Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258469 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173513 Aug 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You have multiple accounts by the ancients who had sources which did not survive today and your assuming a select group of moderns know more than the ancients who lived thousands of years closer to the event in question. Perhaps you assume the ancient could not tell fact from fiction.
I know for a fact that they were superstitious. And that does mean that is some cases they cannot tell fact from fiction.
You do not want to believe in the Exodus because you must assume the Scriptures are of no historical value what so ever but you should know the moderns were wrong about David. If they are wrong about David then why would they be right about the Exodus?
Because we know from other sources and the actual digs at the scene that the Exodus did not happen. It was an origin legend for that society. But it was written hundreds of years after it supposedly happened and has many anachronistic aspects in it. Among other things, it seems to be unaware that Egypt controlled the holy lands at the time. The time of David was actually in the time when the texts were written, so is far more likely to be accurate about some types of things.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#173514 Aug 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Truthfully, this is one of the weaker arguemnts. It is common in ancient history not to have contemporary writings. Many times, the contemporary materials were destoryed either by age or for politicalain later. For example, much of the history of Alexander the Great is based on materials written centuries later and after his legend had already grown to frankly unbelievable proporitions. Because of this, scholars argue quite extensively about events in his life. There are writings that *mention* contemporary writings about Alexander, but we have none of the originals.
This is a huge problem in history. Anything we have from the ancient world has been copied multiple times, often with errors we can track among multiple copies. Transcription was a laborious process so only the most important works survived more than a generation. Even large libraries would be considered small by today's standards.
There is little in the basic story of an itinerant preacher saying things attributed to Jesus and having a gang of followers including Zealots. Jesus was even a common enough name at the time. The difficulty comes when merging the Jesus legend to the Christ mythos.
There is record from 334-335 BCE about Alexander in Egypt, but it is thought to be biased and doesn't cover much. But we have Nero and Julius Caesar to thank for destroying many records. Then Alaric probably finished off everything ancient.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#173515 Aug 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know for a fact that they were superstitious. And that does mean that is some cases they cannot tell fact from fiction.
<quoted text>
Because we know from other sources and the actual digs at the scene that the Exodus did not happen. It was an origin legend for that society. But it was written hundreds of years after it supposedly happened and has many anachronistic aspects in it. Among other things, it seems to be unaware that Egypt controlled the holy lands at the time. The time of David was actually in the time when the texts were written, so is far more likely to be accurate about some types of things.
The Kingdom of David existed, and the Solomon empire came out of it.
But it was a minor kingdom , traces of it have been found though, and the famed Solomon mines, which is the source of it's power, the power to make bronze.

http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight...

Most of what is written about it beyond the temple and mines etc.
Is mythology, exaggeration and fiction.
LCN Llin

United States

#173516 Aug 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> There is record from 334-335 BCE about Alexander in Egypt, but it is thought to be biased and doesn't cover much. But we have Nero and Julius Caesar to thank for destroying many records. Then Alaric probably finished off everything ancient.
Difficult to prove history from 200 years ago let alone 335BC

the BCE seems so "limp wrist correct",
just saying

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#173517 Aug 5, 2013
Finding Davids kingdom, may prove the temple mount was Hebrew and falsify the Muslim claim it never was there, which they have tried to destroy any evidence of. But that only means 1000 more years or arguing about it..lol

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#173518 Aug 5, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Difficult to prove history from 200 years ago let alone 335BC
the BCE seems so "limp wrist correct",
just saying
Whatever it "seems" to you would be your problem.
You can't prove history, but the carvings in Egypt support the fact Alexander became the god king of Egypt and was succeeded by the Ptolemaic dynasty the way the history books say. Most of what is written there is hogwash , it was the way he was the son of a god who was the same as an Egyptian god and the god of Egypt endorses Alexanders promotion from warrior princess to full god. lol

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173519 Aug 5, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
This is tenuous logic. Its built on Jesus rising from the dead. No one has any evidence that anyone ever, has risen from the dead after 3 days.
Even assuming he rises from the dead, no one has ever had any proof that anyone has gone to heaven or hell. These places are pure mythology.
Well to answer your earlier question, I'm a Christian, not a deist. My point is that I can respect the argument that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. That doesn't mean I agree with it, but I can respect that somebody is willing to explore an alternative hypothesis. If you want to think they're mythological, be my guest. But I view and equate the Jesus-as-myth with the same absurdity of Young-Earth-Creationism. They're both absolutely ridiculous arguments that fly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm not a young-earth-creationist at all. In fact I believe the earth is at least 7 million years old. Maybe older. I don't buy that it's billions of years old. Sorry, the evidence just doesn't convince me of that. So when a Christian fundamentalist says the earth is 6,000 years old I wanna throw a tomato at his or her head. Likewise, when a Jesus Myther says Jesus never existed, he or she deserves a tomato upside the head too. They're both bat-shit bonkers. Period. And they're both lazy arguments erected to protect the psyche from the discomfort of being wrong. I don't mind being wrong, but I'm not going to be lazy to do it.

So, wanna debate the resurrection with me?:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173520 Aug 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
If they are wrong about David then why would they be right about the Exodus?
There is zero archeological support for ANYTHING in Exodus.

None.

And deserts are **very** good at **preserving** artifacts.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173521 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
But I view and equate the Jesus-as-myth with the same absurdity of Young-Earth-Creationism. They're both absolutely ridiculous arguments that fly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Yet... you don't seem to be able to produce this ... "overwhelming evidence"....

...why?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173522 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
In fact I believe the earth is at least 7 million years old. Maybe older. I don't buy that it's billions of years old. Sorry, the evidence just doesn't convince me of that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/

In there, you'll find sufficient evidence that the earth is **at least** 4 billion years old or older.

The uranium decay evidence is pretty overwhelming all by itself-- of course, you'll need a basic understanding of where uranium came from in the first place, how it got to earth, and what "half life" means.

Of course-- the continental drift evidence is overwhelming too-- identical species of fossils found in both Africa and South America pretty much proves those two shores were touching, once.

And at the current rate of separation? Puts it well beyond your "millions of years" figure.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173523 Aug 5, 2013
Exactly there were at least 12 serious well known historians in Jerusalem at the time he was supposedly preaching, doing miracles and executed. Not one word from any of them.
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Bart Ehrman's youtube video is nothing more than his opinion and innuendo. The truth is...he does NOT know!
Mostly (Let this float around and percolate in your head for a while)...there were numerous scholars recording "history" around the mediteranean at the time "Jesus" supposedly lived, and not one of them even mentions him...converting the masses and performing miracles.
NOT ONE MENTION OF HIM!?
No one who has EVER written or spoken about Jesus EVER saw him, knew him, or even was alive when he SUPPOSEDLY existed.
...add that to the fact that christianity didn't emerge till over 200 years after his "death"....and that's the nail in the "historical" coffin.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173524 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
I'm not a young-earth-creationist at all. In fact I believe the earth is at least 7 million years old. Maybe older. I don't buy that it's billions of years old. Sorry, the evidence just doesn't convince me of that.
I guess you are only off by a factor of a thousand rather than a factor of a million. What evidence did you look at and why didn't it convince you of at least 'billions'? Seven million years only gets us about 1/9 of the way back to the dinosaurs. And I would say the dates are very accurate back much farther than that.
LCN Llin

United States

#173525 Aug 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever it "seems" to you would be your problem.
You can't prove history, but the carvings in Egypt support the fact Alexander became the god king of Egypt and was succeeded by the Ptolemaic dynasty the way the history books say. Most of what is written there is hogwash , it was the way he was the son of a God who was the same as an Egyptian god and the god of Egypt endorses Alexanders promotion from warrior princess to full God. lol
I was in agreement with you.
Alexander became the god king of Egypt, no issue

Have you seen the clip of Richard Dawkins on Dr. Who? Great

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173526 Aug 5, 2013
His imagination doesn't count as proof? What about his biblical fan fiction??
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yet... you don't seem to be able to produce this ... "overwhelming evidence"....

...why?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173527 Aug 5, 2013
He is rather desperate... Perhaps we will see some more of his biblical fan fiction soon?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>I had thought better of you than **THAT**.

Sad.

Seriously? You list the 3 **most** discredited sources as your "examples"?

I am disappointed. Seriously.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173528 Aug 5, 2013
Exactly! The first writings of Jesus were done by Paul who had never even met him when he was supposedly alive.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.

Wrong.

aaaaaaaand... wrong.

The KEY? Is **collaborative** evidence. Are there **other** supportive documents that agree with other things these 3 have written?

If so-- then what they had to say has more merit.

If not? Then not.

The problem with these 3, however? Is that they wrote...

... MUCH TOO LATE! Your Jesus was long dead by the time they wrote what they wrote.

If he was ever alive in the first place, of course.

That is the **REAL** problem with these three-- they were not writing DURING your Jesus' lifetime.

NOBODY DID THAT.

Which is quite telling, all by itself.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173529 Aug 5, 2013
Excellent!
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No. When Tacitus talks about fulfillment of the Sabine predictions, I do not believe him. I believe that those ruling promoted that interpretation of events.

[QUOTE]You accept Suetonius on everything EXCEPT Jesus right?"

No. When Seutonius describes Ceasar being lead across the Rubicon by the god Pan, I do not believe him. I believe it was a myth formulated (probably by Ceasar) to promote a specific agenda. I do not accept Seutonius's claims for the divine heritage of the emperors either. I do not believe Julius Ceasar was a descendant of Venus.

[QUOTE]You accept Josephus on everything EXCEPT Jesus right?"

No. When Josephus writes in his antiquities about the Exodus, I do not believe him. The archaeological evidence points to this event never happening.

So no, I do not take everything else these authors state at face value. They are all writing from a particular viewpoint and to a particular audience. They all relay the myths of their culture. Part of the job of a historian is to separate the legendary stories from the truth. In many cases, this is quite difficult. But, for example, there is good reason to disbelieve the story of the Gordian knot in the histories of Alexander the Great.

[QUOTE]If it points to Jesus your bias won't allow you to consider it. But if it doesn't point to Jesus you'll buy into it wholeheartedly. That's my whole point. You're drawing the line at Jesus. Why? Not because the evidence is lacking, but because of what the evidence claims."

Seutonius and Tacitus talk about the beliefs of the Christians at the time. I believe they give a mostly accurate account of those beliefs. I strongly doubt that either would have spent the time looking up records to verify that anyone was actually executed as the Christians believed. But I had no good reason to doubt the existed of believing Christians under Nero, for example.

Much of Josephus is also reasonable. But the passages where he mentions Jesus are clearly not in his typical voice. They are interpolations, probably done by later copyists. There was a known tendency to do that among the copyists and there was a definite ideological reason to do so.


The line is partly reasonableness of the claim. Any claim that violates known physical laws is most likely to be legendary or mythological. That is as true of the stories of Jesus as it is of the stories of Romulus and Remus.

[QUOTE] If Jesus existed and rose from the dead, something that nobody else has done before or since, then it means life after death is possible. "

But the *belief* that someone rose from the dead is much different than someone actually rising from the dead.

[QUOTE]If life after death is possible, then so is judgement.
If judgement is possible, then so is reward and consequence. If consequence is possible, then it must be avoided at all costs. Right?"

Wrong on all counts. Simply having someone rise fvrom the dead does not establish the existence of a deity. It would not show that Jesus was correct in his beliefs, let alone that Paul was correct in his. As it stands, it shows nothing other than there is a biological possibility that someone declared dead can be revived.

You are making *huge* logical leaps from flimsy evidence.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173530 Aug 5, 2013
You yourself admitted the gospel writers changed the story and facts around about Jesus for different audiences. Your own words but keep arguing with yourself for our amusement.

Mithra worship and Mithraism predates Christianity by 600 years. Even early Christian apologetics complained about how the similarities between the two was giving them problems.

Shall I go on?
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Wow you're either deliberately obtuse or so severely close minded and misinformed that you're incapable of digging deeper for the facts.

Where do you get the idea that gospels were changed around?
Luke wrote mainly to a gentile audience. Matthew was more concerned with reaching the Jewish audience. There's nothing even remotely dishonest about that. And I challenge you to tell us all how writing to a specific audience is dishonest. That should be an interesting reply. If you think you can.

Would you expect an Ethiopian financial historian to write a financial history of Hannibal, Missouri or tax history of Lexington, Kentucky if his focus was Ethiopian economics? No?

Then why shouldn't the gospel writers focus on a specific demographic?

Now the Mithras comparison can be completely dismantled by knowing both the superficial apparent similarities, and the historical facts regarding the timing of Mithraism and the idiotic conclusions of those who first raised the issue.

1) Mithras was alleged to have born out of a rock fully grown. This isn't even vaguely similar to a virgin birth. Show me a granite rock that's been pregnant with a human child and I'll suggest that your meds need to be changed.

2) The allegation that both Mithras and Jesus were born in caves isn't a dependent parallel. Many religions in the Greco-Roman world used caves because they were abundant and easily accessible. It was entirely normal in ancient Judea long before Christ, to use caves as shrines. Not only that, but as I stated earlier, many mangers were actually incorporated into the house of Jewish farmers. So there's still no parallel. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

3) The December 25th birthday parallel doesn't work because we don't know when exactly Jesus was born. Some Eastern orthodox churches celebrate it on January 6th even to this day. The likely explanation is that Constantine "confiscated" the pagan holiday of Sol Invictus and designated it as "Christmas." It doesn't appear in Christian tradition until 336 AD. About 300 years AFTER Christ.

4) There are NO written recorded historical documents for the death of Mithras from those who practiced this religion. So how can there be any comparison to the resurrection of Jesus? And Mithras didn't die for "sins." He allegedly killed a bull. Not a crucifixion

5) The majority of texts regarding Mithras don't appear until the mid second century. The earliest we know of Mithraism as practiced in ancient Rome comes from an account of a visit to the Emperor Nero
by the Armenian king Tiridates in 66AD in which the king tells Nero "I worship you as I do Mithras." Then we don't have anything more until a poem by Statius in 90AD. Paul's writings have been dated to 50AD or earlier. Shall I continue?:)

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173531 Aug 5, 2013
So you only accept historians who are theists? Thank you for confessing that.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Oh come on Bob that's bullshit and you know it dude. Richard Carrier IS tainted by belief. Belief there is no god. He's an admitted atheist. That's biased against. That's not neutral. Robert Price? He's not neutral either. No adult in the modern world comes to the god issue without bias in some form or another, no matter how well hidden in the dark corners of the mind. And if you're going to list your scholars, then we're going to list ours. And I'd invite you to look over some of their credentials before dismissing them. Especially the first entry. An expert on Mithraism.

Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History, Miami University of Ohio

Dr. Ronald Nash (deceased) Syracuse University

Manfred Clauss, Professor of Ancient History, Free University, Berlin, Germany

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173532 Aug 5, 2013
I did chuckle at him using a dead professor there! Lol :))
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>Can I interview Prof. Nash?

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min Trump your President 2,313
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Aerobatty 118,865
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Robert F 678,813
Slop em again and again God!!! 1 hr doG nDaedn Hloy r... 1
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Peter Ross 445,832
"Aaay?!! Do you think I have an odd-shaped HEAD... 3 hr Doctor REALITY 1
New World Order, One World Government 4 hr One Planet One Pe... 2
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 22 hr May2017 NewsGlobal 982,133
More from around the web