiana, are you a Notre Dame fan? Or maybe a big ten sissy I-I-I mean fan...
Clownie a SEC guy!
ROLL TIDE ROLL
> Osama and his harem of 1000 women on vacation in Jurassic, Indiana! Osama and his harem wanted to see all the dinosaurs and dusty stone tablets of Notre Dame lore! 1000 sting of scorpion to you for suggesting that Osama be infidel big-10 sissy fan! Osama is big-time SEC fan ... where real men like Osama play championship tackle football. Only champions not chumps need talk to the Great Osama ... ya hear!?
<:)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171909 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>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!
Science is not perfect. But it has mechanisms to correct mistakes. over sufficient time, mistakes will be found and corrected. In particular, anything that is central to a subject and has lasted over a couple of decades is going to be correct, at least in broad outline. Anything that has lasted for 50 years is going to be correct in most details.

The theory of evolution has been central to biology for the last 150+ years. While some things have changed over that time (including the introduction of genetics), the basic ideas have been repeatedly verified in many different ways.

Science tends to 'screw up' at the boundaries of knowledge, not in those areas that have been well-tested over the course of decades. Even when scientific revolutions happen, the main observed effects still remain. The changes tend to happen at the edges of established knowledge, not the center.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171910 Jul 13, 2013
Maybe at four years old he crawled back up Mary's snatch to come out again at the proper date?
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>It's time for you to wiggle little sheep!

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

Crack open a Gideons and check this out.

TodayÂ’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.

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) 8 min DBWriter 1,172,489
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr Earthling-1 3,055
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr cpeter1313 307,892
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Bruin For Life 28,709
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 11 hr Purmethius 733
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Jan 24 RICK SERVICE 32
San Diego State hoping Dwayne Polee II gets a shot Jan 23 alanparkcity 1
More from around the web