Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243483 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.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#171529 Jul 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
In other words you made it up.
<quoted text>
No need to make it up. But the majority of sources on the internet are pro-Christian sources, BECAUSE of the evidence. The atheist always wants to claim that such websites are biased and dismiss the argument on that level which is nothing more than lazy. If you want to find out, google it. I'm not going to waste my time listing we bsites that you're going to dismissed because of "bias" anyway. When I write, it's to be read, to let the narrative sink in a little if the reader is open minded enough. If not, it's your choice. If I quote somebody else, I'll list it. If it's not a direct quote, I'll tell you to google it for yourself. So stop whining and google it.
You'll find arguments for or against just about anything.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#171530 Jul 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> LOL this stuff is a conspiracy made out of a conspiracy.
Kind of like 911 research or someshit. Jebus research team no. 6 .
Tell me, what would you call it when a group of people of a particular religious sect organise intimidation, threats, violence, anarchy and terrorism against the lawful government of a county?

This stuff exists hence the book citations. It certainly has more substance than the babble in that it can be verified in the documents of the contemporary archives I mentioned. Unlike the NT that can’t.

I was involved in checking some of the data used in those books, particularly the life of Pantrera and the plot by Titus and Josephus against the Forth Philosophy.

The involvement of Pantera is mentioned (more than once) in the Tanakh, the cannon of the Hebrew bible, from which the OT was selectively copied and edited to suit the christian religion. So are you saying that the Tanakh is a conspiracy?

However everyone has an opinion.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#171531 Jul 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I have heard of the Jesus son of Pantera account that has a wealth of historical proof unlike this so called Jesus of the bible which has none whatsoever.
<quoted text>
This is true, documented proof exists in not only the roman archives but the Tanakh.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#171532 Jul 10, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>Do you mean that? cause I can get kinky dinky baby...
Yes we all know that a sparrow farting in a car park turns you on, me I have more refunded taste

BTW, do you realise that a rubber doll with never replace your sister for warmth and comfort in your bed

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#171533 Jul 10, 2013
Thinking wrote:
DK Clunt only got sex when his girlfriend died.
<quoted text>
I heard he has been given a second hand rubber doll with a slow puncture

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#171534 Jul 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"No, I am pointing out the different possibilities that science has uncovered. Without extra data we cannot tell which of the possibilities is reality."
Possibilities. Could be this, could be that, or maybe that there. Keep sending money, we will figure it out some time. Promise, maybe.
Christine DingaLing uses it all the time, as do others. Why haven't you corrected them?
I have never used 10^-34th of a second in regard to matter That Is approximately the moment in time when the laws that govern this universe began to coalesce.

Polymath has corrected me, I used to think that was the moment when the laws came into existence as laws, I bow to his expertise and now understand that it took some several billionths of a second to actually become laws.

Matter is a completely different matter but we can sympathise with your confusion

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171535 Jul 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
:-)
You two are amusing. So innocent.
Existence is so simple for you.
Be careful about moving into the deeper portions of the pool of knowledge and thought of mankind. You will drown if you aren't careful.
When you've learned morals & you're brave enough to prove your god, you won't need to threaten us with your feeble imagination.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171536 Jul 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You can only have opinions about mythical figures, Butch. There is nothing to have facts about.
Thinking is not your forte, as is your wit. Try something you know. Get the Johnson out of the drawer and show wifey what a man you are again.
Sh*t the f*ck up Educated Wh*t.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#171537 Jul 10, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to make it up. But the majority of sources on the internet are pro-Christian sources, BECAUSE of the evidence....
What evidence? What extr-ordinary evidence do you have to support the wacky claims of Christianity?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#171538 Jul 10, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
The only person in the bible who has secular proof of existence (that I know of) is Pontius Pilate. His name is recorded in Roman records as a government official.
The Romans did not have a religious drum to beat. The records do not say anything else about him, whether he pronounced judgement on a man named Jesus or even whether or not he had a wife who might or might not have a had a dream.
Again, do you have any independent, secular proof? We've all heard fish stories.....and the one that got away keeps growing. That's pretty much an example of oral history.
Tacitus was a Roman official and a historian, and did write that Jesus existed. Now it's true that Tacitus didn't live in the same time as Jesus, but then again many people who write factual accounts aren't witnesses of what they write.

Assuming that somebody from Jesus' own time just had to write about him is a thin assumption for two reasons.

1) Just because other people in a specific time period are written about does not necessarily mean that others are. That's an assumption because of our own modern advances in writing and advances in technology. Today, anything and everything makes the news. Back then in an oral tradition culture, not so much. In our Western culture, most people know how to read and write with varying degrees of skill, whereas it wasn't that way as much in first century Palestine.

2) Just because we don't have anything from Jesus directly, or any writing left that was written while he was alive doesn't mean that there wasn't any at all. Two thousand years is an awfully long time for any document to survive when it's being passed around and examined, read, re-read, re-distributed, hand copied, etc, etc. Just how long is a 2,000 year old document supposed to last?

Now let me add a third item of interest for consideration in this discussion.

Atheists say the bible can't be used to prove the bible which is good reasoning because that's a circular argument. But, the bible can be used as a historical document just like any other. The language structure and cultural inferences are there if we care to look at them critically, yet as objectively as possible. They are based on what people truly believed they saw and heard. As a matter of strongly and widely held scholarly opinion, even among skeptical scholars, if we treat the gospel accounts as nothing more than history, we will understand them much better than if we try to read them as divinely inspired. When we attempt to read them as divinely inspired as a skeptic, we are already carrying an antagonistic bias and reject them on our emotional values rather than on true objectivity.

Oh, and one more item. Just because Dave Nelson claims to be a deist and still argues for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth does not mean he is a Christian. This is yet another assumption. Scholars Gerd Ludemann (atheist) and Bart Ehrman (agnostic with atheist leanings) have both written that Jesus did exist, and they don't have any theological interest in proving otherwise. In fact, when it comes to the New Testament, Gerd and Bart are probably the most historically accurate skeptics out there. Granted, I'm a Christian, I still respect their historical expertise even if I disagree with their final conclusions.

The entire Jesus as myth argument is just lazy and contemptible in my opinion, and here's why I feel that way.

When there's a mountain of evidence that most scholars agree on (even critical scholars) and that evidence is dismissed anyways, it's not based on logic or historical knowledge. It's dismissed on emotional grounds because the person can't handle the truth of what's being presented. If Jesus is real, then you have a choice to make, and it's a very personal and deeply emotional choice. By removing Jesus as real, you're removing the emotional discomfort you feel that accompanies the obligation to choose. It's intellectual fence sitting, and lazy.
Bongo

Central Islip, NY

#171539 Jul 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You can only have opinions about mythical figures, Butch. There is nothing to have facts about.
Thinking is not your forte, as is your wit. Try something you know. Get the Johnson out of the drawer and show wifey what a man you are again.
bwhahahahahahahaha hehehehehehe you have give me liverwish pegged, how he shows his face around here is beyond me.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#171540 Jul 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, what would you call it when a group of people of a particular religious sect organise intimidation, threats, violence, anarchy and terrorism against the lawful government of a county?
This stuff exists hence the book citations. It certainly has more substance than the babble in that it can be verified in the documents of the contemporary archives I mentioned. Unlike the NT that can’t.
I was involved in checking some of the data used in those books, particularly the life of Pantrera and the plot by Titus and Josephus against the Forth Philosophy.
The involvement of Pantera is mentioned (more than once) in the Tanakh, the cannon of the Hebrew bible, from which the OT was selectively copied and edited to suit the christian religion. So are you saying that the Tanakh is a conspiracy?
However everyone has an opinion.

I think speculating about a speculated story is hyper speculation.
Meaning, It can be speculated Mary was impregnated
in vitro after being abducted by time travelers, but it's just speculation. While I may think it is more plausible than the bible story, it too cannot be substantiated.

That was my meaning.
Imhotep

Howey In The Hills, FL

#171541 Jul 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Socrates never existed. There is no proof he did.
You are worshiping the words of a myth.
That philosophy is common enough among men of centuries and before that never even heard of him. Plato probably plagiarized one of them using mythical Socrates as a tool.
Wrong again - very predictable - as usual - no surprises Davy.

Yes there are only hearsay accounts of Socrates existence however myth or no myth his Philosophy far supersedes that of Jesus Christ.

There is no hatred in his mythical voice.
There is no admission to admire him.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#171543 Jul 10, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Tacitus was a Roman official and a historian, and did write that Jesus existed. Now it's true that Tacitus didn't live in the same time as Jesus, but then again many people who write factual accounts aren't witnesses of what they write.
Assuming that somebody from Jesus' own time just had to write about him is a thin assumption for two reasons.
1)…
.
Tacticus wrote his annuls in Rome, some 1300 miles from the scene of events and three or four generations later. His source data was provided by christians who had settled in Rome and had no access or reference to roman archives.

Can you accurately say how your great grandfather died, yet alone someone in another country seventy years ago?

This is not contemporary

The babble (NT) can be used as a historical document in the context of the original bible which it must be acknowledged was compiled by committee some 300+ years after events. This original must (like all other documents used for historical research) be verified against other contemporary documents. In some areas this can be achieved, in most areas it can not and anything that cannot be verified can in no way be classed as historical document.

Rather than use the OT as historical document an academic will rather use the torah/tanakh from which the OT was selectively coped and edited.

Modern versions of the babble (NT) post KJV can in no way be viewed as historical documents for biblical research, however it is invaluable for researchers of the 1600’s.
Imhotep

Howey In The Hills, FL

#171545 Jul 10, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Tacitus was a Roman official and a historian, and did write that Jesus existed. Now it's true that Tacitus didn't live in the same time as Jesus, but then again many people who write factual accounts aren't witnesses of what they write.
Assuming that somebody from Jesus' own time just assumption. Scholars their final conclusions.
The entire Jesus as myth argument is just lazy and contemptible in my opinion, and here's why I feel that way.
When there's a mountain of evidence that most scholars agree on (even critical scholars) and that evidence is dismissed anyways, it's not based on logic or historical knowledge. It's dismissed on emotional grounds because the person can't handle the truth of what's being presented. If Jesus is real, then you have a choice to make, and it's a very personal and deeply emotional choice. By removing Jesus as real, you're removing the emotional discomfort you feel that accompanies the obligation to choose. It's intellectual fence sitting, and lazy.
I told you before that dog won't hunt

Tacitus

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' only, No different than native American religions, myths carried down through the generations.

Caesar by comparison is easily verified.
So are the Egyptian pharaohs

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#171546 Jul 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I think speculating about a speculated story is hyper speculation.
Meaning, It can be speculated Mary was impregnated
in vitro after being abducted by time travelers, but it's just speculation. While I may think it is more plausible than the bible story, it too cannot be substantiated.
That was my meaning.
It is not speculation, there is evidence to verify every aspect of my statement. There is even "religious" documentation of who impregnated Mary, no time travellers or goddidit involved. However you are correct, it cannot, by omissions of a precise name be substantiated as the “jesus” story. Given the evidence though, it is a far more logical conclusion as indicated the multiple lines of evidence. I am not saying this is fact, I am saying it is logically more acceptable than “I believe jesus did it but I have no evidence.”

Lets put it this way, I am a great believer in evidence, I have seen Panteras grave and I have read the Tanakh, both evidence. I have studied the roman archives for the times of the Flavius dynasty, I have seen translations of the roman tax and military records. Many religious would say that such documentation is not to be trusted (because it contradicts their faith) but I would say that Romans were extremely pernickety record keepers, why, because the empire (and the jobs of the record keepers) depended on it.

Never once have I seen any evidence to contradict my post and only in the “unverified” babble have I seen reference to jesus.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#171547 Jul 10, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you before that dog won't hunt
Tacitus
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' only, No different than native American religions, myths carried down through the generations.
Caesar by comparison is easily verified.
So are the Egyptian pharaohs
It is believed that the monk Eusebius was responsible for much of the “fraudulent” editing of Josephus work

He was such a good christian

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171548 Jul 10, 2013
Exactly. That minor nobody achieves documentation in two competing accounts yet Jesus' own followers couldn't be bothered to write about him for decades? Lol!

What gives?
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>This is true, documented proof exists in not only the roman archives but the Tanakh.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171549 Jul 10, 2013
So you admit you are making it up or using faulty websites. Sorry christhole but you made the assertion so it is upon you to back it up with facts. Not our job to do the work for you.

Shall we assume you are conceding the point? It would be wise of you to do so as there is no historical proof Jesus even existed beyond the opinions of believers.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>No need to make it up. But the majority of sources on the internet are pro-Christian sources, BECAUSE of the evidence. The atheist always wants to claim that such websites are biased and dismiss the argument on that level which is nothing more than lazy. If you want to find out, google it. I'm not going to waste my time listing we bsites that you're going to dismissed because of "bias" anyway. When I write, it's to be read, to let the narrative sink in a little if the reader is open minded enough. If not, it's your choice. If I quote somebody else, I'll list it. If it's not a direct quote, I'll tell you to google it for yourself. So stop whining and google it.
You'll find arguments for or against just about anything.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#171550 Jul 10, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> bwhahahahahahahaha hehehehehehe you have give me liverwish pegged, how he shows his face around here is beyond me.
His face? I thought "he" has been mooning us.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 13 min woodtick57 9,466
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr TC_Tia 14,656
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr MikeF 19,806
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) Sun thetruth 6,221
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... Sat Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Sat thetruth 38
News Founders created secular nation (Jul '10) Sat knight of Jesus 521
More from around the web