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

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172647 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Rigid spelling rules did not come into common practice, until the invention of movable type, and newspapers. The editors of the various newspapers wanted consistency in their written word, so rigid spelling rules came into common use about that time.
Prior to that? Pretty much very localized and regional. Sure there as a lot of commonality, but not NEARLY as rigid as you claim above.
Go study the invention of the idea of a dictionary-- it's a relatively new idea, in writing.
Prior to that? Spelling was a creative art form. There were NO rigid rules as you ludicrously claim.
What makes it WORSE? Books did **NOT** get copied until many generations had passed-- typically.
By the time the copy was began? THE SPELLING RULES HAD CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.
So the copiest had to guess as often as not, what a word meant-- as it wasn't spelled as he was used to.
As for your fantasy about "double checked"...seriously?
Maybe as early as the 19th century......
You're talking about spelling in the English language Bob. That's a big difference between Greek, Aramaic, and our English. And spelling was meticulously observed even in ancient times and especially in Judaism. First century Jews were just as meticulous as they were in David's time, and even more so.

And even if spellings did change, that doesn't mean that the definitions did. Ancient Judea was a "high context" culture. As long as none of the orthodox doctrines were compromised, then a spelling error wasn't of much consequence. You're still trying to apply modern Western concepts to ancient Eastern practices. It won't work that way.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172648 Jul 20, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
None will excuse you when you knee walk your ugly ass to Christ's feet where you will be crying and wailing. You filthy scum.
Nope.

I would **never** bow down to your monster-god.

Your god uses INFINITE TORTURE.

That is the actions of an EVIL BEING.

No two ways about that-- YOU ARE EVIL TOO.

Because you worship an EVIL god.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172649 Jul 20, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
You reports will go unattended you filthy scum of human waste.
Nope-- I've got other hategodbots banned before.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172650 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking about spelling in the English language Bob. That's a big difference between Greek, Aramaic, and our English. And spelling was meticulously observed even in ancient times and especially in Judaism. First century Jews were just as meticulous as they were in David's time, and even more so.

And even if spellings did change, that doesn't mean that the definitions did. Ancient Judea was a "high context" culture. As long as none of the orthodox doctrines were compromised, then a spelling error wasn't of much consequence. You're still trying to apply modern Western concepts to ancient Eastern practices. It won't work that way.
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you here-- it is you who is attempting to apply modern ideas of spelling, to ancient, and ever-evolving languages.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172651 Jul 20, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are 99.99% of Satanbots so vile and hateful.
*I corrected your intentional error*
I find your message under your name most ironic. "Jesus is love"

Apparently, not if **you** are any example...

You show me nothing but **hate** and abuse-- including your 5 private messages of hate (reported, then blocked).

How do you expect to win converts with an attitude of such hate?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172652 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Who would your Jesus hate?
I bet **YOU** know-- don't you?
I bet your jewsus hates the SAME people YOU do.
In any case? Your testament of love was duly reported to the mods.
And then I blocked your "loving" azz from further abuse.
"Jesus is Love"...
... apparently that includes seething hatred.
Apparently he has a new definition of the word love.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172653 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be FINE... if PETER was one of the authors.
He wasn't-- we've already been through that-- NONE of the original disciples were authors.
None.
NONE wrote anything that exists today.
So it hardly matters WHAT Peter was like, now does it?
Or any of the rest, for that matter...
It's true that Peter wasn't a direct author. He had a scribe. His scribe's name was Mark. So if Peter was illiterate (as most Jewish fishermen were) then it makes sense that he would tell his accounts to somebody to write them down. And we do know that Mark wasn't exactly the best in writing grammatically correct Greek. The texts show that he struggled. A textual critic would know that, as would anyone with 3 or more years of Greek under their belt.

John also struggled with Greek, but with John we can see improvement over a period of time. By the time he wrote Revelations, he was fairly competent at both Greek and writing.

Matthew may not have actually touched the quill to the papyrus, but his notes were very likely instrumental in expanding the gospel Mark had written. That doesn't mean embellishment by the way. It means that Mark wrote a very compact gospel, and when Matthew read it, he expanded on it for his Jewish audience.

Luke was a Syrian physician and is the only one who starts both his gospel and the sequel with a prologue that attests to the reliability of the tradition he's passing on. This is important because Luke's gospel isn't a book, but a personal letter to a high ranking Roman official.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172654 Jul 20, 2013
Doctor Robert Price, Doctor Richard Carrier... Shall I go on?
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Oh come on Bob! LOL. 1 Corinthians and Romans are almost universally agreed by NT scholars on as being written by Paul. You and I are mere laymen in comparison!

You'll have to show me some evidence from a bona fide New Testament scholar who says Paul didn't write Romans.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172655 Jul 20, 2013
I went through and answered your 10 so called proofs, which may I add you have not shown a shred of proof that the gospels meet these 10 beyond your personal opinion. Cowered away again I see.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?

Self-promotion was not a motive in light of the fact that the Pharisees were persecuting the new movement. Peter was humbled. Both Acts and Mark demonstrate this in the accounts. Peter was preaching that Jesus was the son of God and had been resurrected from the dead. That's not a very good way to prop oneself up in the face of fierce, dogmatic Judaic opposition, especially when Rome was holding the puppet strings of the High Priest.

Picture yourself in Peter's sandals.

"Yes you killed our leader for treason but guess what? He's still alive! Epic failure Pharisees! Neener neener!"

By preaching that message, Peter and the apostles were setting themselves up for intense opposition.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "Each of those examples, the author would have been intending to communicated "history", but all the while, he was writing fiction.
Human biases again... "

Well that's true of modern writing, but that style of detail wasn't used in ancient fictitious writing. So that argument really doesn't go far.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172656 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you here-- it is you who is attempting to apply modern ideas of spelling, to ancient, and ever-evolving languages.
I don't see how I am. Yes languages do change, but the authors and scribes of the New Testament were dogmatic about not changing the meaning. Look up the Greek language. Try to understand the difference between High Context cultures and Low Context cultures. I can't say that changes didn't happen at all, as you and I both know they did; but nowhere near as much as you're trying to assert. I respectfully say that your assertion is a mistaken exaggeration. Of course I'm sure you may feel the same about my assertion, and if that's the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.:) How do you come to the conclusion that any changes in spelling changed the definition when there were measures in place to prevent that very outcome?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172657 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope-- I've got other hategodbots banned before.
Same here. I just do not understand why they have to come here to spew their hate. I mean really how worthless does their life have to be?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172658 Jul 20, 2013
I slashed the throat of your pitiful made up argument line by line and you have cowered away ever since. Unable to even show a source that these 10 are the standard by which historians use and worse not a shred of proof that the gospels meet these sources.

You are being destroyed by the atheists you know.... In person I doubt you'll dare much better as you cower from questions asked and facts presented. It seems you are more interested in belching your antiquated opinion than actual intellectual debate as I have solidly proven.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see how I am. Yes languages do change, but the authors and scribes of the New Testament were dogmatic about not changing the meaning. Look up the Greek language. Try to understand the difference between High Context cultures and Low Context cultures. I can't say that changes didn't happen at all, as you and I both know they did; but nowhere near as much as you're trying to assert. I respectfully say that your assertion is a mistaken exaggeration. Of course I'm sure you may feel the same about my assertion, and if that's the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.:) How do you come to the conclusion that any changes in spelling changed the definition when there were measures in place to prevent that very outcome?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172659 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see how I am. Yes languages do change, but the authors and scribes of the New Testament were dogmatic about not changing the meaning. Look up the Greek language. Try to understand the difference between High Context cultures and Low Context cultures. I can't say that changes didn't happen at all, as you and I both know they did; but nowhere near as much as you're trying to assert. I respectfully say that your assertion is a mistaken exaggeration. Of course I'm sure you may feel the same about my assertion, and if that's the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.:) How do you come to the conclusion that any changes in spelling changed the definition when there were measures in place to prevent that very outcome?
Why did you carefully avoid my post?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172661 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Doctor Robert Price, Doctor Richard Carrier... Shall I go on?
<quoted text>
They're smart, but incorrect. But that's just my opinion.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172663 Jul 20, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists are wimps when it comes to being defeated. They always have to scurry to the mods to bail them out when their widdle feelings are hurt.
They are nothing because they have nothing.
Talking to yourself again I see.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172668 Jul 20, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Bob.
If you are trying say I am sock puppet of BOQF that would be impossible, we are not even in the hemisphere.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172669 Jul 20, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably because you are the one to express hatred first, afterall, you are an atheist on a mission of ugly hateful activity.
Perhaps you should read the first posts (thats is of cause the which have not been deleted) of most of threads here as most are started by godbots.

You come to atheist forum on topix make vile hate filled posts and when we respond in kind you say:-

"Help, help I am been oppressed"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172670 Jul 20, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are trying say I am sock puppet of BOQF that would be impossible, we are not even in the hemisphere.
And, I might add, have very different writing styles. Enough that even a minimally educated person would be able to tell the difference simply by reading your posts.

Oh wait, I see why AIE has difficulty.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172673 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I slashed the throat of your pitiful made up argument line by line and you have cowered away ever since. Unable to even show a source that these 10 are the standard by which historians use and worse not a shred of proof that the gospels meet these sources.
Cowered away? Mr. Liberty, do you know why I don't answer you on your terms? It's your tone. I asked if you know what I mean by that, and you haven't answered yet. Did you "cower away?" LOL I did offer you some websites to examine, and I also have a written publication which lists the 10 methods. In addition, both of my parents were professional historians before they retired. So I do have some first-hand knowledge. If you choose not to believe me, feel free to continue on in your ignorance. I really can't stop you. The written source by the way, is 'Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemna' by Gregory A. Boyd, and Paul Rhodes Eddy. They list the ten methods almost verbatim to the notes I have from my classes. Here's the Amazon link for the book, and a link to my reply which either you didn't see, or completely glossed over and dismissed without looking.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Legend-Wrestling-J...

http://staff.kings.edu/bapavlac/evalsources.h...

https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/cour...

http://www.nps.gov/history/Nr/twhp/Prof_Dev_P...
Givemeliberty wrote:
You are being destroyed by the atheists you know.... In person I doubt you'll dare much better as you cower from questions asked and facts presented. It seems you are more interested in belching your antiquated opinion than actual intellectual debate as I have solidly proven.
The only thing you're proving is how NOT to debate. But, if it makes you feel better to grant yourself a victory, by all means go for it. To you, it's all about winning and losing and making yourself feel better right? I could honestly care less if you think of this as a win/lose contest. I don't. I do this in the real world where people have a sense of decency and good manners, and I see results. I never count any debate as a win or as a loss. I choose to learn from each situation I find myself in. I'm not out to prove anything conclusively. That would be unrealistic and arrogant if I thought I was going to have that impact.

You seem to be taking this a little too personally. Why?

Do you think I have all the time in the world to spend here on TOPIX answering your every snide remark? I don't.

When you can discuss these subjects in a civilized manner, like Polymath, Quantum Bob, Scaritual, blacklagoon, and Albtraum, I'll be glad to offer thoughts, facts, opinions, reflections with you. Until then, go play pigeon chess by yourself.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172674 Jul 20, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you carefully avoid my post?
You brought up a completely different subject. The assassination of JFK is a different historical event. It's a modern event in a Western literary, low-context culture, whereas the accounts of Jesus were transmitted and passed on by oral tradition by an ancient high-context culture. That's why I didn't give a lengthy reply. There's just no comparison. If you disagree, you'll have to explain how they're similar.

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) 3 min RUSH10ME 1,190,508
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 41 min Quantummist 4,137
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Trojan 29,059
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr HitMan 201,371
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Sat Pearl Jam 308,914
NCSU vs UNC from the Coach's Perspective by Jam... Sat IdeasandTruth 1
Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) Fri KHS Alumni 69
More from around the web