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

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173575 Aug 6, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Once again nobody has made a religion based on the civil war. People also didn't wait 50 years after it ended to finally write it. All throughout it we had photos, records, letters and newspapers reporting the events. No unwritten God man walked into the city with thousands of formerly dead Jews in tow. Your question again factually answered. I await your historical proof that Christians employed this oral tradition for decades until it was written. The Jews used oral tradition but they also kept written documentation as a back up just in case someone was saying something incorrect this was vitally important to them. Without written back ups the probability for errors becomes a given. Okay you asked for historians, unlike you who hasn't even attempted to answer why Joseph would be mentioned in Jesus' family tree if he wasn't the father :) I have facts. No need for biblical fan fiction or excuses on why I can't answer the question.
Well known Historians in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus who documented much but somehow missed this resurrected god man who kicked butt in the temple with his whip.
1: Aulus Perseus
Lets take a look at your first one. Did he write anything about Israel?

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

ersius, in full Aulus Persius Flaccus (Volterra, 34–62), was a Roman poet and satirist of Etruscan origin. In his works, poems and satires, he shows a stoic wisdom and a strong criticism for the abuses of his contemporaries. His works, which became very popular in the Middle Ages, were published after his death by his friend and mentor the stoic philosopher Lucius Annaeus Cornutus.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173576 Aug 6, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
They were nomads in the Dessert. What are you looking to find?
Nomads leave quite extensive records: fire pits, garbage heaps, dropped tools, etc. A crowd of a thousand would be quite evident in the Sinai. And that is quite a bit less than the proposed Exodus.
BS. It is written and understood as history. All over the multiple accounts in the Old and repeated by both Josephus and Philo. This is only off the top of my head. I could probably come up with more.
And the foundation of Rome by Romulus and Remus was written as history also. That doesn't make it true. it was part of the *legend* that society used to explain its existence. In reality, there was no exodus except for culturally from the mountain tops.
I think you are just regurgitating. You don't seem to be able to comprehend historians glean out information from biased sources and if you don't know that then you don't know much. This is an article pertaining to Hitchens by another atheist. He makes a point here pertinent to this discussion.
Provide any archeological evidence for the Exodus. Explain why the 'invasion' of the Holy Land left no records. The whole story is an anachronism: an origin myth placed backwards in time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173577 Aug 6, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> We were discussing Jesus myth theory. Many in your camp here do not believe in historical Jesus. What about you? Nor do they agree on the dates. The moderns assign a date which would make it incompatible with Egyptian records.
I see it as plausible that an itinerant preacher talking about the things attributed to Jesus and that had a number of followers including Zealots existed at that time. In fact, we know there were several.
A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in the early 19th century in Egypt [6]. It seems to be an eyewitness account of the events preceding the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes:
Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
The river is blood.
That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!
Trees are destroyed.
No fruit or herbs are found...
Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
The land is not light [dark].
And why does this show the Biblical story is correct? At most it supports one aspect of the story. But given that it is easily understood as metaphor, it doesn't even do that effectively. Considering that the disruption of the Old Kingdom wasn't exactly peaceful, the metaphor that the rivers run with blood is not extreme.
Velikovsky recognized this as an eyewitness account of the ten plagues.
Velikovsky? Seriously? As in planets in collision?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173578 Aug 6, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
I have a question. Why is evolution and Darwinism so important to atheists?
Why is it so anathema to theists?

Evolution is important in the same way that the heliocentric view of the solar system is important. It is one of those basic facts that any educated person should know about. Other such facts include the fact that all living things today are made of cells and that the sun is a star running on nuclear fusion.

The problem is that this particular scientific fact has been attacked by the theists to the place that they pass legislation banning its teaching in schools. Instead, they insist that their long discredited views (which had been replaced before Darwin entered the scene) be taught as equally valid. This is lying to the students.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173579 Aug 6, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
So...should we call Roman a "young universe Christian?"
hahaha! That's hilarious - from a human perspective, what's the difference between millions and billions? None. Yes, of course they're massively different on a universe time scale, but really, can people comprehend those many years? Apparently not Roman, who requires a much, much younger universe.
I'd say the dating techniques are becoming more and more accurate all the time. Our dates for the age of the Earth and the Universe have been narrowed down such that no one disputes them. People are just trying to refine them.
We have solid three decimal place accuracy on the age of the universe. You would have to ask a geologist for the accuracy of the age of the earth, but my impression it is about the same level. There are issues about exact definitions since the earth formed over a period of time. Do you measure from the first collisions? when it became large enough to form a sphere? when it cooled enough to have solid rocks?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173580 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see it as plausible that an itinerant preacher talking about the things attributed to Jesus and that had a number of followers including Zealots existed at that time. In fact, we know there were several.
So you are a Jesus myther.
And why does this show the Biblical story is correct?
Its evidence. You say there is none? The problem is not with the evidence but how the evidence is interpreted. You say you need archeological evidence for the Exodus which is nothing more than special pleading given the weight of actual written evidence which has survived along with their sources which did not survive. For example 2 Kings 22:8. The book of the Law was found. That reference pre dates the Kings account by who knows how many years? That is just one example. Under your standard you need archeological evidence to establish any ancient historical account. Is that correct? All this ignores the fact the moderns were wrong time and again when it comes to Scripture and yet your faith is with the moderns. How many times can they be wrong and you still trust them?
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173581 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nomads leave quite extensive records: fire pits, garbage heaps, dropped tools, etc. A crowd of a thousand would be quite evident in the Sinai. And that is quite a bit less than the proposed Exodus.
Agreed. The archeological record does not support the Exodus account, and neither does the work of Egyptologists. The current best guess of the origin of the Israelities is that they simply emerged from the Canaanites, and that the first books of the Bible are just a fabrication.

But even if we take a leap of faith that they contain some historical roots. What does it prove? That bronze age/ iron age goat herders thought it was ok to own slaves, ok to stone disobedient children, and for rapists to marry the rape victims. This primtive mythology should have been classed with other world mythologies, and treated as such.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173582 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see it as plausible that an itinerant preacher talking about the things attributed to Jesus and that had a number of followers including Zealots existed at that time. In fact, we know there were several.
<quoted text>
And why does this show the Biblical story is correct? At most it supports one aspect of the story. But given that it is easily understood as metaphor, it doesn't even do that effectively. Considering that the disruption of the Old Kingdom wasn't exactly peaceful, the metaphor that the rivers run with blood is not extreme.
<quoted text>
Velikovsky? Seriously? As in planets in collision?
Does not mean he was wrong about everything. Metaphor? What a laugh. the problem, once again is not with the evidence. The problem is with your excuses and your special pleading. Moving the goal posts. Dismissing it as metaphor when it is clearly written and understood as history. Like i said before your hopeless bias has crippled you.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#173583 Aug 6, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Does not mean he was wrong about everything. Metaphor? What a laugh. the problem, once again is not with the evidence. The problem is with your excuses and your special pleading. Moving the goal posts. Dismissing it as metaphor when it is clearly written and understood as history. Like i said before your hopeless bias has crippled you.
What is clearly written and understood as history? The exodus. How can anything with no evidence to validate it be classed as history? It is written in the Torah and is understood as a metaphor. Yet when it has been (selectively) copied into the OT and you consider that history?

WHY?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#173584 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. When Tacitus talks about fulfillment of the Sabine predictions, I do not believe him. I believe that those ruling promoted that interpretation of events.
<quoted text>
No. When Seutonius describes Ceasar being lead across the Rubicon by the god Pan, I do not believe him. I believe it was a myth formulated (probably by Ceasar) to promote a specific agenda. I do not accept Seutonius's claims for the divine heritage of the emperors either. I do not believe Julius Ceasar was a descendant of Venus.
<quoted text>
No. When Josephus writes in his antiquities about the Exodus, I do not believe him. The archaeological evidence points to this event never happening.
So no, I do not take everything else these authors state at face value. They are all writing from a particular viewpoint and to a particular audience. They all relay the myths of their culture. Part of the job of a historian is to separate the legendary stories from the truth. In many cases, this is quite difficult. But, for example, there is good reason to disbelieve the story of the Gordian knot in the histories of Alexander the Great.
<quoted text>
Seutonius and Tacitus talk about the beliefs of the Christians at the time. I believe they give a mostly accurate account of those beliefs. I strongly doubt that either would have spent the time looking up records to verify that anyone was actually executed as the Christians believed. But I had no good reason to doubt the existed of believing Christians under Nero, for example.
Much of Josephus is also reasonable. But the passages where he mentions Jesus are clearly not in his typical voice. They are interpolations, probably done by later copyists. There was a known tendency to do that among the copyists and there was a definite ideological reason to do so.
The line is partly reasonableness of the claim. Any claim that violates known physical laws is most likely to be legendary or mythological. That is as true of the stories of Jesus as it is of the stories of Romulus and Remus.
<quoted text>
But the *belief* that someone rose from the dead is much different than someone actually rising from the dead.
<quoted text>
Wrong on all counts. Simply having someone rise fvrom the dead does not establish the existence of a deity. It would not show that Jesus was correct in his beliefs, let alone that Paul was correct in his. As it stands, it shows nothing other than there is a biological possibility that someone declared dead can be revived.
You are making *huge* logical leaps from flimsy evidence.
I've read 7420
Gaius Julius' "Gallic Wars" in the original Latin. Pure self-serving fiction...
I have no difficulty ascribing to the others you mention the same category.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#173585 Aug 6, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
I c/p this from another poster who reflects general Christian thought on the matter very well.
''Jesus seemed to vote for Moses!
Again Jesus indicates His approval of Moses' writtings in Luke 16:27-31 (NKJV):
“Then he <the rich man who died and went to Hades> said,‘I beg you therefore, father <Abraham>, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’
Abraham said to him,‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’
And he said,‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’
But he said to him,‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
But what about those that don't believe Moses? It seems that the apostle Peter had this to say (hey, wasn't he supposed to be the first pope?):
2 Peter 3: 3-7
knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying,“Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.ite record
Also, just as some folks do not believe the story of Jonah was real, you, dear fusilier, don't believe the words of Moses, the words of Jesus, or your Bible (except for those choice cherry-picked parcels you want to believe). The point I am trying to get to is that I would believe the Bible if it said that Jonah swallowed a whale instead of the other way around (but, again, the actual word is "great fish", not "whale"). Sure, call me ignorant. I don't care. The Bible has been shown to be correct on a number of occasions that the "experts" said it was wrong on... and the scoffing "experts" will continue to be wrong.
And not to start some side-track argument in this thread (please start another), personally, I don't think Jonah did live for three days in the belly of a great fish, I think he was dead - then resurrected! That was the sign that Jesus gave to His unbelieving generation and is still a sign for us today.''
hahahaha!!! That guy is hilarious! "I don't think Jonah lived for three days in the belly of a fish. He was resurrected!"

You honestly take this guy seriously? You don't see - I mean, aside from the rampant stupidity - the contradiction above?

1. He claims the Bible is accurate.
2. He states it's not accurate with Jonah.
3. Then he states that the Bible will be proven accurate.

LB, I've read some of the archaeology on the Bible. Yup, some of the sites mentioned in the Bible existed historically - and some of them are utterly false. There are cities listed at times when they did not exist, meaning that the writers were inaccurately and anachronistically writing about the past (Exodus). The pyramids were not built by a slave army, let alone a Jewish slave army. We know they were built by well treated and well provisioned laborers who had meat and beer rations. How do we know this? The Egyptians kept records and we've found the store rooms.

Sorry, that's a lot more smoking gun than some writing in some religious mythology text.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173586 Aug 6, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Under your standard you need archeological evidence to establish any ancient historical account. Is that correct?
Some big event like the exodus, and the subsequent genocides carried out by the Israelites, would leave behind plenty of evidence. Instead there is none. What does that tell you?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#173587 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nomads leave quite extensive records: fire pits, garbage heaps, dropped tools, etc. A crowd of a thousand would be quite evident in the Sinai. And that is quite a bit less than the proposed Exodus.
<quoted text>
And the foundation of Rome by Romulus and Remus was written as history also. That doesn't make it true. it was part of the *legend* that society used to explain its existence. In reality, there was no exodus except for culturally from the mountain tops.
<quoted text>
Provide any archeological evidence for the Exodus. Explain why the 'invasion' of the Holy Land left no records. The whole story is an anachronism: an origin myth placed backwards in time.
Totally. Well said, Bob. I've posted links on here to actual archaeology research demonstrating what you just wrote - and guess what, the Christians don't believe it. Not surprising, it takes real mental gymnastics to believe in an old religion.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#173588 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see it as plausible that an itinerant preacher talking about the things attributed to Jesus and that had a number of followers including Zealots existed at that time. In fact, we know there were several.
<quoted text>
And why does this show the Biblical story is correct? At most it supports one aspect of the story. But given that it is easily understood as metaphor, it doesn't even do that effectively. Considering that the disruption of the Old Kingdom wasn't exactly peaceful, the metaphor that the rivers run with blood is not extreme.
<quoted text>
Velikovsky? Seriously? As in planets in collision?
Woops, I just called you Bob.

Sorry about that! I sometimes just look at the pics, and his is red too.

:p

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#173589 Aug 6, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Does not mean he was wrong about everything. Metaphor? What a laugh. the problem, once again is not with the evidence. The problem is with your excuses and your special pleading. Moving the goal posts. Dismissing it as metaphor when it is clearly written and understood as history. Like i said before your hopeless bias has crippled you.
Archaeologists view the entire Bible with skepticism. They don't accept it point blank, but actively test its knowledge. When it talks about actual historical places, it's often correct. When it is building identity through mythology for its people, the stories are fiction.

Exodus is one such fictional story. Noah's ark, another. Eden, and a whole bunch of other ones.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#173590 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We have solid three decimal place accuracy on the age of the universe. You would have to ask a geologist for the accuracy of the age of the earth, but my impression it is about the same level. There are issues about exact definitions since the earth formed over a period of time. Do you measure from the first collisions? when it became large enough to form a sphere? when it cooled enough to have solid rocks?
Nice, thanks, didn't know that about the Universe for certain and didn't want to make a claim beyond my knowledge. Three decimal places as in, to three microseconds?

Geology could probably only go by once we had solid rocks - you'd need trapped radioactive material before you could date it. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to estimate how much of it decayed.
LCN Llin

United States

#173592 Aug 6, 2013
DavidQuinn wrote:
Atheism requires no faith at all but I wish i had Jean-Paul sartre's attitude to religion, a man so thoroughly atheist he deemed the whole subject beneath his intelligence to consider. Simply religion is divisive and restricts us as a species, simple as that. Check out a book that's causing a bit of a buzz in the Uk called 2082 the chronicles of hope. On the website the 1st chapter for the 1st book is on there for free, there's a speech in there by an atheist politician that's genius
interesting author, "L'âge de raison" insight into his thinking.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173593 Aug 6, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Woops, I just called you Bob.
Sorry about that! I sometimes just look at the pics, and his is red too.
:p
Lol. We've all done that at one time or another. But those two have very different writing styles, and Polymath's pic is orange!
Thinking

UK

#173594 Aug 6, 2013
&t= 46
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
interesting author, "L'âge de raison" insight into his thinking.
Kabang

United States

#173595 Aug 6, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
I have a question. Why is evolution and Darwinism so important to atheists?
Here's an even better question; Why is ignorance so important to theists?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 34 min IBdaMann 2,189
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr John Galt 1,144,008
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 28,242
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 6 hr Star On 47 646
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 11 hr Kathwynn 306,595
Pat Summitt files for divorce after 27 years of... (Aug '07) Tue Mr bobo 145
Haas Leads Purdue Past Grambling State, 82-30 Nov 22 ngzcaz 1

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE