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
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).

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172378 Jul 16, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
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.
The complaints are justified-- the facts show that that your early matthew is a false claim.

Paul's writings were the oldest-- and Paul wrote exclusively about a spirit or celestial jesus-- never about a flesh-and-blood man.

Since his are the oldest, clearly the Jesus myth started with a magical, "genie-like" jesus, not a man at all.

The man-god was added generations later, as the religion evolved.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172379 Jul 16, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>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?
As a Christian, I see this vested interest manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. What better way for God to enter our world and interact with us than in a personal way. As a living breathing person who eats, sleeps, feels pain, feels our sorrows, our joys, etc, etc.

As for the subjects you bring up, those are perfectly valid natural events to discuss with regard to the existence of a personal God.
It all goes back to "the fall." In Christian theology, Adam and Eve were ejected from the garden, and God withdrew His presence from our world. For your consideration, think on this if you will.

If God's attributes are that of love, light, and sustainment of eternal life, then it logically follows that if God withdraws His presence from our world, we lose that sustainment of light, love, and eternal life. Everything starts to break down. We start to see animals eat each other. We see gradual decay and disease, chaos, irregularity, atmospheric turbulence. All of nature is out of sync.
Now it really is survival of the fittest as Darwin suggested, but because God withdrew from our world and not because there isn't a God.

I'm aware you may not see it this way, but that is the way I understand it.

If we're to believe the Revelation of John in any literal sense, it would have to be with his vision that peace and harmony in nature would be restored so that the lion and lamb truly could co-exist.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172380 Jul 16, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
It all goes back to "the fall." In Christian theology, Adam and Eve were ejected from the garden, and God withdrew His presence from our world. For your consideration, think on this if you will.
1) science has proven that there was no single couple that started humankind. We came from groups-- evolution works on species, never on individuals.

Since this is clearly true-- there never was an Adam nor Eve to fall.

2) let's pretend there was an Adam/Eve: the whole ugly tale is basically one of a god, punishing the innocent descendants, for the failures of their ancestors.

It's as if the teacher punishes the entire 3rd grade class of 2013, because of what a class in 1895 did ...

... only much-much worse-- from a **god** I expect superior morality than that.

3) let's pretend that the Garden of Eden story was real. There is only one character in that tale, according to the bible, who did not lie.

Do you know which character it was?

Hint: it wasn't Adam. Nor Eve. Nor god.

It was the snake-- he tells the unvarnished facts about life, to Eve.

Bible-god lies, though-- he promises Adam that the **very** day he eats the forbidden fruit, he will die.

Did Adam die on that day? No-- according to the story, he lives for thousands of days beyond that fateful day.

God lied. Adam lied. Eve lied. Only the snake tells the unvarnished truth.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172381 Jul 16, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
If God's attributes are that of love, light,
A hypothesis that is not sustainable, if the bible's description is accurate even a little bit.

The bible's god is **not** one of love-- but one of revenge and egotism.

More to the point? For some strange reason, bible-god cannot manage to bring himself to forgive...

... unless something is MURDERED.

Why?

Why is that? Why can't this bible-god simply forgive?

Mere, mortal humans are easily able to forgive those they love-- for the worst of things, too.

Yet, the bible's god cannot muster up sufficient mojo to forgive unless something is KILLED.

Why is that?

That's pretty weak...

.. actually.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172382 Jul 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Proof for your claim, here?
I have to admit that the Matthew hypothesis is tenuous, but we're not looking for 100% certainty. We're looking at plausibility, then look for further corroboration that might attest to the probability. 100% certainty is simply too high a standard for a 2,000 year time span. Until we have that, it's speculative at best. But I must add, that the speculative plausibility has more merit in favor of it than against it.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
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).
Many scholars have realized that we may have very good reasons for the early dating of the gospels. If this is true, then this would push Paul's writings back even closer to the crucifixion itself.

Myself, I believe we can place all of the canonical gospels to no later than 70A.D. which if Jesus died in the month of Nisan in 30A.D. puts them within 40 years of His death. I believe I have good reasons for this claim and that the evidence I have, although circumstantial, is more plausible than any alternative explanation.

My day is drawing to a close. I'll be happy to get into a longer explanation tomorrow if that is agreeable to you. If I don't post it right away, just remind me.

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
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 8 min Quantummist 3,033
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min Nostrilis Waxman 1,172,344
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 12 min John-K 307,828
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 42 min squeezers 732
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Chosen Traveler 28,705
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Sat RICK SERVICE 32
San Diego State hoping Dwayne Polee II gets a shot Fri alanparkcity 1
More from around the web