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

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172593 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
Now why am I not at all surprised by your last point...

:)

Out-of-contextual snippets of what people say, is one if the hallmarks of "how to lie by telling the truth"....

... thank you, by the way.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172594 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
A quick skimming of that did not reveal anything relating to a criticism of scientific methods vis a vis supernatural woo.

Hardly surprising...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172595 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh ya the bible for being lol divine is sure chock full of errors!
<quoted text>
Yes.

Apparently the standard of behavior for these True Believer™ is quite low, when it comes to their gods of choice.

I mean... really?

For me? I expect nothing less than **godly** behavior from ... a god.

They accept stuff that would not pass muster in a 6th grade English essay class....!!

Strictly amateur stuff, the bible-- if it was inspired?

Well... there is far more inspiration in one showing of American Idol, than you **ever** see contained within the bible.

Again?

Not godly at all. Much too... human.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172596 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll have to aggressively counter this one Bob. You're trying to mix two different concepts to come up with a conclusion that fits your personal beliefs. At an accident scene, there will be conflicting accounts. But what the investigators look for is the core. The incidental or peripheral details actually ADD credibility to the account. And to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about, I've been a licensed private investigator. I've investigated everything from the usual extra-marital affairs, to insurance scams, to wrongful death claims. One thing I can tell you for sure is that eye-witness testimony is credible, and just because people give some conflicting accounts, doesn't mean there is no central truth to the event.
I never disputed that there wasn't an event in reality. What I pointed out? Is that human perception is **always** biased.

And that is for first-person experience-- 3rd or 4th person experiences are **always** distorted. Always.

No.

Matter.

What.

And that is **all** you have in your bible: 3rd ***generation** accounts (or more). Nothing that is **original**, first-person material.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172597 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
As for your charge that oral tradition can't work, I have to debunk that too.
You have no possible way to debunk my statement: oral tradition CAN NOT WORK, without each iteration editing and changing the "tradition" to suit it's agenda (whatever that may be).

Why?

Because if you had **written** material alongside the "oral" one?

Well... it's not **oral** any more is it? They would have had **written** material to keep them on track.

So no.

You can argue with technique all you like-- but it does NOT change basic human nature.

We humans are **biased** in what we do.

Always.

Which is why **oral** traditions DO NOT WORK to preserve accuracy.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172598 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
If they did, other tradents and even community members would step in and correct the tradent. Tradents very seldom passed on oral tradition in one-on-one settings. There were two reasons for this:
1) Public Transparency- This was the primary reason. To prevent distortions by passing on oral histories in front of as many people as possible, many of whom were also witnesses to events.
2) To avoid fatigue from having to repeat the story too many times in smaller group settings.
That's nice. Still does not work-- over each generation the "tradition" is EDITED to fit the biases of what is currently popular within the culture.

ALWAYS.

You are being naive here, if you think that doesn't happen.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172599 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Bob. And don't sell yourself short. You write some pretty good stuff too. We can disagree passionately but respectfully. Polymath is incredibly talented in the technicalities of science. I'm really not anti-science. I just think that the secular world gives it more weight than it merits. You probably think I give theology more weight than it merits, and that's fine by me. It forces each of us to think about why we believe what we do. I don't think you're delusional. I just don't think you've discovered the truth yet. I have a feeling that's a mutual sentiment.:)
What is "truth"?

:D

A classic philosophical question that has buggered people for thousands of years and counting.

Descartes thought that only by inner reflection, could real "truth" be had. As it turns out, he was wrong about that one.

The fact is,**all** people bring to the table their personal biases. It's the nature of the how the human brain processes information.

But it wasn't until people figured **that** out, that they begin to experiment with methods that deliberately tried to **eliminate** the human factor, in discovery of The Truth.

From those centuries-long experimental methods, we humans finally discovered methods that, as much as is possible, do eliminate the human-bias factor: we came to call that The Scientific Method.

And it Just Works. Not perfectly. Not all-encompassing either.

But, just going by the results? It Just Works.

This very computer exists,**only** because of The Scientific Method.

Once humans figured out this method of looking for The Truth? Progress in Understanding of the Universe began to grow by exponential rates.

Prior to The Scientific Method? Progress was pretty much stagnant.

Don't take **my** word for it-- look to history, you'll see my points are valid.

..........

Bottom line: results.

The Scientific Method gets **results**.

Nothing else--**especially** theology-- has come even close to that record.

Nothing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172600 Jul 20, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich. C'est la vie.
I do live in a University Town down in the bootheel and close to the Big Muddy, so the atmosphere is actually a little better than other locales I could easily think of. The younger people here bring in some new ideas and a spark of hope to offset the redneck woes;0)
:)

That close to the ocean--even if it's "only" the Gulf? I do envy you a bit. I always enjoyed the times I spent on the coast.

But, having never lived there, I never experienced the worst that a coastal home can offer-- never been in a hurricane (for example).

That I do **not** envy you in the least-- I've been in tornadoes, which are sort of like tiny, baby-brother ant-versions of hurricanes.

You can actually avoid being in a tornado, if you keep your wits about you.

A hurricane hits...**everything** and **everyone** in it's path...!!

:D

Even still, I'd so enjoy spending time on the beach-- I always loved those times as a child.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172602 Jul 20, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
I saw a video clip about a pipe loaded with marijuana that was left in a happy meal at a McDonald's somewhere. I can't remember where they were located....3 employees were apparently goofing off at work and put there pipe into a happy meal....These are the people that "AIE" is using to help support his rantings lol... Don't get me wrong...smoke all you want, but do it at home...not at work. Of course the employees at the McDonald's that "AIE" has stationed himself to borrow the wi-fi for a crusade against atheism, obviously don't pay too much attention to their jobs either.
Keep in mind, that A.I.E is a notorious liar.

As such,**nothing** he writes can be taken as factual-- at all.

The **real** story is that he likely had begged/borrowed/or stole some pocket-change from somewhere. Maybe begging at a traffic corner.

And he took his change to McDees' for a cuppa their horrid, burnt "coffee". So he could freeload on their WiFi on his stolen laptop.

Likely the only interaction he had with the store's employees, was when (after 3 hours of coffee refills) he was asked to leave...

... no doubt there was much shouting involved, him claiming to be "their best customer" and "I'm on a mission from god" and other nonsense.

As he was being escorted out the door by two burly cops? He likely shouted something about "see? you atheists are oppressing me!"

And he took the smirks on the faces of the McDee's employees as "agreement"....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172603 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever you think you have it all figured out, it is a good time to stop and think things over again.
Always good advice.

Always.

:D

We humans are apt to get too comfortable in our personal biases after all...

... must be that "inner truth" that Descartes wrote of.

<laughing>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172604 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You're correct that early Christians didn't refer to themselves as Christians. They referred to themselves as "The Way." But that's off the subject. Paul did write before the gospels. We know Corinthians and Romans were very early.
<quoted text>
In 1 Timothy, Paul clearly wrote that Jesus was a flesh and blood human being.
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”- 1 Timothy 2:5
In Philippians:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross -Philippians 2:5
In Romans:
“Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" -Romans 1:3
I have to ask, is your source for your claims the 2004 book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur?
Those are not written by Paul, but by someone writing AS Paul.

So no...

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172605 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice. Still does not work-- over each generation the "tradition" is EDITED to fit the biases of what is currently popular within the culture.
ALWAYS.
You are being naive here, if you think that doesn't happen.
In ancient high context cultures, it just didn't happen Bob. I'm sorry, but it just didn't. The traditions were not edited so far that the facts became tainted or of dubious quality. The very nature of oral tradition is that it's entirely self-correcting. I realize it's a very difficult concept to wrap our modern minds around. We don't have to do that. We're a modern, literate, technologically advanced culture. In some ways, that is actually a detriment to our understanding of ancient cultures. We look at them through the lenses of our own modern culture.

I respectfully say here, that you're making an assertion that is based more likely upon your doubts as to how an ancient culture could be so accurate with oral tradition than on facts.

For your consideration along with a link to the page it came from:

"Oral tradition is important in all societies, despite the reliance of some cultures on written records and accounts. These traditions account for the ways things are and often the way they should be, and assist people in educating the young and teaching important lessons about the past and about life. Because many oral traditions are highly structured and are told faithfully without alteration, they can be as reliable as other non-oral ways of recording and passing on experiences. While oral traditions can vary from teller to teller, variations are also open to contradiction in the same ways that written accounts are. In this way, the force of oral tradition can continue through generations although small details in the telling may change. Because of this, oral traditions which relate past events and have been passed down through time cannot be dismissed simply as “myth” in the sense that Western society polarizes the differences between “myth” and “science” or “fact.” Ideas about truth, rationality, logic, causality, and ways of knowing the world are contextualized within all societies: they are entirely valid within their cultural contexts and should be respected as such."

http://www.mpm.edu/wirp/icw-14.html

And this excellent article on oral tradition:

http://www.ku.edu.np/bodhi/vol3_no1/07.%20Dee...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172606 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I supposed to answer them when they're mostly condescending remarks and taunts? I'll go with your statement of why the gospels don't match up. I doubt you'll agree, but then my goal really isn't to get you to agree with me. So it won't be a disappointment at all when you don't. My victory will be complete when I answer you to the best of my ability according to my own understanding. It's the best I can do.
I treat the gospels as primitive historical documents. I apply the ten tests of historicity that virtually all historical scholars use when analyzing historical documents.
1) Do we possess copies of the original ancient document(s) that are REASONABLY close to the original?(They don't need to be verbatim copies)
No. Impossible to say, really. If we had the original?**THAT** would be the oldest we have.

What we have, in fact, are copies of copies many generations too late to be original.

And back in the day? Spelling was a fine art--**not** based on rules we enjoy today.

So with each copy? The author likely used his **own** spelling rules-- why not? And modified the document he was "copying".

As language evolved, these changes became even more removed from the original.

So what we **do** have likely bears little resemblance to what was originally written.

Which is why I fault Jesus-- if he was, IN FACT, a god?

He **so** should have written his words onto Unobtainum, Invulnerable Plates of Enormous Size, so as to prevent them from being hidden or destroyed by history.

That is the very **least** I expect from a Godly Standard.

At a bare minimum of behavior.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172607 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?
That depends: was the author delusional? Did the author suffer from egomania, in that he wanted to prop himself up in some way?

Perhaps the author had been seriously indoctrinated by someone else, and was not his own person.

Each of those examples, the author would have been intending to communicated "history", but all the while, he was writing fiction.

Human biases again...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172608 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
3) Was the author of the document in a position to witness the history he or she is reporting?
In the case of the bible?

No.

A resounding ... no.

Especially the New Testament books-- none of it's authors were direct witnesses of any of the events they describe.

This is pretty much well established by modern biblical scholarship.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172609 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
4) How much of the author's bias (and ALL historical authors have bias to some degree. History isn't 100% objective) is present in the document? And how do the biases affect the document?
In the case of all Theological Writ?

The biases would necessarily be quite high.

For one, to have sufficient ego to **write** in a culture where writing was rare? The author certainly had An Agenda to keep, in writing.

And so, in the case of the bible, specifically the NT, all of it's authors had An Agenda to keep.

And that would have tainted everything they wrote to a rather high degree.

They were not **interested** in history-- they wanted to pass on This Amazing Tale Of Amazement!

A Fish Story, if you will... and the one they "caught" was ... THIS big!

No, it was! Really! You just **had** to be there!

Human nature being what it is...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172610 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
5) Does the document include details that are typical of eye-witness testimony?
I'll counter this one with a technique YOU use: cultural bias.

Modern cultures have a bias for reality (thanks to the Scientific Method).

We also tend to favor objectivity.

Neither of these ideas even existed back in the time when the bible's authors were scratching on parchment.

The ancient peoples literally had no clue what "objective" even means.

Besides-- it's very easy to write fiction that has the appearance of "eye witness".

It's a classic method bullshitters use to draw the audience into the story.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172611 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
6) Does the document include embarrassing details that would counter any bias on the author's part? In other words, does the author admit to mistakes or shortcomings? This is usually a sign of truth in historical reporting.
So what if he did?

It's another classic bullshitter method to draw the audience into the story-- to make the audience **identify** with the author, to better reduce the skepticism of the target audience.

Once the audience has identified with the author? They are much more likely to believe the fantastic tale that is unfolding.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172612 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
7) Are the documents self-consistent or consistent with other documentation that report the same event?
In the case of the new testament?

A resounding **no**.

One of many reasons why the bible cannot possibly be Divine in any way-- too many inconsistencies.

Example: name the players who attended Jesus tomb, on Easter.

Can you do this?

No-- in the examples where this Wild Tale is told, the players are radically different.

Same event.

Different people attend.

That's a pretty glaring contradiction right there.

Second example:

The last words of Jesus, right before he dies.

What are they?

Answer: contradiction again!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172613 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
8) Are the events recorded intrinsically believable or unbelievable?
Need I even bother with this one?

:D

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 20 min Uncle Sam 2,384
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Thinking 23,201
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 4 hr Thinking 150
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 10 hr Thinking 3
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 19 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 20 hr Thinking 3
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Sat Yiago 148
More from around the web