Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256131 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173415 Aug 3, 2013
I never said I was winning, just pointing out your obvious failures okay? Good.

Luke never even met Jesus so why would a gospel be written by him in the first place?

Your audience comments are merely your fan fiction without a shred I historical backing. But keep making fun of me by making factual errors..... I swear that takes one's stupidity to a whole new level I must say.

Again no matter how you spin it, you are admitting the gospel writers changed facts to tailor make their gospel. If they are changing around facts on purpose as you claim, it can no longer be considered historically accurate or be taken seriously. Surely even with your IQ you can grasp this. Sorry but I just can't accept that you are really that stupid but rather are being purposely obtuse.

Remember by your own admission we are not talking about changing the verbiage slightly or stating the same account but in a more Jewish friendly manner for example. Rather by your own admission the gospel writers took the liberty of completely changing facts!

This is only one of the opening errors and already you are stumped and have resorted to admitting they were changed around from gospel to gospel for marketing purposes. I can't wait to see you cower and stumble trying to explain the other errors... Then again you were unaware of Paul having his visions of Jesus.

It makes me good to educate you in matters of your own religion. I should report this on my taxes as charity.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>No, this is a mistake in your thinking. The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke to a gentile audience. That was the purpose. It wasn't changed. I'm talking about the original writing. If something is original, it hasn't been changed.

Matthew was Jewish and his concern was to inform unbelieving Jews that Jesus was the true Messiah. I didn't say they changed them. You're either mistaken in your understanding, or you're purposely misrepresenting my earlier point.

And I make fun of you because you assume you're winning a contest that doesn't even exist. My purpose isn't to win. It's to expose flaws to arguments and present alternative methods of understanding to those who have the ability and desire to have a real discussion.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173416 Aug 3, 2013
Yes the three gods of the trinity as well as the evil bible god Satan so that is four gods. Islam I suppose would have 6. Allah, his two goddess daughters, Muhammad, Satan and the Holy She Camel of Allah.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Most of them believe in four, so they are in fact hypocrites. Belief in god is the height of hypocrisy.
Big daddy, Jr the spook and Satan the one god they believe in.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#173417 Aug 3, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't have a metal coat hanger. I don't need an antenna. I have cable TV and internet. You should upgrade if your reception is that bad.


It's always my game.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#173418 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Mac. Where did time come from?
What do you mean by "where"?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173419 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Mac. Where did time come from?
More importantly, what do you mean by "from" ?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#173420 Aug 4, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
More importantly, what do you mean by "from" ?
Hehehe.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173421 Aug 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you consider to be the best evidence of Christian theism?
Bodily resurrection of Jesus. History has demonstrated Jesus was crucified via Pilate, and early Christians believe Jesus resurrected. The event has been celebrated in one form or another throughout history. Besides, you non belief does not really answer anything as it relates to major questions of life. Things like justice. Under non theism people get away with murder every day and are not accountable if they escape human justice. Non Theism is incomplete and has been the minority report in all human history. Your side loves to be in the position of inquisitors but don't like it when the tables are turned and the consequences of your non belief is put under the microscope. You have no real answer for universal concepts of justice and that is just for starters.

''The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.''
-- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85
LCN Llin

United States

#173422 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Bodily resurrection of Jesus. History has demonstrated Jesus was crucified via Pilate, and early Christians believe Jesus resurrected. The event has been celebrated in one form or another throughout history. Besides, you non belief does not really answer anything as it relates to major questions of life. Things like justice. Under non theism people get away with murder every day and are not accountable if they escape human justice. Non Theism is incomplete and has been the minority report in all human history. Your side loves to be in the position of inquisitors but don't like it when the tables are turned and the consequences of your non belief is put under the microscope. You have no real answer for universal concepts of justice and that is just for starters.
''The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.''
-- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85
Richard Dawkins, makes a bit of money attacking staw-man Christians. ;-)
He has nice bumper stickers...save money & buy the bumper stickers
Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173423 Aug 4, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you are in Hell, you will never believe. That's why I spend so much time enjoying bashing atheists. They are so willfully stupid, I can't help it.
Your ignorance is so obvious.
Hell? LOL

That's an empty, imaginary, Jesus Roach© laughable threat.

It carries the same weight as the boogie man in the closet and the monster under the bed.

That's why I enjoy bashing obtuse posters - Among which... you are a prime example!

An often quoted, and very effective line for producing converts to your cult of Jesus(Christianity) is as follows:

What is so hard about accepting a FREE gift of salvation from Jesus? It doesn't require anything on your part, but to accept it.

If this truly required nothing as the claim says, then you wouldn't have to accept it to be saved.

This line of reasoning is used repeatedly by those trolling for converts in schools, offices, on TV, and just about anywhere else you find an aggressive Jesus Roach©.

It's the same nonsense that is spewed and taught in Bible study classrooms.

It also means that you accept all the baggage that goes along with that.

It means you accept as truth that this "God" will punish people for the "sin" of disbelief(Mark 16:16, John 16:9, John 3:18, John 3:36, Heb 3:12, 1 John 2:22)

it requires that you worship a God who will provide infinite punishment for finite sins, and it requires that you accept a God with the behavior of a rather manipulative, power hungry, petty tyrant.

It means you must abandon your mind to save your soul. You must confess Jesus is your Lord and worship him as such.

Salvation is exchanged for worship and it's nothing more than a holy barter system where you say the magic words and you are saved.

On the surface it's cheap, easy, and painless. It appeals to anyone who doesn't want to be burdened with thinking for themselves, but it's in no sense "free".

This form of holy fire insurance is nothing more than false advertising and should be treated with the same regard one would have when he opens a box of Cracker Jacks and digs out the cheap trinket that came as a "free" gift when you purchased the box it came in.

Yours in Christ if Allah is willing and Krishna provides approval from Buddha.
Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173424 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Bodily resurrection of Jesus. History has demonstrated Jesus was crucified via Pilate, and early Christians believe Jesus resurrected. The event has been celebrated in one form or another throughout history. Besides, you non belief does not really answer anything as it relates to major questions of life. Things like justice. Under non theism people get away with murder every day and are not accountable if they escape human justice. Non Theism is incomplete and has been the minority report in all human history. Your side loves to be in the position of inquisitors but don't like it when the tables are turned and the consequences of your non belief is put under the microscope. You have no real answer for universal concepts of justice and that is just for starters.
''The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.''
-- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85
something a bit more profound from Mr. Dawkins...

"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to.

Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity.

This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it.

Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."

Hitch had it right with this great observation.

“Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.”
~Christopher Hitchens
Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173425 Aug 4, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I just hope you don't include me as one of those Christians. I'm gay so that really messes with their "Love they neighbor" slogans.
They often say love the sinner hate the sin. But it's me they pick on. I am a person of Faith. I believe we have a spiritual side and a soul. You may agree or disagree, I don't care. I respect your right to have your beliefs just as I expect others to respect my right to believe what I wish about abstract ideas such as religion and spiritual things.
May I suggest that rather than tossing insults at them, learn to do as I did. They use their religion as a weapon for control. Take that control from them by using their own holy texts as a defense against their own failings in practicing their faith.
Biblegateway is an excellent source. It provides multiple translations of every verse. And those translations how just how much these "experts" really DON'T know.
Internal peace is an essential first step to achieving peace in the world. How do you cultivate it? It's very simple. In the first place by realizing clearly that all mankind is one, that human beings in every country are members of one and the same family.
- His Holiness the Dalai Lama
Namaste
Sadly ill educated people don't understand gay and think it's abnormal. Most religions largely condemn homosexuality in any form.

The reality is that roughly 10 to 12% of the entire world population is homosexual. The ludicrous question - did they choose to be homosexual? is only asked by those who are very ill-informed or utterly bigoted.

And the new Pope (God's personal holy representative) seems to have a much more enlightened view of Homosexuality .

This alleged God does indeed 'work in mysterious ways' and it and only took 2000 years to change her mind. ;)

A reasonable guesstimate would say 25% or more of all Catholic clergy/nuns are closet homosexual.

Peace on earth?
Not as long as organized religions exist.

Others... long before you're saviour said this... and it says a lot.

Essentially this concept is old as civilized man... There is nothing original about it in your religion.

"This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you." -- Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India, circa 3000 BCE

"What is hateful to you, do not to our fellow man. That is entire Law, all the rest is commentary." -- Talmud, Shabbat 31a, from the Judaic tradition, circa 1300 BCE

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself." -- Avesta, Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5, from the Zoroastrian tradition, circa 600 BCE

"Hurt not others in ways that you find hurtful." -- Tripitaka, Udanga-varga 5,18 , from the Buddhist tradition, circa 525 BCE

"Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness, do not unto others that which you would not have done unto you." -- Analects, Lun-yu XV,23, from the Confucian tradition, circa 500 BCE

"One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated." -- Agamas, Sutrakrtanga 1.10, 1-3, from the Jain tradition, circa 500 BCE

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss." -- Tai-shang Kang-ying P'ien, from the Taoist tradition, circa 500 BCE

"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." -- Socrates (the Greek philosopher), circa 470-399 BCE

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173426 Aug 4, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
Sadly ill educated people don't understand gay and think it's abnormal. Most religions largely condemn homosexuality in any form.
The reality is that roughly 10 to 12% of the entire world population is homosexual. The ludicrous question - did they choose to be homosexual? is only asked by those who are very ill-informed or utterly bigoted.
Basically what is being done here is demonizing opposition. Saying they are ignorant, ill educated, bigoted. I don't know how a question can make one a bigot, this question in particular as it seeks to source for homosexual behavior.
And the new Pope (God's personal holy representative) seems to have a much more enlightened view of Homosexuality .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/pope...

''Pope Francis is a conservative who is anti-gay marriage and anti-gay adoption. He has described same-sex marriage as the work of the devil and a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” He has also said that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children.

In 2010, Francis championed against a bill for same-sex marriage and gay adoption, according to the National Catholic Register.

“[T]he Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family," he wrote to the four monasteries in Argentina. "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

He went on to describe it as a "‘move’ of the Father of Lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God" and asked for lawmakers to "not act in error." In John 8:44, the Father of Lies is the devil.''
This alleged God does indeed 'work in mysterious ways' and it and only took 2000 years to change her mind. ;)
Moral laws don't change anymore than do physical laws. You got some wiggle room with divorce but even that is highly questionable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_No...

n Judaism, the Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: &#1513;&#1489;&#15 06; &#1502;&#1510;&#14 93;&#1493;&#1514; &#1489;&#1504;&#14 97; &#1504;&#1495;&#82 06; Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), or the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humankind.[2][3]

According to Judaism, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the World to Come (Hebrew: &#1506;&#1493;&#15 00;&#1501; &#1492;&#1489;&#14 88;&#8206; Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[4][5] Adherents are often called "B'nei Noach" (Children of Noah) or "Noahides," and may sometimes network in Jewish synagogues.[citation needed]

The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are:[6]

The prohibition of Idolatry.
The prohibition of Murder.
The prohibition of Theft.
The prohibition of Sexual immorality.
The prohibition of Blasphemy.
The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.
A reasonable guesstimate would say 25% or more of all Catholic clergy/nuns are closet homosexual.
87% stats made up on the spot.
Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173427 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Basically what is being done here is demonizing opposition. Saying they are ignorant, ill educated, bigoted. I don't know how a question can make one a bigot, this question in particular as it seeks to source for homosexual behavior.
<quoted text>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/pope...
''Pope Francis is a conservative who is anti-gay marriage and anti-gay adoption. He has described same-sex marriage as the work of the devil and a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” He has also said that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children.
In 2010, Francis championed against a bill for same-sex marriage and gay adoption, according to the National Catholic Register.
“[T]he Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family," he wrote to the four monasteries in Argentina. "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”
He went on to describe it as a "‘move’ of the Father of Lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God" and asked for lawmakers to "not act in error." In John 8:44, the Father of Lies is the devil.''
<quoted text> Moral laws don't change anymore than do physical laws. You got some wiggle room with divorce but even that is highly questionable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_No...
n Judaism, the Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: &#1513;&#1489;&#15 06; &#1502;&#1510;&#14 93;&#1493;&#1514; &#1489;&#1504;&#14 97; &#1504;&#1495;&#82 06; Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), or the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humankind.[2][3]
According to Judaism, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the World to Come (Hebrew: &#1506;&#1493;&#15 00;&#1501; &#1492;&#1489;&#14 88;&#8206; Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[4][5] Adherents are often called "B'nei Noach" (Children of Noah) or "Noahides," and may sometimes network in Jewish synagogues.[citation needed]
The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are:[6]
The prohibition of Idolatry.
The prohibition of Murder.
The prohibition of Theft.
The prohibition of Sexual immorality.
The prohibition of Blasphemy.
The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.
<quoted text> 87% stats made up on the spot.
Like Christopher Hitchens said...
"Religion poisons everything it touches "

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173428 Aug 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I never said I was winning, just pointing out your obvious failures okay? Good.
Luke never even met Jesus so why would a gospel be written by him in the first place?
Your audience comments are merely your fan fiction without a shred I historical backing. But keep making fun of me by making factual errors..... I swear that takes one's stupidity to a whole new level I must say.
Again no matter how you spin it, you are admitting the gospel writers changed facts to tailor make their gospel. If they are changing around facts on purpose as you claim, it can no longer be considered historically accurate or be taken seriously. Surely even with your IQ you can grasp this. Sorry but I just can't accept that you are really that stupid but rather are being purposely obtuse.
Remember by your own admission we are not talking about changing the verbiage slightly or stating the same account but in a more Jewish friendly manner for example. Rather by your own admission the gospel writers took the liberty of completely changing facts!
This is only one of the opening errors and already you are stumped and have resorted to admitting they were changed around from gospel to gospel for marketing purposes. I can't wait to see you cower and stumble trying to explain the other errors... Then again you were unaware of Paul having his visions of Jesus.
It makes me good to educate you in matters of your own religion. I should report this on my taxes as charity.
<quoted text>
How in the hell do you come to all these ridiculous conclusions?

Now you're shifting goal posts saying the writers changed the gospels. Was that before or after they wrote them? Why are you so thick in the skull? You're using a straw man fallacy.

Luke didn't meet Jesus. That is true. But he did talk to people who did. And in writing history, that counts. When an author writes something down, it is written through the lens of his or her own cultural experience and perspective. Matthew was a Jewish male writing to other Jews. This is plainly evident by the way he opens his gospel narrative. He writes the geneology to illustrate what was most important to the Jews; that the Messiah is of the line of David. He follows that up with the visit from the magi from the east. Now while it says the Magi visited Jesus in a house, we don't know who the owner of the house is, nor do we know how soon after Jesus birth that the Magi visited or even when Joseph and Mary moved from the manger to a proper house. If you really want to consider the common practice of ancient Palestinian farming, the stable or manger was often a part of the house. So that's one possible solution to understanding the situation.

Matthew didn't change his gospel, he wrote it from a Jewish perspective and the focus of it was to address Jewish concerns about Jesus' Messianic status.

Would a plumbing expert write a how-to-book for electricians? No. He he would write his how-to-book for plumbers because that's his concern.

Now let's take a look at how we know who Luke was writing to. He was writing to a man named Theophilus. This is a Greco-Roman name and since Luke uses the greeting "Most Excellent" this appears to be a man of official political importance within the Roman empire. Therefore, Luke's focus was to the Greco-Roman (Gentile) audience. His writing would reflect that. Also, Luke's preamble explicitly states that he (Luke) has carefully investigated everything. Luke is writing to an official in the Roman empire and is assuring this official that he (Luke) has taken the time to get the facts straight. Luke would obviously know that a Roman official was not somebody to lie to. Embarrassing a highly placed representative of imperial Rome is not a great way to verify one's status as a historian.

Can you see how this makes sense now?
Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173429 Aug 4, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
How in the hell do you come to all these ridiculous conclusions?
Now you're shifting goal posts saying the writers changed the gospels. Was that before or after they wrote them? Why are you so thick in the skull? You're using a straw man fallacy.
Luke didn't meet Jesus.
Would a plumbing expert write a how-to-book for electricians? No. He he would write his how-to-book for plumbers because that's his concern.
Now let's take a look at how we know who Luke was writing to. He was writing to a man named Theophilus. This is a Greco-Roman name and since Luke uses the greeting "Most Excellent" this appears to be a man of official political importance within the Roman empire. Therefore, Luke's focus was to the Greco-Roman (Gentile) audience. His writing would reflect that. Also, Luke's preamble explicitly states that he (Luke) has carefully investigated everything. Luke is writing to an official in the Roman empire and is assuring this official that he (Luke) has taken the time to get the facts straight. Luke would obviously know that a Roman official was not somebody to lie to. Embarrassing a highly placed representative of imperial Rome is not a great way to verify one's status as a historian.
Can you see how this makes sense now?
Your entire premise is flawed - simple dramatic reason - there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed outside of your holy guidebook. The same is true for Moses.
Egyptian history, while very well, recorded fails to notice Moses.

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!

Caesar by comparison is easily verified.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173430 Aug 4, 2013
History shows this? Please by all means show the secular history that this event happened. We won't hold our breath.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Bodily resurrection of Jesus. History has demonstrated Jesus was crucified via Pilate, 85

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173431 Aug 4, 2013
They won't like his actual quotes because you didn't take one, chop it, edit it for a Christian talking points.
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>something a bit more profound from Mr. Dawkins...

"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to.

Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity.

This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it.

Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."

Hitch had it right with this great observation.

“Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.”
~Christopher Hitchens

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173432 Aug 4, 2013
Very well said! And you were kind enough not to point out that the Josephus and Tacitus lines about Jesus are clearly forgeries.

Even his so called followers didn't document him until decades later after Saul/Paul hallucinated about him... Or just made it up and wrote his epistles.
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>Your entire premise is flawed - simple dramatic reason - there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed outside of your holy guidebook. The same is true for Moses.
Egyptian history, while very well, recorded fails to notice Moses.

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!

Caesar by comparison is easily verified.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173433 Aug 4, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
Your entire premise is flawed - simple dramatic reason - there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed outside of your holy guidebook. The same is true for Moses.
Your first mistake is assuming the Bible is one source when it is several sources compiled. Agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman put Jesus deniers in the same category as holocaust deniers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/d...

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

That is the claim made by a small but growing cadre of (published ) writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists. This unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes by the early Christians who modeled their savior along the lines of pagan divine men who, it is alleged, were also born of a virgin on Dec. 25, who also did miracles, who also died as an atonement for sin and were then raised from the dead.

Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173434 Aug 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
History shows this?
According to the experts, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...
''Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.[41]''

''Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and although there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity,[5][6][7][8] biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek.[18][19][20''

You and others can be skeptical but most would go with the experts on this one.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min John Galt 1,406,425
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Wed Trojan 32,308
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Wed ThomasA 311,496
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Jul 27 IB DaMann 9,991
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 25 NotInPotatoQuality 201,878
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web