Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255262 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.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173467 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
And i referenced it in the wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...
Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.....
I have to ask....are you NOW making a point of historicity, or historical record? They are two different things.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn ...states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
Notice the key word there?
"Almost"....."a lmost universal assent".
Which means not everyone agrees with it, and there is no proof of the baptism and crucificxion.
Just a bunch of opinions.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
I said you do not need contemporaries to establish historicity.
Actually, you originally said this:
"Jesus' life and execution were a matter of the historical record"
It seems as though you realize there is NO (zero zip nada) historical records of Jesus, and now you back peddle to "historicity". IMO
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be nice but historicity can be established without.
...but historical record can not.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173469 Aug 4, 2013
Let's make this easy:
Yes or no questions....
Are there any HISTORICAL RECORDS whatsoever of Jesus existence?

Has anyone that has even written or spoken of Jesus, ever meet, know, or even LIVE at the time of Jesus?

I'll help you out a little ~ the answer to BOTH questions have TWO letters, end with an 'O', and rhyme with go!
Thinking

Royston, UK

#173470 Aug 4, 2013
You're assuming anyone could be f**ked to read godbot cult and paste.
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting!
thanks.
will observe the "Dawkinistas" response

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173471 Aug 4, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>I have to ask....are you NOW making a point of historicity, or historical record? They are two different things.[QUOTE] quit being so anal.
[QUOTE] "Almost"....."a lmost universal assent".
From the Huffington Post article.

There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds -- thousands?-- of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#173472 Aug 4, 2013
"and"

How?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>The historicity of Jesus does not need and contemporary person. It would be nice but historicity can be established without.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173473 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Ehrman is an expert
How can someone be an expert on "Jesus"? No one who has written or spoken of him, ever met, knew, or even lived in the time of him.
So he's an expert on other people's opinion of history...not Jesus.
LOL
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> ...and reflects majority consensus of the experts in history and New Testament.
You do realize what he says about the new testament...right? Do you take his "expert" opinion on the New Testament as FACT or merely his opinion? Get my point?
Anywho....again, just because SOME people agree on his opinion, doesn't make it fact...and it certinaly doesn't make it historical record.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> He is also an agnostic who leans towards atheism. He is one of yours.
That doesn't make what he said fact. It's still just his opinion.
I know who he is :)
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Why should they?
For the very same reason they documented other historical facts. There are many many many...yet not ONE mentions Jesus.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Its backwater Palestine and Jesus is a dirt poor preacher and pacifist.
So? That point has no logic.
There are tons of historical records in that very same area at the very same time. NONE MENTION JESUS.
You don't think a dirt poor backwater person changing the masses and creating miracles was news worthy?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/d...
''It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.
Key word here..."scarcely". That means some where mentioned, but not a lot. Compare that to Jesus not being mentioned at all.
...and it is very likely that Josephus, and Pontius Pilate never existed either.
So, your point that they are not mentioned either is not a very strong point for jesus existence.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line.
That's one reason why I can never take the religion seriously.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased.
But in order to be a RELIABLE source, you'd have to have met, knew, or at least lived in the time of Jesus. NO ONE THEM DID!
The only records of Jesus are hearsay, and they are dismissed for that very reason. Not bias. It has nothing to do with bias. It is called critical thinking and logic.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You may not trust Rush Limbaugh's views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.''
Huh? That makes NO sense.
We know she exists because we can see her, hear her, etc...
He provides NO evidence she is real. The mere fact that she is REAL, proves she is real . UGH
Example: in 200 years, when people research Sandra Fluke...they'll find a birth cert, drivers license, news paper records, death record, etc..
See the difference between her existence and Jesus existence? ONE has records, the other doesn't.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
I do post these links for a reason and i know most do not read them because if they did they would know their points have already been addressed by experts in their own camp.
I like it when people use their own mind, and present their own thoughts and opinions.
MOSTLY, no expert has addressed ANYTHING other than giving their opinions.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173474 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
From the Huffington Post article.
There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds -- thousands?-- of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.
I don't get the point you're trying to make :)
what is your point?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173475 Aug 4, 2013
your argument is not with me but with experts in your own camp who reject Jesus myth theory and you embrace. More on Carrier.

''Among many details which illustrate Carrier’s total inability to understand Jesus’ culture is the story of Jesus’ betrayal, arrest and execution. He declares,

‘The authorities did not need Judas… to find or identify Jesus. Given what Mark has Jesus say in 14:49 (and what Jesus had been doing in Jerusalem only days before), the authorities knew what he looked like, and they could have seized him any time he appeared in public.’

It was fortunate for the Jewish people of the time that the Sagan, the chief priest in charge of security in the Temple, was wiser than Carrier. He will not have forgotten what happened in 4 BCE, when Herod Archelaus was faced with a serious protest in the Temple. Archelaus sent people to talk to the protesters, but when Passover came round and support for them increased, he sent in a cohort led by a tribune, so some 500 soldiers led by an officer: the crowd stoned them with such violence that most of the cohort were killed. Archelaus then sent in his army in force: the result was 3,000 dead Jews and the wreckage of a major festival (Jos. War II, 5-13: Ant XVII, 206-8). This is arguably what the chief priests were avoiding by not arresting Jesus in public in the Temple, yet Carrier shows not a glimmer of awareness of the event in the time of Archelaus ever happening..''

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173476 Aug 4, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>I don't get the point you're trying to make :)
what is your point?
It was a response to what you wrote here.
Notice the key word there?
"Almost"....."a lmost universal assent".
Which means not everyone agrees with it, and there is no proof of the baptism and crucificxion.
It was Ehrmans response from his Huffington Post article.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173477 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You don't need one to establish historicity. This is according to the experts. You must think you know more than them. You need to learn historical investigation.
All modern scholarship-- that isn't tainted by belief-- agree that there is **no** support for a historic Jesus.

Nor is there support for a historic Abraham, nor for a Moses either.

None of these people existed as real people-- none were historic figures.

Too bad for you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173478 Aug 4, 2013
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Any writings as old as the OT and NT scripture WOUKD normally be hailed
As great finds.
If only there were ANY written DURING his alleged life.
Murgatroyd wrote:
But because it's JESUS they are writing about they have to be fake.
Well... since you people claim this person is a GOD.

Then, yeah-- there must be EXTRA evidence to back your claims.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173479 Aug 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
We already know your apologetic excuse for the Jesus myth being stolen from Mithras. Let me save you the time... You will point out some slight variations in the two stories all the whole ignoring the vast similarities. Even early Christian apologetics confessed the two were similar and that what happened was... Satan knew Jesus was coming and how he was to come and so he centuries prior created and inspired these false sons of god messiah stories to confuse others later.
Even if you ignore the obvious forgeries of Josephus and Tacitus' work as honest apologetics will admit they were forged... But even if we forgive and forget the forgeries all you have is two guys decades later writing what Christians told them. That is no more proof than someone saying their grandfather saw a ghost and a news reporter printing that story as proof for ghosts.
Again the first person to write about Jesus was people you confessed never met him.... Then the gospels were dishonestly written with facts changed around for different audiences again by your admission, remember?:)
<quoted text>
Wow you're either deliberately obtuse or so severely close minded and misinformed that you're incapable of digging deeper for the facts.

Where do you get the idea that gospels were changed around?

Each author wrote according to his own perspective and to a specific audience. This doesn't mean they lied.

Luke wrote mainly to a gentile audience. Matthew was more concerned with reaching the Jewish audience. There's nothing even remotely dishonest about that. And I challenge you to tell us all how writing to a specific audience is dishonest. That should be an interesting reply. If you think you can.

Would you expect an Ethiopian financial historian to write a financial history of Hannibal, Missouri or tax history of Lexington, Kentucky if his focus was Ethiopian economics? No?

Then why shouldn't the gospel writers focus on a specific demographic?

Now the Mithras comparison can be completely dismantled by knowing both the superficial apparent similarities, and the historical facts regarding the timing of Mithraism and the idiotic conclusions of those who first raised the issue.

1) Mithras was alleged to have born out of a rock fully grown. This isn't even vaguely similar to a virgin birth. Show me a granite rock that's been pregnant with a human child and I'll suggest that your meds need to be changed.

2) The allegation that both Mithras and Jesus were born in caves isn't a dependent parallel. Many religions in the Greco-Roman world used caves because they were abundant and easily accessible. It was entirely normal in ancient Judea long before Christ, to use caves as shrines. Not only that, but as I stated earlier, many mangers were actually incorporated into the house of Jewish farmers. So there's still no parallel. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

3) The December 25th birthday parallel doesn't work because we don't know when exactly Jesus was born. Some Eastern orthodox churches celebrate it on January 6th even to this day. The likely explanation is that Constantine "confiscated" the pagan holiday of Sol Invictus and designated it as "Christmas." It doesn't appear in Christian tradition until 336 AD. About 300 years AFTER Christ.

4) There are NO written recorded historical documents for the death of Mithras from those who practiced this religion. So how can there be any comparison to the resurrection of Jesus? And Mithras didn't die for "sins." He allegedly killed a bull. Not a crucifixion

5) The majority of texts regarding Mithras don't appear until the mid second century. The earliest we know of Mithraism as practiced in ancient Rome comes from an account of a visit to the Emperor Nero
by the Armenian king Tiridates in 66AD in which the king tells Nero "I worship you as I do Mithras." Then we don't have anything more until a poem by Statius in 90AD. Paul's writings have been dated to 50AD or earlier. Shall I continue?:)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173481 Aug 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
All modern scholarship-- that isn't tainted by belief-- agree that there is **no** support for a historic Jesus.
Nor is there support for a historic Abraham, nor for a Moses either.
None of these people existed as real people-- none were historic figures.
Too bad for you.
Oh come on Bob that's bullshit and you know it dude. Richard Carrier IS tainted by belief. Belief there is no god. He's an admitted atheist. That's biased against. That's not neutral. Robert Price? He's not neutral either. No adult in the modern world comes to the god issue without bias in some form or another, no matter how well hidden in the dark corners of the mind. And if you're going to list your scholars, then we're going to list ours. And I'd invite you to look over some of their credentials before dismissing them. Especially the first entry. An expert on Mithraism.

Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History, Miami University of Ohio

Dr. Ronald Nash (deceased) Syracuse University

Manfred Clauss, Professor of Ancient History, Free University, Berlin, Germany

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#173482 Aug 4, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on Bob that's bullshit and you know it dude. Richard Carrier IS tainted by belief. Belief there is no god. He's an admitted atheist. That's biased against. That's not neutral. Robert Price? He's not neutral either. No adult in the modern world comes to the god issue without bias in some form or another, no matter how well hidden in the dark corners of the mind. And if you're going to list your scholars, then we're going to list ours. And I'd invite you to look over some of their credentials before dismissing them. Especially the first entry. An expert on Mithraism.
Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History, Miami University of Ohio
Dr. Ronald Nash (deceased) Syracuse University
Manfred Clauss, Professor of Ancient History, Free University, Berlin, Germany
Can I interview Prof. Nash?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173483 Aug 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can I interview Prof. Nash?
You can try but I don't think you'll succeed.
LCN Llin

United States

#173484 Aug 4, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try but I don't think you'll succeed.
Try interviewing "Bob" ;-)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173485 Aug 5, 2013
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Any writings as old as the OT and NT scripture WOUKD normally be hailed
As great finds.
But because it's JESUS they are writing about they have to be fake.
Talk about convoluted thinking . They originally called the people the followers of the Way .
I know!! I laugh so hard when I see the Jesus Mythicists stretching so hard to "wish him out of history!" LOL

Have you noticed that they want and expect "objective scholarship" on the subject but then go out of their way to reject every historical reference to Jesus? And what's so laughable is that they will accept what the same historians say about other historical events!

Examples:

1) They'll accept Josephus' account of the Romans sacking Jerusalem and his account of Herod the Great's harbor, which was before Josephus' time. But they will reject the Josephus TF and writings regarding John the Baptist and James on the grounds that the entries are entirely fraudulent or are not contemporary to Josephus' own life.

2) They'll accept the Tacitus accounts of the rise of Augustus Caesar to power even though this happened before Tacitus was born!

3) They will accept Suentonius accounts of the 12 Emperors and virtually every modern secular scholar of ancient Roman history accepts that what we know of Virgil, Horace, Terence, and Lucan can be traced to Suetonius. Yet the Jesus mythicist rejects his references to Jesus because they were before his own time. Well so was Julius Caesar but they accept Suetonius writing on that!

Do you see an "I wish Jesus didn't exist" motif going on here?

I don't mind the argument that they don't believe that Jesus was a deity. I can see where they disagree with that. But denying Jesus existence is a lazy argument that deserves the same level of contempt and derision that they level at young earth creationism.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173486 Aug 5, 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.[QUOTE]
Exactly. He was crucified by Pilate (likely, if he existed at all) and early Christians *believed* he was resurrected. If this is your *best* evidence, then there really isn't much to say other than it is completely insufficient to show what is claimed. many people of that time believed in death and resurrection stories about their deities. It was a superstitious time where a great deal of philosophical turmoil was underway. The beliefs in the old gods was found to lack the direct personal experience that many craved at that time of war and dictatorship. Christianity was one among many systems of beliefs based on a deity that dies and is resurrected, often with a last supper and some sort of baptism. That people of the time *believed* this is no surprise. The question is whether their beliefs were accurate and factual. The historical evidence cannot be enough to establish this question.

It should also be pointed out that other cultures have events where people die and are 'resurrected' after 3 days or so. In particular, the Haitians have a type of cucumber that can mimic death, especially in primitive situations and that is used culturally to make 'zombies'. In actuality, of course, the person never died, but they *believe* they did and so do others. The effect is that the person become subject to the will of the shaman.

Belief, especially in the context of a superstitious culture, is very far from being sufficient proof of a claim that someone actually did die and was resurrected. And even this claim is far from being enough to establish the existence of a deity and that the person was, in fact, that deity.

So your *best* evidence is appallingly weak.

[QUOTE]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.
I don't believe there is a *universal* concept of justice. I think it is something we, as humans, have to figure out over time and with, unfortunately, experience. Morality has to do with how people interact with each other and not how we related to some immaterial deity. It has to do with how we should structure society to bring out the best in everyone rather than how to pray better. And justice is another layer on top of that. At best, humans have imperfect information when deciding how laws are applied. But that is no reason to think there is anything else that balances the scales. It only means we have to learn how to do better.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#173487 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is not simply lack of knowledge of God. That would be classified as ignorance. When you don't have knowledge of something, one is ignorant regarding that subject. Atheism is willful rejection of belief in God. A baby has no cognitive knowledge of God but does have the inquisitive mind to explore the world he or she is a part of. So the baby isn't an atheist. A baby is an open minded exploring human being. To be able to say "I'm an atheist" one has to know what atheism is, and one has to be aware that this is a conscious choice.
If we ask a person "Do you believe in God?" the default answer of ignorance would be "What is God?" If I ask you, you're going to say that you don't believe in any god. It's not a position of ignorance you hold. It's one of conscious choice to willfully reject the existence of any God.
You are wrong and I am well aware of the definition(s) of atheism. The word has complex meanings that you as a theist are most probably unable (or unwilling) to comprehend. And the limited scope you put forward in regard to atheism only backs this up

Here are a couple of definitions of the word

one who believes that no gods exist.(as you believe)
or
one who lacks the belief in gods (such as a new born child or someone ignorant of gods)

Both are valid definitions of atheism no matter how much you try and deny facts.

Example, assume that you lived in an isolated land that had never had any contact with christianity. Would the inhabitants of that land believe in your god? No… A more difficult question to answer would be - would the inhabitants of that land believe in any gods? In times past, good christians have considered and named such people who believe in their own gods as atheist and sent missionaries to “convert”(indoctrinate) them.

I am also aware that a new born child is not born with any belief in a god (any god and there are 3700+ to believe in), that belief (it is belief, not knowledge) is indoctrinated, it is learned behaviour.

However in my case the term atheism does not go far enough, I am aware that some people belief in gods (as a child I believed this myself) however I know for fact that gods as defined in KJV revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe. I know this with all the passion that you believe a god exists, however I can justify my belief with the total lack of evidence to the contrary and with some of the most powerful mathematics ever devised.

No answer of ignorance there,“What god?” Is a perfectly valid answer given that there is no evidence that gods exist. Other than the fact that history has provided us with over 3700 gods for people to believe in as they will, there is also the option not to believe any of them. It’s up to the individual to decide, it is not up to people like you to force their will. If I were asked did I believe in god I would first say, show me this god and I will consider. In over 12000 years of religious history (4000 years in the case of the abrahamic god) no one has been able to show that gods exist. I consider my position pretty strong. However you are welcome to believe in the mythology of escaped slaves, goad herders, anarchists and terrorists if that’s what makes you go all pink and fuzzy inside. But please don’t assume a lack of such belief is down to ignorance.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173488 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I don't mind the argument that they don't believe that Jesus was a deity.
So you are not strictly a Christian then, but more akin to a Deist?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Chimney1 31,153
News Your atheism isn&#x27;t going to keep your... (Apr '14) 1 hr true story 16
News Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news - a t... 2 hr Eagle 12 2
There are no such things as gods or fairies 2 hr Eagle 12 31
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Eagle 12 13,222
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 4 hr Patrick 4,347
Majority of Scots now have no religion 8 hr Amused 7
More from around the web