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

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172358 Jul 16, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Certainly the sword forcing Christianity into society was key to it's current state.
<quoted text>
Yes... without the pogrom of Constantine's army, force-converting to christianity (or they were killed), the sad little cult would not be around today.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172359 Jul 16, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
I give you points for sincerity and civility. That's the exception rather than the rule on these threads so Kudos to you! I can see you've done a lot of research and given these many points a lot of thought.
Don't get me wrong, a house of cards is still a house of cards and you have more than your fair share of 'considerations' to propose. It's understandable when discussing a long gone culture with scant clues.
Just following your and Bob's discussion, please carry on!
Thanks Albtraum! I appreciate the comment. Feel free to jump in any time. The more the merrier. Just don't take it personally if it takes me a while to answer. There's only so much time in a day, and we all have lives. Well, at least I hope we all do.:)

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172360 Jul 16, 2013
Who else laughs at how he refuses to answer our questions but throws out several of his own?

Btw Jews had a very important oral and written history not oral only. Sorry :(
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Forgive me for asking, but why dismiss it? I see you attacking a specific portion of my argument, but not the entire argument. I'm just curious as to what was wrong with it that you feel the need to dismiss it out-of-hand without a logical evidential rebuttal.

Givemeliberty wrote, "No western standards have nothing to do with argument whatsoever. The period of time Jesus walked the region is very very well documented."

Yes first century writers did document events. But-

Just how many historical accounts from ancient Palestine do you claim have survived to the present day? What are your sources?

How much (by percentage) of any specific culture can we say was literate with any substantial historical accuracy?

How many cultures were predominantly literary and how many were predominantly oral tradition based cultures?

Have you factored in cultural expectations? If the accounts of what Jesus said are true, then we're looking at a culture that was waiting for His imminent second coming. If they were expecting the Christ to return, then can we expect that they would have written it down so soon after when oral tradition would suffice?

It's been 2,000 years since these accounts started circulating. Papyrus doesn't last forever. Even if they did start writing it down immediately as you seem to believe they were obligated to, what guarantee do we have that they survived? We know that the conquests of Rome, the barbarians, the Ottomans, weren't exactly peaceful.
How many written records have we lost due to natural or man-made disasters? Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D. by the Romans. Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D. So there are two disasters right there that can account for "lost history."

I'm not asking you to answer all of these points I'm raising. I'm raising them to show that I think you're assuming too much without a whole lot of plausible evidence to support your claims.

Givemeliberty wrote, "I know you hate to admit that but guess what? The Jews, Mithra worshipers, Hellenistic people all regularly at the time documented vital information. People have trouble remembering word for word the Ten Commandments but you think they could accurately remember hundreds of thousands of words perfectly? Insanity and we see this clearly as all the variations of the same gospels that we find in ancient scrolls."

Again, you're thinking in modern terms. You're not considering the difference between the way we do things, and the way the ancient cultures did things. Yes the Hellenistic world had its share of brilliant thinkers and writers, but you're comparing the polytheistic pagan cultures with a strict monotheistic culture that was orally dominant. Jewish Rabbis were REQUIRED to memorize the entire Torah before being allowed to comment on any passage. That in itself is a remarkable accomplishment. Our own Western culture doesn't do that, and that's why you doubt that ancient cultures could. That's ethnocentrism.

Givemeliberty wrote, "Jesus according to the NT had rich and highly educated men with him including converted Jews who would have known the importance of documentation."

Why, in a predominantly oral culture, would you assume that somebody was obligated to write about him? What is your basis for making that assumption? That other cultures did? If I write a letter to my congressman, are you also obligated to write a letter to your congressman?

Givemeliberty wrote, "This is why apologetics fail miserably. Critical thinking."

If you give my above points fair consideration, I think you'll see I do think fairly critically. I don't want canned answers any more than you do.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172361 Jul 16, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll rather stay in Sweden (were more democratic than USA)
Yes-- yes you are.

More to the point? Sweden is far more secular than the USA, and has a much higher standard of living, a higher average salary per person, a much lower per-person crime rate too.

A much lower dead-baby rate as well (per 1000 births)-- cannot forget the number of infants who **die** here in the good old USA, due to the unfortunate circumstances of their births.

All in all? A much better place to live than here-- on average.

Personally? I blame your success on your mostly godless lifestyles.

<laughing>
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172362 Jul 16, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all history that we haven't witnessed is hearsay if we're passing on the tradition. Here's an example for your consideration.
My great great grandfather fought in the 3 day Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War, and was wounded on the first day. He was a member of the 76th NY Infantry from Cortland County. I was told this by my mother. She was told this by her mother, and she was told by her mother, and she was told by her mother and father. What proof do I have in my possession? I have a copy of his pension from the War Department, and a digital copy of a young man in civil war attire, holding a derringer. Our family has preserved the stories he told his daughter (my great-grandmother) about the things he did and the things he witnessed. She passed that on to her daughter (my grandmother), who in turn passed it down to my mother, who in turn passed it down to me. It's been 150 years since the battle. I have an oral tradition that hasn't been exaggerated, I have a single piece of paper detailing a pension for a war injury, and a digital copy of a grainy black and white image of a young man in civil war attire. That's all I have. Now if I cross check, I can know that the 76th NY Infantry fought on the first day of the battle. There's one single stone monument that marks the position of the 76th NY Infantry on July 1st 1863. That's it. Nothing more to know in relation to my grandfather being at this historic event from 150 years ago. At best, my family history is circumstantial. It's hearsay. I never met my great-great-grandfather. Nobody ever wrote a book about him, yet he existed. Do you doubt anything I've told you about my great-great-grandfather?
In comparison, with Jesus, we have at least 2 hostile secular accounts from hostile sources, and we have 4 sources that were friendly (the gospels). None of them are contemporary, and they don't NEED to be. Nobody wrote down my great-great-grandfather's account of what it was like to lay wounded on the battlefield for 2 days before receiving any first-aid whatsoever, until about 10 years ago. It was always maintained in family stories that NEVER changed or exaggerated any detail.
My point? There's more written evidence for Jesus from 2,000 years ago, than there is for my great-great-grandfather from just 150 years ago. Of course you'll claim that my great-great-grandfather's existence is irrelevant to this conversation. Do you know why it's irrelevant? Because your eternal future isn't at stake or dependent upon the existence of my great-great-grandfather.
If you look at every argument that you reject for the existence of Jesus, despite the fact that we repeat the same information, your own emotional bias comes shining through like the sun. If we wanted to make this up to convince you, why would we keep repeating the same arguments? Wouldn't we make up new arguments? What possible motive could I have to get you to change your heart and mind? It's not like I'm going to make any money off my efforts. I'm not going to get extra credit in the after-life. I'm not looking for bragging rights. I'm not running for office. What can I possibly gain?
Believing in the existence of my great-great-grandfather doesn't require any internal change of heart. But believing in Jesus does, and there is the difference.
Your great grandfathers existence IS irrelevant to the conversation, and No my "eternal" future is NOT at stake, as there is absolutely No evidence that anyone, including you, has an "eternal" future. Stating your unsupported beliefs as factual is never a good idea.

Now with that out of the way. Reason and logic are two very important components in this conversation, you have exercised neither. The existence of your Grandfather vs. the existence of Jesus. Your grandfather fought in the civil war, fought at the battle of Gettysburg, was a member of the 76th NY infantry. more on my next post, your's was very long.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172363 Jul 16, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Well T town sperm drinker won't be able to use that because he specifically said he was going to his church meaning a specific church.
One he is ashamed to name.
In your case the fact that fewer and fewer people are going to a church works out great for me as an atheist. Calling oneself a Christian in name only means nothing. It's when Christians congregate together in a church that bad things happen for society.
People each year are becoming less and less religious. Believers in name only are a toothless dog.
<quoted text>
I have no faith in organized religions gods. Most christian think I'm a atheist, or made myself my god.
I believe the only thing that is important to the deity is that life continues, and really doesn't care what life it is. The plan is evolution, and it has worked for billions of years.
Anytime you get a large group of people together under one banner trouble is surely coming to the individual.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172364 Jul 16, 2013
I think we need to start much simpler with you. Did Paul have visions and dreams about Jesus? Yes or no.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Forgive me for asking, but why dismiss it? I see you attacking a specific portion of my argument, but not the entire argument. I'm just curious as to what was wrong with it that you feel the need to dismiss it out-of-hand without a logical evidential rebuttal.

Because it was your biased opinion nothing more and seeing as how you cower from any question I ask it was only fair.

Yes first century writers did document events.

Yes and certainly a man doing 1/4th of what Jesus is said to have done would have been written about. Fact.

Just how many historical accounts from ancient Palestine do you claim have survived to the present day? What are your sources?

Oh wow thousands of scrolls with more being found by the day. I suggest you investigate yourself and see. Then again you didn't know that Paul had visions and dreams of Jesus so.....

How much (by percentage) of any specific culture can we say was literate with any substantial historical accuracy?

Irrelevant, we had a wealth of historians and Jesus was said to be surrounded by people who could have documented his words and deeds properly.

How many cultures were predominantly literary and how many were predominantly oral tradition based cultures?

The culture at the time was predominantly written thanks. Several historians roamed Jerusalem at the exact time Jesus lived according to the myth.

Have you factored in cultural expectations? If the accounts of what Jesus said are true, then we're looking at a culture that was waiting for His imminent second coming. If they were expecting the Christ to return, then can we expect that they would have written it down so soon after when oral tradition would suffice?

Yes I have it is you who obviously are not. Again at that time and culture in history people were more and more documenting events and people. Even pottery sales! We have a wealth of secular documentation from that era. How can you assume oral tradition would suffice? Answer please.... You won't I know, that nasty critical thinking and all.

It's been 2,000 years since these accounts started circulating. Papyrus doesn't last forever. Even if they did start writing it down immediately as you seem to believe they were obligated to, what guarantee do we have that they survived?

It seems you are more interested in making excises as to why they didn't document a man who raised the dead in front of thousands.... For some odd reason. Again I remind you we have documentation of the Egyptian magician Jesus but not the NT Jesus... Cough.

I'm not asking you to answer all of these points.

Good because you refuse to answer anything so far.. Perhaps you will start?

Again, you're thinking in modern terms. You're not considering the difference between the way we do things,Jewish Rabbis were REQUIRED to memorize the entire Torah.

Yet they had written copies of the Torah right? They also documented several important people and occurrences in Judea. This is not a modern occurrence as you keep belching. That period of time is one of the best documented time periods in history.

Why, in a predominantly oral culture, would you assume that somebody was obligated to write about him?

This fails because they did wrote the NT myth so we can safely disregard the oral only argument. Why would the so called Paul need to write about him if everything was so perfectly preserved orally? Yes you won't answer this I know.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172365 Jul 16, 2013
I agree and as I said the more Christian in name only folks staying out of churches the better :)
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>I have no faith in organized religions gods. Most christian think I'm a atheist, or made myself my god.
I believe the only thing that is important to the deity is that life continues, and really doesn't care what life it is. The plan is evolution, and it has worked for billions of years.
Anytime you get a large group of people together under one banner trouble is surely coming to the individual.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172366 Jul 16, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>how do you chumps pay for a gallion of gas? plus them bad teeth yall have... LOL
thinking has rotten teeth or should I say tooth
I pay for my gallon of gas with my oil royalities, and veterans paid for my teeth.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172367 Jul 16, 2013
Exactly and a person as important as the judge over your so called immortal soul one would think would be properly documented in a timely manner.... I guess that tidbit wasn't all that important for over 50 years. After all there was pottery sales to properly and document in a timely manner! And no name Egyptian magicians to be documented. Hmmm? A man who is the son of god, does for our sins, raised from the dead three days later, born of a virgin? Oh not another one of those! Come on people make up something new for once!

Now onto the pottery sales! Lol :))
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Your great grandfathers existence IS irrelevant to the conversation, and No my "eternal" future is NOT at stake, as there is absolutely No evidence that anyone, including you, has an "eternal" future. Stating your unsupported beliefs as factual is never a good idea.

Now with that out of the way. Reason and logic are two very important components in this conversation, you have exercised neither. The existence of your Grandfather vs. the existence of Jesus. Your grandfather fought in the civil war, fought at the battle of Gettysburg, was a member of the 76th NY infantry. more on my next post, your's was very long.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172368 Jul 16, 2013
Thinking wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =eKgPY1adc0AXX
<quoted text>
:O):O), You know what surprise me the most, I voted for him twice, well actually I voted against kerry and gore
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172369 Jul 16, 2013
Your Grandfather's existence vs. the existence of Jesus. There are massive piles of evidence for the civil war, very detailed accounts for the battle of Gettysburg supported with a pictures. We also have physical evidence, everything from bullets and the actual guns that fired those bullets, to the equipments the soldiers used. Original handwritten letters, surgical instruments, clothing, all PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

For Jesus you have.....well nothing outside of 2,000 year old stories told in an ancient holy book. No physical evidence, no pictures, not even contemporary accounts, all you are left with is a belief, period. Now, the logical and honest person would come to the overwhelming conclusion that it is much more likely that your grandfather existed than Jesus. Of course you become an important part of the physical evidence, for without your grandfather, you would not exist. Without the existence of Jesus, no one's life would change.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172370 Jul 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Coincidence? I think not...
<LMAO>
:O))
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172371 Jul 16, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
The immorality, cruelty, debauchery, genocide, and slavery described in the bible were things you unbelievers and evil doers did.
Err, no, your demon God was responsible for these things.

1.) Immorality..........Your God condones and promotes slavery.

2.) Cruelty........Your God flooded the entire globe thereby murdering innocent little babies and destroying unborn fetuses.

3. Debauchery.......Your God order Moses to give to his soldiers as spoils of war, all of the young virgins to do with them as they wanted.

4.) Genocide.........Your God murdered all of the first born males babies of Egypt.

See, you really don't know much about your holy book do you. Why is it time and time again, that us Atheists are so much more familiar with your holy book than the Theists who tout it about as a life altering book? Go figure!!!!!

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172372 Jul 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Each of your arguments would have some merit-- if you don't believe that Jesus was divine in any way, shape or form.
If he was but a man? Then sure, your arguments above have some reasonable weight to them.
Alas, if Jesus was just a man? Then the whole reason for your argument falls flat, for want of motive.
However, if Jesus was a god, as christianity claims?
Then-- we can easily expect-- at a bare minimum-- godly traits in this Jesus, including the ability to write in a godly fashion.
Alas, that turns out not to be the case: we have exactly zero writings from this Jesus character.
Rather an epic fail, from a ..
... divine character.
May I ask why you assume that Jesus should have written anything at all? The Hebrew culture was predominantly oral. I'm not saying that nobody wrote at all, but in an oral culture where verbal exchange was the normal mode of communication; why write at all?

And what does divinity have to do with whether or not a person writes? If writing is a choice, then why should a deity be compelled to write when oral tradition would suffice?

If the stories of Jesus are true, we have a wandering Rabbi who taught illiterate (for the majority of the population) people, using parables and sermons that are rooted in the oral tradition of the culture that he was a member of.

I just don't see any merit in the argument that early writing would have proven his existence. And here's the oddity of your assertion:
I find it rather curious that when we do point out that the Gospel of Mark was likely written first and likely very early (within 20-30 years of the public execution by crucifixion) we get protests from the skeptical community.

If we (as a minority of Christians do) claim that Matthew wrote first and even earlier, the skeptical community seems to howl in protest even more. After all, it is logical to conclude that a tax collector would have the skills to write as needed in accordance with the duties of his job, and it's also logical to conclude that he may have taken notes (even if very primitive by our own standards) during his time as Jesus' disciple, that he later referred to as he wrote his gospel.

All things considered, I hear complaints about this early writing of Matthew, and yet the argument from the skeptic's side of the aisle asks why nobody wrote any sooner. I see a conflict in reasoning here.
We can't have it both ways.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172373 Jul 16, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution isn't a lie. Evolution is a process that has occurred over time. The argument between theists and atheists is whether or not that process was started by random chance. As a Christian, I don't believe that.
The bigger question is this:
What do we really have to lose if an intelligent designer did start the process, and has a personal vested interest in us? If an intelligent designer is interested in us, what possible motive is there for us to deny such a being?
And exactly where do you see this "vested intreats?" How does this vested interest manifest itself? In the daily tooth and nail fight for survival we see in the animal kingdom? The female wasp that lays her eggs in a living host who eventually eat their way from the inside out? In the pride of Lions that slowly devour their living prey, starting with the anus? Or is it the thousands upon thousands of parasitic organisms that prey on us, and have been killing and maiming our species for hundreds of thousands of years? Or are we simply seeing an uncaring process, the natural order of things were only the strongest and most adaptable get to propagate?
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172374 Jul 16, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
May I ask why you assume that Jesus should have written anything at all? The Hebrew culture was predominantly oral. I'm not saying that nobody wrote at all, but in an oral culture where verbal exchange was the normal mode of communication; why write at all?
And what does divinity have to do with whether or not a person writes? If writing is a choice, then why should a deity be compelled to write when oral tradition would suffice?
If the stories of Jesus are true, we have a wandering Rabbi who taught illiterate (for the majority of the population) people, using parables and sermons that are rooted in the oral tradition of the culture that he was a member of.
I just don't see any merit in the argument that early writing would have proven his existence. And here's the oddity of your assertion:
I find it rather curious that when we do point out that the Gospel of Mark was likely written first and likely very early (within 20-30 years of the public execution by crucifixion) we get protests from the skeptical community.
If we (as a minority of Christians do) claim that Matthew wrote first and even earlier, the skeptical community seems to howl in protest even more. After all, it is logical to conclude that a tax collector would have the skills to write as needed in accordance with the duties of his job, and it's also logical to conclude that he may have taken notes (even if very primitive by our own standards) during his time as Jesus' disciple, that he later referred to as he wrote his gospel.
All things considered, I hear complaints about this early writing of Matthew, and yet the argument from the skeptic's side of the aisle asks why nobody wrote any sooner. I see a conflict in reasoning here.
We can't have it both ways.
Didn't the book god write the OT or torah. So how can you say they were mostly a oral culture. Personal thats sound like a cop out. If their god wrote the law down once, why not the second time when the rules changed. I would think their god would want to be sure the people knew it came from him. Besides some scholars don't believe the people credited for some of the books really did write them.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172375 Jul 16, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
May I ask why you assume that Jesus should have written anything at all?
God. Or did you forget that little detail?

If he wasn't a god, your point has merit-- and I agree with it.

If he was? Your point is meaningless. A god would (or should) know better.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172376 Jul 16, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
And what does divinity have to do with whether or not a person writes? If writing is a choice, then why should a deity be compelled to write when oral tradition would suffice?
But it didn't suffice, did it?

If it had-- the whole world would be christian.

But barely 30% of the world is-- after 2000 years of trying.

So **obviously** it was **not** sufficient.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172377 Jul 16, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
If we (as a minority of Christians do) claim that Matthew wrote first and even earlier,
Proof for your claim, here?

Without non-bible and non-christian proof?

Your claim is utterly without merit.

In fact?

The majority of **scholarship** shows that most of Paul's writings were first, and the 4 gospels much-much later 60-90 years later (post Jesus' life)

Not the 30 years you claim (without a single fact to back it up).

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) 5 min John Galt 1,154,061
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 5 min Joe fortuna 201,170
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 13 min Trojan 28,400
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr LonePalm 2,681
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 1 hr Roy the Boy 691
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr Brian_G 306,984
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Dec 16 The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web