Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257121 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

#171658 Jul 10, 2013
The Josephus passages are Christian forgeries and this is well known. No way would he have called Jesus the Christ. Regardless Josephus never met Jesus so even if we forgive the forgery it is at best hear say.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>Part 3

Four items in this statement strongly support its authenticity as a notice composed before Jesus' arrest: 1) The future tense is used; 2) Stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not involved; 3) There is no reference whatever to crucifixion; and 4) That Jesus was performing "sorcery"— the extraordinary or miraculous with a negative spin—is quite remarkable. This not only invokes what historians call the "criterion of embarrassment," which proves what is conceded, but accords perfectly with how Jesus' opponents explained away his miraculous healings: performing them with the help of Beelzebul (Luke 11:18).

Moreover, the first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, twice mentions "Jesus who is called the Christ" in his Jewish Antiquities. In the second of these, he tells of the death of Jesus' half-brother James the Just of Jerusalem (20:200). And two books earlier, in the longest first-century non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of events in Pontius Pilate's administration:

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.(18:63)

This is the recent, uninterpolated text that replaces the traditional version which, unfortunately, had suffered early interpolation. For a more detailed evaluation of Josephus and his references to Jesus, please see my separate article on Josephus in this series.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171659 Jul 10, 2013
These have already been answered. The Tacitus line is a forgery from the 1500s. No imperial roman would have called Jesus the Christ. Again even if we overlook that he did not live during the time of Jesus nor did any of your other failed examples. At best they are quoting what was told to them by Christians. Again no proof for Jesus.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>Part 4

External Evidence: Secular

Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable source historians of first-century Rome, wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars. Among the highlights that he reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus" (15:44). He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution.

Tacitus, it should be emphasized, was not some Christian historian who was trying to prove that Jesus Christ really lived, but a pagan who despised Christians as a "disease," a term he uses later in the passage. Had Jesus never even existed, he would have been the first to expose that pathetic phantom on whom such cultists placed their trust. Were no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity. Skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage—but to no avail. Manuscript analysis and computer studies have never found any reason to call this sentence into question, nor its context.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars. He, too, regarded the Christians as a sect "professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Nero 16) and doubtless cited "Christus" as well, spelling his name "Chrestus" (Claudius 25). That the vowels "e" and "i" were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for "Christian" to this day:chretien.

Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of Bithynia—today, the northwestern corner of Turkey—and about the year 110 he wrote the emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.), asking what to do about the Christians, a "wretched cult" whom he mentions eight times in his letter. Christ himself is cited three times, the most famous instance referring to Christians "...who met on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ, as if to a god..." (Letter No. 96). Trajan's response, interestingly enough, suggests that Christians not be hunted out.(Ibid., No. 97). But again, if Christ were only a mythical character, these hostile sources would have been the first to emblazon that fact in derision.

Other ancient secular sources, such as Theudas and Mara bar Serapion also bear witness to the historicity of Jesus. But any further evidence clearly comes under the "beating a dead horse" category so far as this article is concerned. Nothing more is necessary in view of the overpowering evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was no myth, but a totally historical figure who truly lived. Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus wasmore than a man. That, at least, could evoke a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.





This Web site is part of NAMB's major mission objective committed to sharing Christ. More>

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#171660 Jul 10, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>I would sue that teacher for lying
All right, I am willing to listen. Tell me the truth. IOW, where did we come from?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171661 Jul 10, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still stuck in 7th grade.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
First you need to prove the god you're lying about. then we can get into your stupid back story.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171662 Jul 10, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a very accurate description of I See You.
Not really...if you weren't so mean, you might actually find that I'm a very nice person. Just not religious, which is what you require to be able to have a descent conversation.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171663 Jul 10, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"You mean the time we record didn't exist"
Nope.
"It is possible Time exists , beyond the constraints of "our time"."
If that's the case then the universe always existed and science is wrong with its date of 13.7 billion year.
All these words used and time wasted when you could have used it to try to to prove your god, realise that you can't and then start the real and genuine process of inquiry into your own ego's honesty about your hallucination you call a belief system...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#171664 Jul 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Buddha? Thousands easily. Mithras certainly had some as well.
Jewish people certainly would have killed Zeus worshipers.
Socrates is a philosopher not a god, glad to educate you again.
Many so called Christian martyrs were put to death for crimes like anyone else in those days, they just wailed it was because they were Christian. Persecution complex. Zealots will be zealots Dave and zealots were the foundation of the Christian faith. In those days zealots weren't afforded the same patience we give them today.
We see zealots in most religions willing to die for their faith. In South America we see people willing die for their fish god. Does that mean there really was a walking, talking flying fishman in South America?
Again your argument only shows there were Christians in a barbaric time. No proof for Jesus.
<quoted text>
You do blather on. With limited knowledge and understanding powering it.

Just reciting what you heard, because you know nothing. You can't even read and comprehend.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171665 Jul 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Oh listen to the children scream when you tell them Santa Socrates didn't exist.
See how their intellectual integrity degenerates into emotional outbursts when their mythical creatures are challenged.
Wah!!! He has to be real!! Look at the presents he left us!
Wah!!!!
What is funny is Butch not seeing a similarity between Socrates and Jesus after so much ranting about Jesus being an amalgamation of mythical stories. Perhaps "his" emotional balance got disturbed when his idol got challenged.
Scholars that will say that Socrates never existed are very rare. Although there are people who argue whether or not it was Plato's teaching instead of Socrates. Who knows for sure...but there are many more writings in history about him then there were about Jesus.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171666 Jul 10, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>just like a evolution a huge whopper
Evolution is not made up...it has been observed.

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#171667 Jul 10, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to go back and read that response of mine AND the post I was responding too.
You have your faith , but fact remains you got nothing physical , or first hand that is compelling.
Nothing that would stand up as evidence in a court of law.
It's a faith based religion. We see you have plenty.
I am a nonbeliever, not only do I not believe in your Jesus, for credibility of story reasons. I do not believe you either, you not nothing. And if anyone could prove Jesus existed... they already would have.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#171668 Jul 10, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Scholars that will say that Socrates never existed are very rare. Although there are people who argue whether or not it was Plato's teaching instead of Socrates. Who knows for sure...but there are many more writings in history about him then there were about Jesus.
Those scholars just study other scholars.

Socrates had some seriously highly placed enemies in Athens. That is why he died. You best believe there would have been some official propaganda and gloating over his death. Much publicizing of what happens to those that oppose.

Show me some.

Why would one man like him be so worshiped for his ideas unless he was elevated above other men by scholars?

There are a lot more writings about Jesus, and he has had much more impact on human history.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#171669 Jul 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You have your faith , but fact remains you got nothing physical , or first hand that is compelling.
Nothing that would stand up as evidence in a court of law.
It's a faith based religion. We see you have plenty.
I am a nonbeliever, not only do I not believe in your Jesus, for credibility of story reasons. I do not believe you either, you not nothing. And if anyone could prove Jesus existed... they already would have.
Ain't got nothing but a bunch of rabid atheists still arguing he doesn't exist 2000 years later, and a bunch of churches in every town.

Your perspective is a bit warped.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171670 Jul 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
The Josephus passages are Christian forgeries and this is well known. No way would he have called Jesus the Christ. Regardless Josephus never met Jesus so even if we forgive the forgery it is at best hear say.
<quoted text>
I don't believe you

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171671 Jul 10, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>We are to fear God because he has the power to forgive us. God also pities those who fear him. When we submit to God, we surrender and give God dominion and control.
I understand how it is supposed to work. I feared my parents, and they had unconditional love for me. They forgave me without me fearing them actually. I feel like if a human can do this, then an omnipotent being should be able to do this as well. If he chooses not to then I don't feel that he should have made us to begin with. If his only objective was to create worshipers then he should have done that without giving us free will. In all actuality we don't have free will because he basically states that if we don't love him, and him alone then we will be punished in hell forever. That is not free will. That would be like my boyfriend saying if you don't love me then you are free to go and do as you please, but I will eventually kill you if you don't make the choice to love me. That example is obviously small in comparison, but the same none the less. This is just how I feel.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171672 Jul 10, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not made up...it has been observed.
GOD made man not evolution. God made it all

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171673 Jul 10, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text> We did not come from apes evolution is a lie.. The bible is the holy word of GOD ALMIGHTY! I recommend for you to get into a good sunday school... And stop making a total @ss outta yourself
O.k. so I've heard christians say before, that Noah would have been like 12 feet tall back in the day, and if that is the case then why are we not 12 feet tall now?????? That is called evolution. Like it or not. That is evolution. I don't believe that Noah existed, but if he did, then how else would you explain this??????

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171674 Jul 10, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>Christians are forgiven.. atheist are slaves to the evil one
According to the bible we have all been forgiven after Jesus died...you may want to read your bible again.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171675 Jul 10, 2013
atheist are goofy for believing the lie of evolution

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#171676 Jul 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't got nothing but a bunch of rabid atheists still arguing he doesn't exist 2000 years later, and a bunch of churches in every town.
Your perspective is a bit warped.
Brainwashed idiots think other people are crazy, because they do not subscribe to their maniacal delusions and lucid insanities.
Dream world and secret fantasy is the norm of christian ideology.

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#171677 Jul 10, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
atheist are goofy for believing the lie of evolution
Atheists don't "believe" in stuff.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 17 min emperorjohn 20,203
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 45 min Chick240 9,500
News Why Kasich's atheist criticisms seem out of touch 1 hr Reason Personified 29
News Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news - a t... 4 hr ATHEOI 189
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr ATHEOI 45,414
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 10 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 417
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 11 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 278
More from around the web