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
165,721 - 165,740 of 224,104 Comments Last updated 18 min ago

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172624
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
No. Impossible to say, really. If we had the original?**THAT** would be the oldest we have.
We have over 5,700 copies of the New Testament or portions of the New Testament dating back to the early 2nd century. Experts have already counted the quotations of the early church fathers and have found that there are close to one million quotations from the New Testament from the first 3 centuries of Christianity. This means that even if we didn't have a written New Testament, we could virtually reconstruct it from the quotations of the early church fathers. Last year, a fragment of Mark was found that quite possibly dates to the late first century. All of these copies can be checked against other copies for accuracy. In addition, we have 60 copies of the entire Bible written in Greek or Latin dating back to the 2nd century. The next book with anywhere near that many copies is Homer's Iliad and Odyssey with 2,400 copies that all date more than 600 years after Homer lived. That's a huge difference in both number of manuscripts and chronological proximity. That's how we can use test #1 to verify the reliability.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
And back in the day? Spelling was a fine art--**not** based on rules we enjoy today.
Again, not so. Scribes were tightly supervised. If there were any error, the error was noted and corrected, and then double checked and verified by another. Polymath would be proud of the control measures that were so painstakingly thorough that mistakes were the exception rather than the rule. Also, we're talking about another language, with different rules for writing and speaking it. Greek is an inflected language which is totally different from modern language. Comparing these two languages is useless for purposes of discussing this topic.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
So what we **do** have likely bears little resemblance to what was originally written.
That's why having so many copies is so important. It allows us to make side-by-side comparisons. There are very very few differences. Not enough to change the meaning or central orthodox beliefs at all.

And just a FYI item of interest:

The OT is even more reliable, because it was mathematically confirmed. Rabbis in charge of copying actually counted the number of letters, words, passages, and books of the Hebrew bible to maintain quality and reliability in the copying process. The Torah contains 5,485 verses, 97,856 words, and 400,945 letters. The exact center of the Hebrew Bible (our OT) is at Leviticus 8:8, and in the margin of every Hebrew Bible, at Leviticus 8:8, there's a notation by the scribe. This is another quality control measure to ensure that it hasn't been changed. How's that for reliability?:)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172625
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
That depends: was the author delusional? Did the author suffer from egomania, in that he wanted to prop himself up in some way?
Self-promotion was not a motive in light of the fact that the Pharisees were persecuting the new movement. Peter was humbled. Both Acts and Mark demonstrate this in the accounts. Peter was preaching that Jesus was the son of God and had been resurrected from the dead. That's not a very good way to prop oneself up in the face of fierce, dogmatic Judaic opposition, especially when Rome was holding the puppet strings of the High Priest.

Picture yourself in Peter's sandals.

"Yes you killed our leader for treason but guess what? He's still alive! Epic failure Pharisees! Neener neener!"

By preaching that message, Peter and the apostles were setting themselves up for intense opposition.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Each of those examples, the author would have been intending to communicated "history", but all the while, he was writing fiction.
Human biases again...
Well that's true of modern writing, but that style of detail wasn't used in ancient fictitious writing. So that argument really doesn't go far.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172626
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
There is hearsay in repeating things that acrually happened in history, However there's the actual history of things - like things of Caesar wrote, things the pharaohs wrote, During their lifetime you don't have any history for your savior Outside of your holy guidebook. He didn't manage to write a single word down. For a God gift to mankind don't you find that rather odd?
Why would your creator deliberately obfuscate his message?
Try not to fall back on the mysterious ways excuse!
And in future responses to me I think you start off with this...
"Once upon a time in a land far far away"
I hear ya. The "mysterious ways" argument is nothing but a canned "run-to-the-hills-from-th e-godless-heathens!" reply to get you off their backs. I always hated that.

So I'll go into why I believe Jesus never wrote anything down.

1) He was a Jewish rabbi in a predominantly oral culture.
2) He taught by oral tradition common for that time and place on Earth.
3) If Matthew was a tax collector, then in all likelihood he knew how to write and was taking notes. Now I admit that this is speculation. But, the whole point is, if Jesus really is the Son of God, then who are we (any human) to assert that He should have written anything? His influence as a teacher and as the Son of God would be enough of an unforgettable influence that people would be talking and writing about Him for a very, very ,very long time, which brings us to the present conversation. We are talking about Him right?:)
Imhotep

Ocala, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172627
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear ya. The "mysterious ways" argument is nothing but a canned "run-to-the-hills-from-th e-godless-heathens!" reply to get you off their backs. I always hated that.
So I'll go into why I believe Jesus never wrote anything down.
1) He was a Jewish rabbi in a predominantly oral culture.
2) He taught by oral tradition common for that time and place on Earth.
3) If Matthew was a tax collector, then in all likelihood he knew how to write and was taking notes. Now I admit that this is speculation. But, the whole point is, if Jesus really is the Son of God, then who are we (any human) to assert that He should have written anything? His influence as a teacher and as the Son of God would be enough of an unforgettable influence that people would be talking and writing about Him for a very, very ,very long time, which brings us to the present conversation. We are talking about Him right?:)
Right!

I contend "he" is myth, as are all gods.

Think about it.. in order to buy into this... you have to abandon reality. Search the library's, query any historical documents you can find.
What you won't find - is what's disturbing.
Outside of the Bible you won't be able to find Jesus. Nor you be able to find Moses.

If anything, the lack of belief in a supernatural overlord leaves one to respect the importance of all of mankind peacefully coexisting, because unlike in religious doctrine, the penalties one may face for immoral acts are often levied in the material world, during the life of the perpetrator.

Richard Dawkins
"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."

Consider the much used Ad Infinitum Atheist Quote

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Anon

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172628
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear ya. The "mysterious ways" argument is nothing but a canned "run-to-the-hills-from-th e-godless-heathens!" reply to get you off their backs. I always hated that.
So I'll go into why I believe Jesus never wrote anything down.
1) He was a Jewish rabbi in a predominantly oral culture.
2) He taught by oral tradition common for that time and place on Earth.
3) If Matthew was a tax collector, then in all likelihood he knew how to write and was taking notes. Now I admit that this is speculation. But, the whole point is, if Jesus really is the Son of God, then who are we (any human) to assert that He should have written anything? His influence as a teacher and as the Son of God would be enough of an unforgettable influence that people would be talking and writing about Him for a very, very ,very long time, which brings us to the present conversation. We are talking about Him right?:)
For all your words on oral tradition and eye witnesses, you should be able to answer one simple question:-

Who shot JFK?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172629
Jul 20, 2013
 
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Right!
I contend "he" is myth, as are all gods.
Think about it.. in order to buy into this... you have to abandon reality. Search the library's, query any historical documents you can find.
What you won't find - is what's disturbing.
Outside of the Bible you won't be able to find Jesus. Nor you be able to find Moses.
If anything, the lack of belief in a supernatural overlord leaves one to respect the importance of all of mankind peacefully coexisting, because unlike in religious doctrine, the penalties one may face for immoral acts are often levied in the material world, during the life of the perpetrator.
Richard Dawkins
"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."
Consider the much used Ad Infinitum Atheist Quote
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Anon
Yep.

Why is there a need for a god.

If at this moment in time no one on Earth believed in 'god' would religion of any form start, if so why and where would start?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172630
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
I disagree. Look at the passage again.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science IN SPITE OF [emphases are in the original article] the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... IN SPITE OF the tolerance the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our A PRIORI adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 4, 1997.
Notice how he writes "IN SPITE OF?" This shows that secularist science is willing to dismiss supernatural phenomena IN SPITE OF evidence or logical conclusions to the contrary.
No, that is NOT how he used the phrase. He said we accept the conclusions of science *in spite of* their apparent absurdity. The *reason* we do so is because the claims of science are testable and we have people actively trying to show any particular theory wrong. Those theories that survive are accepted even if they appear absurd on their face.

For example, special relativity has some very counter-intuitive conclusions. Any common person would probably reject them at first sight simply because they are so counter to our day-to-day lives. Quantum mechanics is even more so. But, in spite of this absurdity, they have passed every test, even those designed by people who disbelieved and were attempting to show them wrong.

Science has an absolute commitment to only allowing ideas that are testable, at least in theory and accepting them only when tested in situations where a competing theory predicts something else. This commitment to testability is, to Lewontin, a commitment to materialism. For him, the 'Divine Foot' is the allowance for faith to determine scientific truth. And no, that is not allowed.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172631
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear ya. The "mysterious ways" argument is nothing but a canned "run-to-the-hills-from-th e-godless-heathens!" reply to get you off their backs. I always hated that.
So I'll go into why I believe Jesus never wrote anything down.
1) He was a Jewish rabbi in a predominantly oral culture.
2) He taught by oral tradition common for that time and place on Earth.
3) If Matthew was a tax collector, then in all likelihood he knew how to write and was taking notes. Now I admit that this is speculation. But, the whole point is, if Jesus really is the Son of God, then who are we (any human) to assert that He should have written anything? His influence as a teacher and as the Son of God would be enough of an unforgettable influence that people would be talking and writing about Him for a very, very ,very long time, which brings us to the present conversation. We are talking about Him right?:)
There is no him , only a myth and legend of a conglomeration of myths and legends.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172632
Jul 20, 2013
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
For all your words on oral tradition and eye witnesses, you should be able to answer one simple question:-
Who shot JFK?
What does oral tradition have to do with the assassination of JFK?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172633
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on Bob! LOL. 1 Corinthians and Romans are almost universally agreed by NT scholars on as being written by Paul. You and I are mere laymen in comparison!
You'll have to show me some evidence from a bona fide New Testament scholar who says Paul didn't write Romans.
I'm only going by the latest and most modern scholarship-- experts in the subject at hand.

They all agree that anything written by Paul never spoke of a physical jesus.

And those passages who do-- dismissed as fraud. Apparently the language is wrong or something-- I do not remember, it's been quite a bit since I looked into the matter.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172634
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
We have over 5,700 copies of the New Testament or portions of the New Testament dating back to the early 2nd century.
Really? That would be news to a lot of scholars who claim otherwise....

... perhaps you could point to the magical repository of these amazing (but nobody has seen) collections?

At a bare minimum? Perhaps you can mention the alleged locations of these.

I would wager there is a Nobel prize in it, if proven real...!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172635
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
Again, not so. Scribes were tightly supervised. If there were any error, the error was noted and corrected, and then double checked and verified by another. Polymath would be proud of the control measures that were so painstakingly thorough that mistakes were the exception rather than the rule. Also, we're talking about another language, with different rules for writing and speaking it. Greek is an inflected language which is totally different from modern language. Comparing these two languages is useless for purposes of discussing this topic.
Nope. Rigid spelling rules did not come into common practice, until the invention of movable type, and newspapers. The editors of the various newspapers wanted consistency in their written word, so rigid spelling rules came into common use about that time.

Prior to that? Pretty much very localized and regional. Sure there as a lot of commonality, but not NEARLY as rigid as you claim above.

Go study the invention of the idea of a dictionary-- it's a relatively new idea, in writing.

Prior to that? Spelling was a creative art form. There were NO rigid rules as you ludicrously claim.

What makes it WORSE? Books did **NOT** get copied until many generations had passed-- typically.

By the time the copy was began? THE SPELLING RULES HAD CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.

So the copiest had to guess as often as not, what a word meant-- as it wasn't spelled as he was used to.

As for your fantasy about "double checked"...seriously?

Maybe as early as the 19th century......

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172636
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What does oral tradition have to do with the assassination of JFK?
Quite simple the assassination of JFK was:-
1. Filmed
2. Photographed
3. Witnessed by thousands
4. Well documented
5. In living memory

Yet still subject to controversy and conspiracy theories to this day.

The bibull can claim none of these.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172638
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
That's why having so many copies is so important. It allows us to make side-by-side comparisons. There are very very few differences. Not enough to change the meaning or central orthodox beliefs at all.
Seriously?

There are already **fatal** contradictions within the modern bible itself!

But more to the point? If the copy is derived from an older piece? That says **nothing** about the accuracy!

You really need to study up on measurement theory, and multiplicative errors.

If the "original" has an error? All the copies will too. And they will introduce **more** errors.

And so on-- until the modern derivatives are pretty much 100% error, and have been for several iterations of copying.

You really do need to study the history of language, and how and why dictionaries were invented.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172639
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?
Doesn't matter, if the author is delusional or has been deliberately mislead.

Or is confused.

And so on.

His intent does not matter--if he is simply wrong to begin with.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172640
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?
More: you seem to think it's an "either or".

If.

If the author has an AGENDA? He is NOT interested in HISTORY, is he?

He is interested in the ARGUMENT-- and WINNING.

Accuracy be damned-- if he can rewrite things to put his ARGUMENT into a better light?

HE WILL.

After all-- he thinks the END RESULTS absolve everything.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172641
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?
<quoted text>
Self-promotion was not a motive in light of the fact that the Pharisees were persecuting the new movement. Peter was humbled.
That would be FINE... if PETER was one of the authors.

He wasn't-- we've already been through that-- NONE of the original disciples were authors.

None.

NONE wrote anything that exists today.

So it hardly matters WHAT Peter was like, now does it?

Or any of the rest, for that matter...

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172642
Jul 20, 2013
 
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Another gutless atheist showing how worthless his life is.
Why are 99.99% of godbots so vile and hateful.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172643
Jul 20, 2013
 
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Another gutless atheist showing how worthless his life is.
Who would your Jesus hate?

I bet **YOU** know-- don't you?

I bet your jewsus hates the SAME people YOU do.

In any case? Your testament of love was duly reported to the mods.

And then I blocked your "loving" azz from further abuse.

"Jesus is Love"...

... apparently that includes seething hatred.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172647
Jul 20, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Rigid spelling rules did not come into common practice, until the invention of movable type, and newspapers. The editors of the various newspapers wanted consistency in their written word, so rigid spelling rules came into common use about that time.
Prior to that? Pretty much very localized and regional. Sure there as a lot of commonality, but not NEARLY as rigid as you claim above.
Go study the invention of the idea of a dictionary-- it's a relatively new idea, in writing.
Prior to that? Spelling was a creative art form. There were NO rigid rules as you ludicrously claim.
What makes it WORSE? Books did **NOT** get copied until many generations had passed-- typically.
By the time the copy was began? THE SPELLING RULES HAD CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.
So the copiest had to guess as often as not, what a word meant-- as it wasn't spelled as he was used to.
As for your fantasy about "double checked"...seriously?
Maybe as early as the 19th century......
You're talking about spelling in the English language Bob. That's a big difference between Greek, Aramaic, and our English. And spelling was meticulously observed even in ancient times and especially in Judaism. First century Jews were just as meticulous as they were in David's time, and even more so.

And even if spellings did change, that doesn't mean that the definitions did. Ancient Judea was a "high context" culture. As long as none of the orthodox doctrines were compromised, then a spelling error wasn't of much consequence. You're still trying to apply modern Western concepts to ancient Eastern practices. It won't work that way.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

377 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 3 min bbbbbb 73
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 3 min Naveen kumar 4,625
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 7 min Rosa_Winkel 93,695
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min dirty white boy- 720,654
lesbian sexting 16 min Hornymofo 3
abashadile e Durban (Mar '13) 47 min whatsapp me 0826620782 13
Shock Poll: 40% Still not Sure Obama is America... 1 hr Impeach Barry Soetoro 7
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr The Awakener 172,344
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr AussieBobby 256,451
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr Mi Lin 532,626
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••