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
165,741 - 165,760 of 224,014 Comments Last updated 8 min ago

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172648
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172649
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172651
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172652
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172653
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172654
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172655
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172656
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172657
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172663
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172668
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172669
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172670
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172673
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172675
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Re-telling is the essence of oral tradition. Oral tradition was the standard method of communicating historical events in ancient cultures where literacy was the exception rather than the rule. And, oral tradition was strictly monitored so that embellishment was virtually eliminated. That's not to say that there was no embellishment at all, but if there was, it was used for performance value and not to deceive. The tradent's story had to keep the audience's attention without distorting the facts.
To answer your second question, yes. Let's refer to the Gospel According to Mark for an example of why my answer is yes. In the crucifixion narrative, Mark records one of the things that Jesus says:
"Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani" which means, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." This is told in Mark 15:34
There are reasons why this is important Polymath. First of all, notice that Mark is actually translating from one language to another. If Mark is writing in Greek, then obviously he's translating a quote from another language. So what language is this?
In first century Palestine, Aramaic was the primary language spoken by devout Jews. These words of Jesus are in Aramaic. To me, an obvious question is why would Mark bother to write the phrase in Aramaic and then translate it? The most plausible reason is that Mark is quoting from someone's memory. But who's memory? And why is it a memory? Well we have supporting attestation that it's the account of Peter. And it's a memory for a very good reason.
Psychologists have long understood that traumatic memories are much more likely to be remembered accurately. What could be more traumatic than seeing your best friend killed in such a gruesome manner as crucifixion? Of course, if you want to get into the Judaic context of why Jesus said what he did, which is theological in nature, I'll be glad to do so.
<quoted text>
Yes, the Christians had their own tradents, but this was common practice for each community or sub-group to have their own tradents, and that these tradents would all basically follow the same protocol when repeating oral histories.
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you could expand on it a little more, it would be helpful to our conversation.
<quoted text>
The earliest growth of Christianity was within Judea, and specifically in Jerusalem. Evangelism was a style of oral tradition that actually has it's roots in Roman traditions. So it wasn't an unusual concept within Rome. And yes we could say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all tradents. They used the evangelistic style that was so common within the Roman empire.
I'd like to take the time to thank you for your civility and scholarship. Although we have differing conclusions concerning reality, you're fun to dialogue with, as is Quantum Bob. Maybe you could help others learn the finer points of civil dialogue?:)
"Re-telling is the essence of oral tradition. Oral tradition was the standard method of communicating historical events in ancient cultures where literacy was the exception rather than the rule. And, oral tradition was strictly monitored so that embellishment was virtually eliminated. That's not to say that there was no embellishment at all, but if there was, it was used for performance value and not to deceive. The tradent's story had to keep the audience's attention without distorting the facts."

I beg to differ. In the first order, how on the planet do you know what thoughts coursed through the primitive brain cells of 2000+ year old goat herders? In the second order, it is the titanic ego of human nature to embellish, in order to mesmorize the audience to engage them "into" ones individual narcissism. So, in the end how factual is anything that is repeated by word of mouth? Check out Psych 101 for proof.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent NCAA Basketball Discussions

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min woodtick57 1,078,909
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 48 min PEE PEE PETE 26,649
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr feces for jesus 305,074
urgent loan needed apply now (Sep '13) Jul 20 Danny 2
loan needed (Dec '13) Jul 20 Danny 4
Hairston's bounceback game highlights big day f... Jul 16 Go go d 1
How to recover lost data from iPhone/iPad/iPod- (Jan '14) Jul 15 AnnCarter 8
•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••