Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#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

#172635 Jul 20, 2013
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

#172636 Jul 20, 2013
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

#172638 Jul 20, 2013
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

#172639 Jul 20, 2013
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

#172640 Jul 20, 2013
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

#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

#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

#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

#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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172648 Jul 20, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
None will excuse you when you knee walk your ugly ass to Christ's feet where you will be crying and wailing. You filthy scum.
Nope.

I would **never** bow down to your monster-god.

Your god uses INFINITE TORTURE.

That is the actions of an EVIL BEING.

No two ways about that-- YOU ARE EVIL TOO.

Because you worship an EVIL god.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172649 Jul 20, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
You reports will go unattended you filthy scum of human waste.
Nope-- I've got other hategodbots banned before.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172650 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you here-- it is you who is attempting to apply modern ideas of spelling, to ancient, and ever-evolving languages.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172651 Jul 20, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are 99.99% of Satanbots so vile and hateful.
*I corrected your intentional error*
I find your message under your name most ironic. "Jesus is love"

Apparently, not if **you** are any example...

You show me nothing but **hate** and abuse-- including your 5 private messages of hate (reported, then blocked).

How do you expect to win converts with an attitude of such hate?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172652 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Apparently he has a new definition of the word love.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172653 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
It's true that Peter wasn't a direct author. He had a scribe. His scribe's name was Mark. So if Peter was illiterate (as most Jewish fishermen were) then it makes sense that he would tell his accounts to somebody to write them down. And we do know that Mark wasn't exactly the best in writing grammatically correct Greek. The texts show that he struggled. A textual critic would know that, as would anyone with 3 or more years of Greek under their belt.

John also struggled with Greek, but with John we can see improvement over a period of time. By the time he wrote Revelations, he was fairly competent at both Greek and writing.

Matthew may not have actually touched the quill to the papyrus, but his notes were very likely instrumental in expanding the gospel Mark had written. That doesn't mean embellishment by the way. It means that Mark wrote a very compact gospel, and when Matthew read it, he expanded on it for his Jewish audience.

Luke was a Syrian physician and is the only one who starts both his gospel and the sequel with a prologue that attests to the reliability of the tradition he's passing on. This is important because Luke's gospel isn't a book, but a personal letter to a high ranking Roman official.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172654 Jul 20, 2013
Doctor Robert Price, Doctor Richard Carrier... Shall I go on?
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.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172655 Jul 20, 2013
I went through and answered your 10 so called proofs, which may I add you have not shown a shred of proof that the gospels meet these 10 beyond your personal opinion. Cowered away again I see.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?

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

#172656 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you here-- it is you who is attempting to apply modern ideas of spelling, to ancient, and ever-evolving languages.
I don't see how I am. Yes languages do change, but the authors and scribes of the New Testament were dogmatic about not changing the meaning. Look up the Greek language. Try to understand the difference between High Context cultures and Low Context cultures. I can't say that changes didn't happen at all, as you and I both know they did; but nowhere near as much as you're trying to assert. I respectfully say that your assertion is a mistaken exaggeration. Of course I'm sure you may feel the same about my assertion, and if that's the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.:) How do you come to the conclusion that any changes in spelling changed the definition when there were measures in place to prevent that very outcome?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172657 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope-- I've got other hategodbots banned before.
Same here. I just do not understand why they have to come here to spew their hate. I mean really how worthless does their life have to be?

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Aura Mytha 777,390
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 11 min AnnieJ 605,268
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 21 min Rick in Kansas 265,371
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 22 min Student 39,365
What Is Right With the USA 29 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 6
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 30 min June VanDerMark 560,139
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 46 min MUQ2 37,841
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Freebird USA 175,775
More from around the web