Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164837 May 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Before I do that we need to be clear about your question... You are stating that you do not believe early Christians proselytized on the street to people?
This is your assertion?
<quoted text>
Nope. Just asking you to prove it.

You made the claim.

The onus is on you.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#164838 May 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Round and round we go. Where we stop, no one knows.....
I'll prove daffy duck, superman, and tinkerbell's pixie dust are all fictional just as soon as you support your assertion that "Jesus is fictional" with more than your opinion.
Go.
Not just my opinion. By definition fiction is something invented of a fabrication as opposed to fact. It's also defined as a belief or statement that is false, but that is oft held to be true because it is expedient to do so.

When the definition says "as opposed to fact' you have no facts on Jesus. You do realize that outside of the bible, a morally corrupt holy book, there are NO contemporary accounts of this Jesus dude. Believe what you will, but Jesus fits the definition of a fictional character.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164839 May 2, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
Not just my opinion. By definition fiction is something invented of a fabrication as opposed to fact. It's also defined as a belief or statement that is false, but that is oft held to be true because it is expedient to do so.


Literary fiction is defined as stories depicting imaginary characters are places.

It is your claim that Jesus is fictional.

Is that true or is that your opinion?
When the definition says "as opposed to fact' you have no facts on Jesus. You do realize that outside of the bible, a morally corrupt holy book, there are NO contemporary accounts of this Jesus dude. Believe what you will, but Jesus fits the definition of a fictional character.
You're a fool if you believe that. There were many people that wrote about Jesus, outside the bible.

Considering He was in the public eye for less than three years, the fact that many people have written about Him is amazing in itself. Also consider that he taught in a relatively obscure corner of the Roman Empire.....

Here's some of the people that wrote about Jesus. Look them up.

Thallus (52AD)

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)

Suetonius (69-140AD)

Tacitus (56-120AD)

Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)

Phlegon (80-140AD)

Lucian of Samosata:(115-200 A.D.)

Celsus (175AD)

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#164840 May 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
... There were many people that wrote about Jesus, outside the bible.....
More wrote about the Greek and Roman Gods. Thus, they must be true.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#164841 May 2, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you athiest prefer to be indoctrinated and guided by other skeptics who "believe" some body of knowledge is accurate (or as accurate as they can be).. You guys blindly accept a whole host of beliefs, opinions and deductions "from man kind" on the assumption that others have verified them.
You are being lead by man kind and have put your faith in the ideas and beliefs of other men/women like yourself..
In medicine, for example, a drug only has to show an effect of just a few statistical percentage points above that of a placebo to convince a board of doctors to classify it as a proven and effective drug. Those same doctors, however, would no doubt require a much higher burden of proof for an alternative remedy such as homeopathy (or, God forbid, spiritual healing… which would probably require a personal testimony from the Good Lord Himself, corroborated of course by His Entourage of Heavenly Hosts). The reason for this is that scientists are not cold logical computers, but human beings with feelings and emotions which they naturally bring into the scientific process. Human beings, when confronted by something that could undermine their status, worldview and job, are likely to put up vehement resistance (often, unconsciously). That resistance masquerades as skepticism, when in fact it hides an unpleasant emotional response… fear.
Um...yeah...its just terrible when people "blindly accept a whole host of beliefs"

Self awareness isn't really your strong suit, is it?

Since: Apr 13

Bulacan, Philippines

#164842 May 2, 2013
Atheist also requires faith to what they believe in. Whatever their beliefs are.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#164843 May 2, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to convince everyone they dont?
Only those too weak to navigate through life need crutches. Would that be you?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#164844 May 2, 2013
After the stunt Denice pulled I would have preferred Picard blast her! She keeps pushing for more and more screen time tossing out ideas that would slow or derail episodes. They made her Data's love interest for Pete's sake! They actually had plans for her. Of she hadn't made such a demanding @ss out of herself.

She could have had a role in the movies and looking how nemesis went down she could have been set up for an epic watch Data die and the emotions that would have set up or she could have went with him and chose to die in his arms making an epic sci fi death that fan boys would have raved about for years!

Instead? Temper tantrum... One shot by a tar monster... Brief appearance in the last episode... Career down the sh!tter.

Rick said Star Trek fans just wanted more action and less dialog and less artsy stuff. So let's rip off the wrath of Kahn at times scene for scene don't take any chances and certainly don't do anything intellectual! Last time they did that was Star Trek 4 and the plot involving whales. Oh the fans certainly wouldn't like that!

..... Oh wait yes the fcking did! Highest grossing Star Trek movie ever.

But we did get to see a young Picard in a picture who is bald... Even though on episodes young Picard had hair, nice hair that he said drove the ladies crazy... But in nemesis I guess they had to make young Picard be bald because..... The fans wouldn't know it was Picard if his younger self wasn't bald too?

Fck you Rick Berman! We could have had epic movies instead we get Picard doing more hand to hand combat than Worf the Klingon brother who said numerous times he lives for the thrill of battle and there is no finer way for a Klingon to die than in defending his ship! What the hell were thinking? Eat sht Rick Berman!
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>So true, man! So true!

Or how about when Picard outsmarted Armus? That was f_ckin fantastic! I guess if it was a Berman film instead of a Roddenberry episode, Picard would've blasted Armus instead of winning with intellect.

Good poor about Bereman.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#164845 May 2, 2013
Awaiting which of my facts you found to be in error.

Do elaborate. Until then my point stands.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>You have asserted your opinion.

You offered no facts to back up what you were saying.

None.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#164846 May 2, 2013
If you agree with my statement there is no cause to debate it.

Thanks
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Nope. Just asking you to prove it.

You made the claim.

The onus is on you.
bohart

Newport, TN

#164847 May 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Literary fiction is defined as stories depicting imaginary characters are places.
It is your claim that Jesus is fictional.
Is that true or is that your opinion?
<quoted text>
You're a fool if you believe that. There were many people that wrote about Jesus, outside the bible.
Considering He was in the public eye for less than three years, the fact that many people have written about Him is amazing in itself. Also consider that he taught in a relatively obscure corner of the Roman Empire.....
Here's some of the people that wrote about Jesus. Look them up.
Thallus (52AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata:(115-200 A.D.)
Celsus (175AD)
I guess all those people are creationist fundies and liars for Jesus,.....sarcasm intended.I'm sure Dude will be along shortly to say the same thing.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#164848 May 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Literary fiction is defined as stories depicting imaginary characters are places.
It is your claim that Jesus is fictional.
Is that true or is that your opinion?
<quoted text>
You're a fool if you believe that. There were many people that wrote about Jesus, outside the bible.
Considering He was in the public eye for less than three years, the fact that many people have written about Him is amazing in itself. Also consider that he taught in a relatively obscure corner of the Roman Empire.....
Here's some of the people that wrote about Jesus. Look them up.
Thallus (52AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata:(115-200 A.D.)
Celsus (175AD)
Believe me I have looked the all up, as i have had this conversation wit Theists MANY times. You do know what CONTEMPORARY means right? Everyone one of these people wrote about Jesus DECADES after his life. There are NO first hand accounts for Jesus. He said this and that about Jesus, but no one actually wrote any frost hand accounts. We all know how stories change over time. Little bits and pieces added for flavor, in describing someone or something overactive imaginations come into play. By the time we read the accounts, it seldom resembles the actual person or events.

Now you look them all up, and pay particular attention to the time in which there were written in relation to when this mythical Jesus was supposed to have existed. Further muddying the waters for you is the fact that at the time of Jesus, there were many preachers roaming the countryside some of them actually names Jesus. How can you be sure these people were writing about "Your" special myth?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#164849 May 2, 2013
None of those people were alive at the supposed time of Jesus and at best were repeating what Christians told them.

No secular historical proof for Jesus. None.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Literary fiction is defined as stories depicting imaginary characters are places.

It is your claim that Jesus is fictional.

Is that true or is that your opinion?

[QUOTE] When the definition says "as opposed to fact' you have no facts on Jesus. You do realize that outside of the bible, a morally corrupt holy book, there are NO contemporary accounts of this Jesus dude. Believe what you will, but Jesus fits the definition of a fictional character. "

You're a fool if you believe that. There were many people that wrote about Jesus, outside the bible.

Considering He was in the public eye for less than three years, the fact that many people have written about Him is amazing in itself. Also consider that he taught in a relatively obscure corner of the Roman Empire.....

Here's some of the people that wrote about Jesus. Look them up.

Thallus (52AD)

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)

Suetonius (69-140AD)

Tacitus (56-120AD)

Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)

Phlegon (80-140AD)

Lucian of Samosata:(115-200 A.D.)

Celsus (175AD)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164850 May 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
After the stunt Denice pulled I would have preferred Picard blast her! She keeps pushing for more and more screen time tossing out ideas that would slow or derail episodes. They made her Data's love interest for Pete's sake! They actually had plans for her. Of she hadn't made such a demanding @ss out of herself.
She could have had a role in the movies and looking how nemesis went down she could have been set up for an epic watch Data die and the emotions that would have set up or she could have went with him and chose to die in his arms making an epic sci fi death that fan boys would have raved about for years!
Instead? Temper tantrum... One shot by a tar monster... Brief appearance in the last episode... Career down the sh!tter.
Rick said Star Trek fans just wanted more action and less dialog and less artsy stuff. So let's rip off the wrath of Kahn at times scene for scene don't take any chances and certainly don't do anything intellectual! Last time they did that was Star Trek 4 and the plot involving whales. Oh the fans certainly wouldn't like that!
..... Oh wait yes the fcking did! Highest grossing Star Trek movie ever.
But we did get to see a young Picard in a picture who is bald... Even though on episodes young Picard had hair, nice hair that he said drove the ladies crazy... But in nemesis I guess they had to make young Picard be bald because..... The fans wouldn't know it was Picard if his younger self wasn't bald too?
Fck you Rick Berman! We could have had epic movies instead we get Picard doing more hand to hand combat than Worf the Klingon brother who said numerous times he lives for the thrill of battle and there is no finer way for a Klingon to die than in defending his ship! What the hell were thinking? Eat sht Rick Berman!
<quoted text>
Woah there, lil doggie. Down boy!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164851 May 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Awaiting which of my facts you found to be in error.
Do elaborate. Until then my point stands.
<quoted text>
I already did elaborate, and you kept dodging.

Unless you defend your opinion with fact, your point is moot.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#164852 May 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You have asserted your opinion.
You offered no facts to back up what you were saying.
None.
says the coward who shoots his creationist mouth off about a god he can't even prove.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#164853 May 2, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you athiest prefer to be indoctrinated and guided by other skeptics who "believe" some body of knowledge is accurate (or as accurate as they can be).. You guys blindly accept a whole host of beliefs, opinions and deductions "from man kind" on the assumption that others have verified them.
You are being lead by man kind and have put your faith in the ideas and beliefs of other men/women like yourself..
In medicine, for example, a drug only has to show an effect of just a few statistical percentage points above that of a placebo to convince a board of doctors to classify it as a proven and effective drug. Those same doctors, however, would no doubt require a much higher burden of proof for an alternative remedy such as homeopathy (or, God forbid, spiritual healing… which would probably require a personal testimony from the Good Lord Himself, corroborated of course by His Entourage of Heavenly Hosts). The reason for this is that scientists are not cold logical computers, but human beings with feelings and emotions which they naturally bring into the scientific process. Human beings, when confronted by something that could undermine their status, worldview and job, are likely to put up vehement resistance (often, unconsciously). That resistance masquerades as skepticism, when in fact it hides an unpleasant emotional response… fear.
another delusional theist lashing out at atheists because he can't prove his own god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164854 May 2, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Believe me I have looked the all up, as i have had this conversation wit Theists MANY times. You do know what CONTEMPORARY means right? Everyone one of these people wrote about Jesus DECADES after his life. There are NO first hand accounts for Jesus. He said this and that about Jesus, but no one actually wrote any frost hand accounts. We all know how stories change over time. Little bits and pieces added for flavor, in describing someone or something overactive imaginations come into play. By the time we read the accounts, it seldom resembles the actual person or events.
Now you look them all up, and pay particular attention to the time in which there were written in relation to when this mythical Jesus was supposed to have existed. Further muddying the waters for you is the fact that at the time of Jesus, there were many preachers roaming the countryside some of them actually names Jesus. How can you be sure these people were writing about "Your" special myth?
Jesus is one of the most attested individuals in ancient history, with more sources mentioning him in a shorter period of time than any other ancient figure who ever lived.

The only reason people question his existence is that they don't know enough about the historical method to understand the incredible mass of evidence that we have of his existence compared to figures like Julius Caesar, Constantine, Alexander the Great or Nero (each of which has less supporting evidence for their existence than Jesus, a peasant).

More documents from the first century mention Jesus than not. The fact that legitimate, peer-reviewed scholars accept his existence as fact should be enough to shut the atheists up - but apparently not.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164855 May 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
None of those people were alive at the supposed time of Jesus and at best were repeating what Christians told them.
No secular historical proof for Jesus. None.
<quoted text>
What evidence is there for Alexander? Julius Caesar? Coins, statues? But I'll bet you believe they were real people.

What about Socrates? We have no primary evidence for his existence, either. Do you believe Socrates was a real person?

We also only have secondary evidence for Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes.

Evidence for historical figures is extremely hard to come by.

You believe evolution is real because the scientific community mostly agrees on it.

But you don't believe Jesus was real even though the scholarly community overwhelmingly agrees with his existence.

Imagine that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164856 May 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
says the coward who shoots his creationist mouth off about a god he can't even prove.
You're a broken record.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
jawan bhanji ki chudai kaise karu (Apr '13) 25 min rani 93
sex (Jun '12) 35 min sam 3
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 43 min Buck Crick 830,417
Rajkot gay Topix 53 min karan 45
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Epiphany2 611,946
I wish God would get rid of all homosexuals in ... 1 hr UidiotRaceMAkeWor... 8
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Robert F 585,791
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 hr dollarsbill 3,959
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 6 hr Paul Porter1 99,270
More from around the web