Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
165,661 - 165,680 of 226,356 Comments Last updated 41 min ago

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172564 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Bob. And don't sell yourself short. You write some pretty good stuff too. We can disagree passionately but respectfully. Polymath is incredibly talented in the technicalities of science. I'm really not anti-science. I just think that the secular world gives it more weight than it merits. You probably think I give theology more weight than it merits, and that's fine by me. It forces each of us to think about why we believe what we do. I don't think you're delusional. I just don't think you've discovered the truth yet. I have a feeling that's a mutual sentiment.:)
Whenever you think you have it all figured out, it is a good time to stop and think things over again.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172565 Jul 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
It means everything: prior to Paul? There simply **was** no single group calling themselves "christians".
You're correct that early Christians didn't refer to themselves as Christians. They referred to themselves as "The Way." But that's off the subject. Paul did write before the gospels. We know Corinthians and Romans were very early.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Always, Paul writes about a celestial being-- a spirit, a ghost if you will-- never mortal flesh-and-blood.
In 1 Timothy, Paul clearly wrote that Jesus was a flesh and blood human being.

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”- 1 Timothy 2:5

In Philippians:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross -Philippians 2:5

In Romans:

“Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" -Romans 1:3

I have to ask, is your source for your claims the 2004 book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172566 Jul 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever you think you have it all figured out, it is a good time to stop and think things over again.
I agree. I think that goes for both sides of any controversial argument.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172567 Jul 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Go back an answer any of mine, hell pick one of the many you cowered away from. Your choice.
So funny how Christholes always want their questions asked immediately but refuse to answer your's. Effing hypocrites.
<quoted text>
I don't ask questions for the purpose of stumping you. I'm not looking to put another notch in my belt. Neither do I assume that any atheist is cowering from my arguments. That would be very naive and presumptuous don't you think? And have I demanded that you answer my questions? Not at all. I ask many questions for clarification purposes. I'll see if I can find one of your points of contention and do my best to answer it. I will not assume that I have won or lost, as I'm not here to win or lose. I'm here to learn, and use what I've learned in the real world of theistic/atheistic debate.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#172568 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
(...)I base my theism and faith on plausibility and probability and not upon certainty.(...)
Probable? Not very. To say that it is probable is to rule out innumerable other probabilities that haven't even been addressed yet.

Possible? Sure, but just because you can imagine it, and it not be disproved because it is merely able to be imagined, is meaningless and isn't interesting beyond a few minutes consideration, nor logical. Thousands of fictional books written illustrate this. It may hold my attention for some time, but I'm not going to debate just how tough it must have been for Gandalf to defeat a Balrog.

We're not talking about; Where did the cheeseburger on the table come from? You can assign probabilities to those type questions, and they can be far more complex in the nature of the question.

The real question is; Was there an "eternal creator deity" responsible for the creation of everything, and is it plausible?

No, and primarily because of the possibility and probability that, and to the exclusion of any other cause that could be, the concept of an *eternal creator entity* suggests that for whatever reason, the *eternal creator entity*-*decides*- at some random point in ITS eternal existence to create a beginning, in this instance <(The Universe)>, a scant 14 billion years ago.

But, just this <(Universe)>?

Just one 1 <(Universe)> in an eternity? We can postulate that the *eternal creator entity*-*decided*(a time related and dependent action, btw)- to originate similar "beginnings" of phenomena - 790 billion year ago - 300 trillion years ago. It becomes almost necessary or requires that you assume an infinity of *creations*, as opposed to just this singular and solitary created <(Universe)> in an *eternal creator entities* beginning-less and endless existence.

All of that suggests that this Universe is just one in a string of trillions upon trillions. Almost like a hobby or past time. Something to do to stave off boredom, or, to occupy itself. That then suggests a capricious nature. Things done on a whim, impulse. Just something to do.

But, no, theists will assert this <(Universe)> is the only time the *eternal creator entity* within ITS beginning-less and endless eternity, has -*decided*- to do this, and in this one instance.

That isn't plausible.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172569 Jul 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Go back an answer any of mine, hell pick one of the many you cowered away from. Your choice.
So funny how Christholes always want their questions asked immediately but refuse to answer your's. Effing hypocrites.
<quoted text>
How am I supposed to answer them when they're mostly condescending remarks and taunts? I'll go with your statement of why the gospels don't match up. I doubt you'll agree, but then my goal really isn't to get you to agree with me. So it won't be a disappointment at all when you don't. My victory will be complete when I answer you to the best of my ability according to my own understanding. It's the best I can do.

I treat the gospels as primitive historical documents. I apply the ten tests of historicity that virtually all historical scholars use when analyzing historical documents.

1) Do we possess copies of the original ancient document(s) that are REASONABLY close to the original?(They don't need to be verbatim copies)

2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?

3) Was the author of the document in a position to witness the history he or she is reporting?

4) How much of the author's bias (and ALL historical authors have bias to some degree. History isn't 100% objective) is present in the document? And how do the biases affect the document?

5) Does the document include details that are typical of eye-witness testimony?

6) Does the document include embarrassing details that would counter any bias on the author's part? In other words, does the author admit to mistakes or shortcomings? This is usually a sign of truth in historical reporting.

7) Are the documents self-consistent or consistent with other documentation that report the same event?

8) Are the events recorded intrinsically believable or unbelievable?

9) Is there other documented literary evidence that affects our analysis of the document in question?

10) is there any archeological evidence to support the literary evidence?

These are the 10 criteria used by historians to discern the authenticity and reliability of any document in history. These ten tests can be applied to the four gospels with integrity. If you were to let go of your presuppositions, the results would surprise you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#172570 Jul 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
The nerve - using a guy's own words when quoting him.

Unlike you liberals (yes, shit-for-brains, you are a liberal) who lie about what people say.

The default position for dealing with liberals like you, especially devoted materialists, like you, is to assume you are lying until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172571 Jul 19, 2013
I would give you $100 if you could stump me. I must say up till now you have failed miserably in a theist vs atheist debate. You have been factually destroyed point by point.

Okay I will ask you this yet again and let's see of you can finally not cower away and actually answer it. I doubt it personally but let's see.

Take the forged words of Tacitus and Josephus on Jesus. We are to believe this Roman imperial and Jewish historian working for the Imperials would dare refer to him as the Christ or gush about him as in the Josephus forgery. What do you think the imperial Romans at that point in history would have done to them for writing such a thing? Let's just forget that as a devout Jew Josephus would never complimented a false messiah as Jesus would have been to him and Tacitus is even less likely due to his religious beliefs, but we'll forget these glaring issues for the moment. Do you honestly those imperial Romans would not have had them killed for daring to write and publish such a thing?

Those imperial Romans didn't take such matters lightly as anyone with a basic knowledge of their history would tell you.

Let's see if you answer... Forgive me for not holding my breath.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I don't ask questions for the purpose of stumping you. I'm not looking to put another notch in my belt. Neither do I assume that any atheist is cowering from my arguments. That would be very naive and presumptuous don't you think? And have I demanded that you answer my questions? Not at all. I ask many questions for clarification purposes. I'll see if I can find one of your points of contention and do my best to answer it. I will not assume that I have won or lost, as I'm not here to win or lose. I'm here to learn, and use what I've learned in the real world of theistic/atheistic debate.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172572 Jul 19, 2013
Finally left the buffet eh fatass?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>The nerve - using a guy's own words when quoting him.

Unlike you liberals (yes, shit-for-brains, you are a liberal) who lie about what people say.

The default position for dealing with liberals like you, especially devoted materialists, like you, is to assume you are lying until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172573 Jul 19, 2013
I notice no answer whatsoever as to why the gospels do not match up just an off topic rant.

The fact that they differ so wildly shatters your 10 so called 10 tests that you just made up. But for fun..

1: Certainly not and even Christian apologetics will admit this.
2: Even Christian apologetics admit the gospels are not meant to be like a history lesson. Wow you are really bad at this. Let's continue shall we? Lol!
3: Certainly not. The Greeks who penned the gospels came decades later and were not eye witnesses to the events.
4: The bias in the gospels are naturally very high and I am shocked even you would be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.
5: The writers were not eye witnesses so writing something that sounds like an eye witness is irrelevant and any historian would agree.
6: No we don't see any such humility in the gospels and you will need to show a source for this claim.
7: Lmfao absolutely not the gospels contradict themselves wildly and can't even quote the Torah correctly.
8: Subject completely to personal opinion, not a tool used by historians. You have been caught red handed lying and you know it.
9: We can see how the gospel stories are blatantly stolen from previous religions. At times damn near word for word.
10: Nope not in the slightest.

Then you claim that the gospels are able to answer properly for each of these 10? I will need to see sources and evidence for your claim. I doubt you will be able to as you just made it up but good luck.

And as I said before this merely is you saying.. Wow I believe the gospels! It I'm no way shape or form comes close to answering my question about why the gospels do not match up. I thought you were going to answer that question.... No surprise you avoided it and desperately tried to change the subject.

Here let me hold your hand half wit and try to guide you. Finish this statement. The reason the gospels don't match up is because.......
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I'll go with your statement of why the gospels don't match up.
I treat the gospels as primitive historical documents.

1) Do we possess copies of the original ancient document(s) that are REASONABLY close to the original?(They don't need to be verbatim copies)

2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?

3) Was the author of the document in a position to witness the history he or she is reporting?

4) How much of the author's bias (and ALL historical authors have bias to some degree. History isn't 100% objective) is present in the document? And how do the biases affect the document?

5) Does the document include details that are typical of eye-witness testimony?

6) Does the document include embarrassing details that would counter any bias on the author's part? In other words, does the author admit to mistakes or shortcomings? This is usually a sign of truth in historical reporting.

7) Are the documents self-consistent or consistent with other documentation that report the same event?

8) Are the events recorded intrinsically believable or unbelievable?

9) Is there other documented literary evidence that affects our analysis of the document in question?

10) is there any archeological evidence to support the literary evidence?

These are the 10 criteria used by historians to discern the authenticity and reliability of any document in history. These ten tests can be applied to the four gospels with integrity. If you were to let go of your presuppositions, the results would surprise you.

Since: Jun 13

Milwaukee, WI

#172574 Jul 19, 2013
mr apologist just to remind you you have absolutly no proof that god exsist and you have absolutly no way of proving a "god" exsist you were getting kind of lost in your own bs there for a minute

Since: Jun 13

Milwaukee, WI

#172575 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I supposed to answer them when they're mostly condescending remarks and taunts? I'll go with your statement of why the gospels don't match up. I doubt you'll agree, but then my goal really isn't to get you to agree with me. So it won't be a disappointment at all when you don't. My victory will be complete when I answer you to the best of my ability according to my own understanding. It's the best I can do.
I treat the gospels as primitive historical documents. I apply the ten tests of historicity that virtually all historical scholars use when analyzing historical documents.
1) Do we possess copies of the original ancient document(s) that are REASONABLY close to the original?(They don't need to be verbatim copies)
2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?
3) Was the author of the document in a position to witness the history he or she is reporting?
4) How much of the author's bias (and ALL historical authors have bias to some degree. History isn't 100% objective) is present in the document? And how do the biases affect the document?
5) Does the document include details that are typical of eye-witness testimony?
6) Does the document include embarrassing details that would counter any bias on the author's part? In other words, does the author admit to mistakes or shortcomings? This is usually a sign of truth in historical reporting.
7) Are the documents self-consistent or consistent with other documentation that report the same event?
8) Are the events recorded intrinsically believable or unbelievable?
9) Is there other documented literary evidence that affects our analysis of the document in question?
10) is there any archeological evidence to support the literary evidence?
These are the 10 criteria used by historians to discern the authenticity and reliability of any document in history. These ten tests can be applied to the four gospels with integrity. If you were to let go of your presuppositions, the results would surprise you.
lol well acording to your own test none of that proves god or any god for that maters existance and i think it was test # ten there is no archological evidence what so ever to support anything that these historical documents of yours are claiming "god" did (walked on water did all sorts of magic ect)

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172576 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I notice no answer whatsoever as to why the gospels do not match up just an off topic rant.
The fact that they differ so wildly shatters your 10 so called 10 tests that you just made up. But for fun..
1: Certainly not and even Christian apologetics will admit this.
2: Even Christian apologetics admit the gospels are not meant to be like a history lesson. Wow you are really bad at this. Let's continue shall we? Lol!
3: Certainly not. The Greeks who penned the gospels came decades later and were not eye witnesses to the events.
4: The bias in the gospels are naturally very high and I am shocked even you would be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.
5: The writers were not eye witnesses so writing something that sounds like an eye witness is irrelevant and any historian would agree.
6: No we don't see any such humility in the gospels and you will need to show a source for this claim.
7: Lmfao absolutely not the gospels contradict themselves wildly and can't even quote the Torah correctly.
8: Subject completely to personal opinion, not a tool used by historians. You have been caught red handed lying and you know it.
9: We can see how the gospel stories are blatantly stolen from previous religions. At times damn near word for word.
10: Nope not in the slightest.
Then you claim that the gospels are able to answer properly for each of these 10? I will need to see sources and evidence for your claim. I doubt you will be able to as you just made it up but good luck.
And as I said before this merely is you saying.. Wow I believe the gospels! It I'm no way shape or form comes close to answering my question about why the gospels do not match up. I thought you were going to answer that question.... No surprise you avoided it and desperately tried to change the subject.
Here let me hold your hand half wit and try to guide you. Finish this statement. The reason the gospels don't match up is because.......
<quoted text>
Okay, you're cheating!

Using logic and reason and history and all.

LOL.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172577 Jul 20, 2013
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
mr apologist just to remind you you have absolutly no proof that god exsist and you have absolutly no way of proving a "god" exsist you were getting kind of lost in your own bs there for a minute
Oppie?
Is that your pic in there?

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#172578 Jul 20, 2013
It is interesting that the creationists here keep trying to inject their reasoning of "Science" into this debate of goat-herder documents of over 2000 years ago, that have NO reference (in their talk or texts) to today's science, in the broadest stretch of human "Imagination".

Since: Jun 13

Milwaukee, WI

#172579 Jul 20, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oppie?
Is that your pic in there?
my picture is of a scientist wise byond his years can you prove god exsist?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172580 Jul 20, 2013
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
<quoted text>
my picture is of a scientist wise byond his years can you prove god exsist?
No, I can not. Nor can anyone else.

That's Robert Oppenheimer, no? He's a hero to me.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#172582 Jul 20, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>You have to understand that the story of the garden is allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. The snake was Adam and a part of his anatomy. Adam and Eve were naked, so it was out there and after their sin they knew they were naked. God gave Adam and Eve two commands both regarding sex, one positive-be fruitful and multiply, and one negative-no sodomy. The fruit was not literally an apple, Adam was the tree of knowledge and he deceived Eve into oral sex. Adam was told not to eat from the tree of knowledge before Eve was created. When confronted by God, Adam blames Eve for performing the act and God for giving him the woman. God asked Adam what he did to give him the opportunity to confess. Adam, the ground, and the serpent were all cursed. Eve, who told the truth, was doomed to labor in childbirth and her desire would be to her husband. This was in part a sexual desire. If there is such a thing as original sin, only males inherit it. You've heard the saying, "All men are dogs".
Gotta love biblical porn.

Lol!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#172583 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.

My hypothesis is this:

God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
You're right.

It didn't take millions of years.

It took billions of years.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#172584 Jul 20, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No, I can not. Nor can anyone else.
That's Robert Oppenheimer, no? He's a hero to me.
I think your hero died, Mac.

The wise man paves the road to ruin.

Appia teritur regina longarum viarum

The Long Walk:

http://readanybooks.net/horror/The_Long_Walk/...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Yeah 1,100,230
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Bruin Nation 27,084
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 16 hr Pearl Jam 305,446
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (May '13) Aug 26 RICK SERVICE 29
offer Aug 23 Peter 1
Addition of Emmitt Holt is "Big" for Indiana Aug 23 Mike Williams 1
Ex-Hoosier Zeller embraces NBA learning Aug 23 Mike Williams 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••