Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
165,261 - 165,280 of 226,387 Comments Last updated 34 min ago

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172146 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know about the controversy in deciding whether Yeshua was human or divine. I do know that Constantine brought the two opposing sides to the table to decide, but I do not believe that he tried to directly influence the Council of Nicea. The evidence I've seen doesn't support that theory to the extent that sensationalist authors such as Dan Brown would have us believe.
I haven't read Dan Brown-- so I cannot say one way or another.

But you are wrong on at least one point: the group had decided to put Revelations into the apochraphia[sp] group-- but Constantine required an exclusivity clause for his newly-minted religion, so he could justify forcing by violence people to join his new club.

It's on record that Constantine overrode the will of the group in that regard.

So I have no doubts at all, that he also used his force of personality, to override other decisions too.

It does appear Constantine suffered from a massive dose of hubris, after all.

And that rather puts a negative spin on the whole project.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172147 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you can kiss some of this (_*_)
Are you a cyclops?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172148 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Now as for the cursing of the fig tree, a literal reading would certainly lead us to believe that Jesus was pissed off and wished death on an out-of-season tree. When considered in that framework of thought, I understand how anyone would reach that conclusion. I came to the same conclusion myself. "Why was kind, gentle Jesus berating a bush?" Good question huh?
But-
Upon re-reading the entire chapter, and understanding a bit more of the context, I think we can understand it in a new way that actually makes sense.
A Palestinian fig tree will usually bear fruit before the leaves appear. This is unique to Palestine. When Jesus saw the tree from a distance, He noticed the leaves but not the fruit. Now another argument comes into play here. "If Jesus is God, and God is omniscient, then why didn't He know there was no fruit on it?" The answer to that is that Jesus didn't always choose to use His powers. They weren't to be misused, but to teach instead.
But now onto the object lesson that Jesus was teaching.
When Jesus got closer to the tree, He saw that even though it had leaves, it wasn't bearing any fruit. It was useless. It was decaying from disease. In ancient times, such a tree would be cut down and used for wood. Jesus was demonstrating to the disciples that Israel's political and national identity had been corrupted, and was no longer producing any useful purpose as a nation. Jesus cursed the fig tree as a warning. Not in spiteful anger. This was meant to show the disciples that the corruption of Israel was taking place from the roots up, just as the disease within the fig tree. Because of the national corruption, the nation of Israel was blind to it's own faults, and would be destroyed by Rome. This did happen in 66-70AD. The tree would be dead from the roots. The roots of Israel were diseased by the political/religious corruption of the ruling class. This is the modern understanding of this passage in it's deeper cultural and historical context.
I think you are making much more of what is essentially a bad bit of editing, here.

But that's okay-- people have been trying to read more into what it is for centuries.

And I've never heard your excuse about this variety of fig outside of religious apologists.

Never from, say, a botanist (for example).

So it rather makes me think it is a crap excuse-- that is, not really valid.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172149 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>no! I said you was a turd
Yes I was, but I've changed myself, thanks for noticing

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172150 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think the store owner showed condescension? I never said he did. You're assuming he did. Why are you assuming that?
Yes the store owner was closing up as the snooty customer returned, not BECAUSE the snooty customer returned. The store owner was closing because it was closing time. Are you speculating on emotional and volitional grounds?
The store owner **knew** approximately how long it would take a person unfamiliar with his fabricated route, to complete.

He was a local, after all.

So he **deliberately** planed on either already being closed, or if he saw the out-of-town vehicle returning, closing early-- to deliberately deprive the would-be customer of anything he might need.

That is arrogance beyond measure.

All because of his **pride**.

How **dare** a snooty smartazz make fun of his tiny, limited shop like that?

He would show **him**...

.. and he did: he showed the out-of-towner **exactly** the sort of person the shop owner was:

A smartazz himself, full of pride, and arrogant too.

Nobody won that contest.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172151 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes your stories have a deeper meaning than what you see in them. In other words your story has been humbled, and you don't even realize it.
Indeed. This is often the case.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172152 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
As it turns out? I **am** in the business of selling things to people; I'm self employed.
The money from rude customers spends just as nicely as the money from the nicey-nice ones.
Sometimes, the rude ones are more honest.
But in the end? If a potential customer gets out of hand? I always have the option to tell them to have a nice day, walk away, and then ignore their telephone calls from henceforth.
I seldom have to do that; rudeness, I just ignore. Since I'm fixing AC's, many times their rudeness is due to being nearly overwhelmed by the heat, and I don't take it personally--even if it is said in a personal way.
But I would **never** ever deliberately cause someone harm or waste their time. That serves no one, and helps no cause.
I'd simply walk away, not looking back.
That is the best "revenge" anyhow-- living well, while a rude person will continue to be rude--and will most likely get rudeness back in return.
Evil always begats more evil-- never kindness.
Okay, you have your view, and I have mine.

I interpreted it differently when I heard it.

I tend to look for the good within what seems on the surface to be negative.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172153 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>cry-baby! whay a P**sy
Respect runs deep in this one.
Did you learn your attitude in the church you go to?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172154 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
First off even if the customer was snooty, sense when does two wrongs make a right?
Secondly because he asked for a story with more choices with a attitute, the store own took offense and sent him on a wild goose chase. Not nice.
I would of either told where he could find one, or that I did know of one. I wouldn't of sent him off to learn a lesson for wanting more than what I had, even if he had a attitude.
Yes-- I agree completely. Two evils do not add up to a "good".

Both people were arrogant in the story.

Both offered evil instead of good.

But the customer's evil was a small thing-- some rudeness. He was in the inferior position, having a need.

The store owner offered evil in return--instead of overlooking that small evil, and possibly making a sale. At a nice, profit-- he **was** in the superior position here, having the goods for sale.

He could have been unctuously polite, and double-charged the smartazz-- why not? He had a monopoly on small stores in that area.

He could have done it with a winning smile, knowing full well the nice profit he was making off of a fool.

Now **that** would have been a funny story.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172155 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry I don't see the store own doing anything other than being a smart butt. I say treat people the way you want to be treated.
I agree completely.

I am, rarely, treated rudely. I always simply ask them to have a nice day, and walk away-- certain I do not need to put up with that, but equally certain they need my services more than I need their rudeness.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172156 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you have your view, and I have mine.
I interpreted it differently when I heard it.
I tend to look for the good within what seems on the surface to be negative.
There can be no possible **good** from the extremely rude behavior on the part of the store owner.

None.

Did the former-and-now-never-a customer learn anything? Not really-- apart from **never** shopping at that rude store again.

Did the store owner learn anything? No again-- he is **literally** poorer for being a smartazz.

And who knows how many potential customers he lost, by behaving so rudely?

There is **nothing** good in that story. Nothing.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172157 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. This is often the case.
I think it has something to do with the christian mind set, it can only be what you've been told it is, and nothing can change thier minds.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172158 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you have your view, and I have mine.
I interpreted it differently when I heard it.
I tend to look for the good within what seems on the surface to be negative.
So the good you see in your story is the store owner teaching the customer a lesson by acting the same way?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172159 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't read Dan Brown-- so I cannot say one way or another.
But you are wrong on at least one point: the group had decided to put Revelations into the apochraphia[sp] group-- but Constantine required an exclusivity clause for his newly-minted religion, so he could justify forcing by violence people to join his new club.
It's on record that Constantine overrode the will of the group in that regard.
So I have no doubts at all, that he also used his force of personality, to override other decisions too.
It does appear Constantine suffered from a massive dose of hubris, after all.
And that rather puts a negative spin on the whole project.
The inclusion of Revelations as I understand it was hotly contested. Many didn't want it included. But the Council of Nicea wasn't about canonizing the NT, but about unifying the Church as a whole.

The Church historian Eusebius was believed to be on friendly terms with Constantine, so we can't be sure how much bias there was in his accounts. This is an honest and fair thing to say. But in light of that, there is no reason to believe that Eusebius was dishonest either. Unless there are very good reasons to dismiss Eusebius' account of what happened at Nicea, then it is generally conceded that his account is accurate.

As I understand it, Constantine did listen at the council, and did offer ideas and suggestions, but not as the sole authority. He basically appointed himself as judge or speaker of the house, for the purpose of keeping order during the council. His main concern was order and peace rather than theological doctrine. This he largely left to the bishops.

We can get into a long discussion about Constantine if you wish.

Oh by the way-

With regard to the story of the store keeper and snooty customer, I think I understand the difference in our opinions. I interpreted it as a story of moral principle,(like one of Aesop's Fables) while you understood it in the context of business ethics. From your viewpoint, within that context, you would be correct. I think this is one of the differences that keep atheists and theists from understanding each other. Our perspectives are different, and so are our concerns.

Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172160 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes-- I agree completely. Two evils do not add up to a "good".
Both people were arrogant in the story.
Both offered evil instead of good.
But the customer's evil was a small thing-- some rudeness. He was in the inferior position, having a need.
The store owner offered evil in return--instead of overlooking that small evil, and possibly making a sale. At a nice, profit-- he **was** in the superior position here, having the goods for sale.
He could have been unctuously polite, and double-charged the smartazz-- why not? He had a monopoly on small stores in that area.
He could have done it with a winning smile, knowing full well the nice profit he was making off of a fool.
Now **that** would have been a funny story.
:D
:O) I always have a smile for my customers, rude or not.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172161 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
So the good you see in your story is the store owner teaching the customer a lesson by acting the same way?
Yeah... I don't get that either.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172162 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The inclusion of Revelations as I understand it was hotly contested. Many didn't want it included. But the Council of Nicea wasn't about canonizing the NT, but about unifying the Church as a whole.
The Church historian Eusebius was believed to be on friendly terms with Constantine, so we can't be sure how much bias there was in his accounts. This is an honest and fair thing to say. But in light of that, there is no reason to believe that Eusebius was dishonest either. Unless there are very good reasons to dismiss Eusebius' account of what happened at Nicea, then it is generally conceded that his account is accurate.
As I understand it, Constantine did listen at the council, and did offer ideas and suggestions, but not as the sole authority. He basically appointed himself as judge or speaker of the house, for the purpose of keeping order during the council. His main concern was order and peace rather than theological doctrine. This he largely left to the bishops.
We can get into a long discussion about Constantine if you wish.
Yes, I remember that it was hotly contested. I also remember that much of the NT was nearly as equally in discussion.

Which, from where I sit, does not speak well for the message it's trying to say.

I expect a message from god, to be.. well, godly.

By that, I mean that the message ought to be so amazingly and obviously divine, that it needs neither an introduction nor an explanation.

Nothing in the bible even comes close.

But that's for another time, I suppose.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172163 Jul 15, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I was, but I've changed myself, thanks for noticing
why do atheist $#&T in their pants?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172164 Jul 15, 2013
I deleted your rambling. Cower away because when asked a question you cower away.

I came to my conclusion on the NT based on secular historical findings. When you study the history of the region and time period you see several examples of former messiah son of god, die and raise from the dead 3 days later.

Your titanic example has no merit in this case because they did not wait decades if not over a century to document the tragedy, also we still have eye witnesses to the event yes?

We have documentation from the years Jesus was said to walk the earth in his area about fishing disputes and pottery techniques. Historical documentation of a Roman soldier getting a promotion for Pete's sake... But this guy who rises from the grave bringing hundreds of formerly dead Jewish prophets with him doesn't get noticed?

Hmmmm he must have done it on a busy day at the fish market or during a pottery sale eh?

And yes you have no answer for this, I expect you will cower away or try to change the subject.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Cower away?

Would you please clarify your statement?
<quoted text>
Okay, how did you come to that conclusion?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172165 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
With regard to the story of the store keeper and snooty customer, I think I understand the difference in our opinions. I interpreted it as a story of moral principle,(like one of Aesop's Fables) while you understood it in the context of business ethics. From your viewpoint, within that context, you would be correct. I think this is one of the differences that keep atheists and theists from understanding each other. Our perspectives are different, and so are our concerns.
Even as a parable, the story fails. The store owner returned rudeness with even worse rudeness.

At worst, the smartazz would-be customer insulted the store owner and/or his store. Big deal. As a public servant, he ought to be quite used to such boorish behavior by now.

But what he did in return? He caused deliberate harm! He wasted the entire afternoon of the other man, and possibly got him dangerously lost-- could have happened.

All because of his pride.

Two rude behaviors do not a lesson teach.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Last Word + 2 2 min Tender Mercies 535
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 min Black Thunder 42 599,995
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Hukt on Fonix 733,181
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 10 min DeAngelo of Memphis 2,434
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min Liam 539,142
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 11 min WasteWater 94,687
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 12 min WasteWater 258,065
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 33 min Jim Justice 118,006
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••