Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[blacklagoon]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
But you said the laws of logic were man made.
If that was true then the law of non-contradiction would not have been in place before mankind existed.
Therefore a rock could both exist and not exist in the same place at that same time in the same sense.
According to your worldview.
And you think your worldview is logical?

is it your contention that before mankind existed a rock could exist and not exist at the same time?

Since you appear to deal in absolutes, do you ABSOLUTELY know that a rock can exists and not exists at the same time?

Remove yourself from your self-made psudo-intellecte for one moment and tell me if logically a rock can exist and cannot exist at the same time.

[mtimber]

blacklagoon wrote:

<quoted text>You really have a problem with your attention span don't you. Either that or you are completely unable to comprehend the written word. I explained this to you back on post #153260 the difference between accepting science and accepting myths.
It would appear that you are totally against any kind of education, correct? We should throw all science books away, maybe we should simply burn all books on science sine we would be reading only what they "assumed" and would be blindly following. Of course that would include all books on Geology, Astronomy, Biology, astrophysics, physics, microbiology, all of the medical sciences, oceanography, mathematics, evolutionary biology, entomology, ect. I'm sure i'm missing a great number of the sciences. What would you plan then be for our species to advance out understanding of the world around us, or don't you think that is important?
Once again it is evident that you oppose anything that deals with education. You see ignorance as a worthy trait. Your post seem to support your opinion on education and remaining willfully ignorant. Ever think of running for the school board??? Just wondering!!!

I will shorten your argument for you, so that hopefully you can see your absurd first premise.

Only atheists can do science.
Christians aren't atheists.
So Christians can't do science.

[Eagle12]

Givemeliberty wrote:

I can do better.
Tacitus was born decades after the supposed death of Jesus anything he wrote about him would be he said she said at best.
He was an imperial and would never refer to anyone as Christ in an official document. He never says Jesus. Ever. And we had dozens of Christ figures at the time if not hundreds. But again he would never write that.
Pilate was not a prefect and Tacitus would have known this.
The earliest reference of this Christ passage in Tacitus work appears in the 15th century earlier versions do not have this in it.
Even Christian historians including several priests and reverends have moved away from the Tacitus forgery.
<quoted text>

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

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".] The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60:(i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time,(ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.

The Annals passage (15.44), which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis, follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD.

The key part of the passage reads as follows:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be genuine and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.

[mtimber]

blacklagoon wrote:

<quoted text>is it your contention that before mankind existed a rock could exist and not exist at the same time?
Since you appear to deal in absolutes, do you ABSOLUTELY know that a rock can exists and not exists at the same time?
Remove yourself from your self-made psudo-intellecte for one moment and tell me if logically a rock can exist and cannot exist at the same time.

No.

A rock cannot exist and not exist in the same place, the same time and in the same sense.

Because that would contradict the universal logical law of non-contradiction.

But you now have a problem.

Because you have claimed that man created the laws of logic.

So before mankind existed a rock could exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense.

This is what your atheism reduces you to.

Absurdity.

Isn't it about time you abandoned the illogical?

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Why then, do you keeping making absolute moral judgements about Christian Morality, it absolute morality does not exist?
Please try to concentrate and understand the critique you are being subjected to...

I don't.

Christians apparently have no morality if the Bible is any measure.

[Aerobatty]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>No.

A rock cannot exist and not exist in the same place, the same time and in the same sense.

Because that would contradict the universal logical law of non-contradiction.

But you now have a problem.

Because you have claimed that man created the laws of logic.

So before mankind existed a rock could exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense.

This is what your atheism reduces you to.

Absurdity.

Isn't it about time you abandoned the illogical?

Yes.

It's about time we abandoned you.

[Aerobatty]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind.

Yeah.

That would exist without Christianity.

Sure.

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind.

So, if that is an "absolute moral" statement, then you are saying all Buddhists, Hindus, and all other religions are immoral. Is that really the statement you want to make?

[TheBlackSheep]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don’t mean to rain on your parade Doctor but the entire planet of Mars has been photographed with advance state of the art hi def cameras. Not the cameras from the 1960’s but update equipment. Pictures that can be enlarged thousands of times. They have been able to produce 3-D images of the surface of Mars.
You can keep holding out if you like but it don’t look good on finding any signs of life.

So, you think that there should be bones lying on the surface of Mars? LOL! Idiot!

[Aerobatty]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>Agreed. These atheists are much like radical Islam in their tactics to "defeat" Christianity.

The funny thing is how much time they spend on God.(the same God they say they KNOW is fake...)

Religion=/=god

Religion exists.

Dolt.

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
No, your premise was unsound.
As I explained.
Keep beating that donkey if you want, but your premise is still unsound.

What "premise". Doe the cure as stated in the Bible work. There is no "premise", just a very straight forward yes or no question.

[TheBlackSheep]

Eagle12 wrote:

Please provide the names of the slaves Jesus owned and the scripture reference where he said he was ok with slavery.

Acadia wrote:

<quoted text>
He's a weak atheist coward, he won't be able to do it.

jesus is god, right?

Maybe you should spend more time reading the bible?

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Here you go again.
Defining "Good".
Whilst denying that "Good" can be defined...
You are contradicting yourself.

Still dancing and refusing to answer.

Based on your criteria for good morals are the commandments from Jehovah expressed in Exodus 21:2-6 and 20-21 good moral commandments?

[TheBlackSheep]

This is your god's way of curing leprosy.
Leviticus 14:49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
50 And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:
51 And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:
52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:
53 But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
An ignorance of prophetic symbology is the issue you have here.:-)

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
I have already dealt with this in one sense.
But your premise is flawed anyway.
Your assumption that the instructions given in the Bible regarding leprosy is the only way to cure leprosy, is a false one.
The Bible does not state the strawman you are presenting.

Make up your mind! Is it symbolic or an actual cure? LOL!

[TheBlackSheep]

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare,'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you still trying to churn out this rubbish?
Seriously.
Account for morality and then you can judge the biblical morality.
Upon what basis is any of the above immoral in an atheistic worldview?

You nailed that one! It is rubbish.

[TheBlackSheep]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Still dancing and refusing to answer.
Based on your criteria for good morals are the commandments from Jehovah expressed in Exodus 21:2-6 and 20-21 good moral commandments?

He/she is a good dancer!

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

Hedonist, seriously now.
Concentrate for a moment.
You state there is no absolute moral standard of "good".
Then why do you keep appealing to an absolute moral standard of "good"?

The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include stoning people for adultery, slavery, female subservience, death for breaking the Sabbath … these are all things which are religiously-based absolute moralities.

I don’t want any thing to do with your concept of absolute morality.

I want a morality that is thought out through a consensus of reasoning, sober discussion, argument, legal theory, and ethics philosophy.

[Aerobatty]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>That doesn't explain why there's an apparent contradiction...

Do you always & only rely on atheist propaganda websites for your "education" in this regard?

It's in your freaking bible, dipshit.

You know.

That big thick book collecting dust in your house that you've never read?

[Aerobatty]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>Matthew 1:16

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Is Jesus descended from David or not?

[Aerobatty]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>Obvious?!?

Yes, it's obvious that atheists spend a whole lot of time on a religion and a God they claim to not believe in.

What's wrong? Worried about your afterlife? You wanna be able to tell God that you always hoped He was real?

You're now using some of the most idiotic fundy arguments.

Your desperation is showing.