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

#173500 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Where do you get the idea that gospels were changed around?
They **were** changed around over time.

As analysis of the oldest copies in existence are compared to the very latest copies (prior to the modern era, where things were more rigorous) becomes more widespread?

We see the various changes that took place over time.

Most folk consider these changes minor, and indeed they probably are.

However....

... if the bible is supposedly a "message from god"?

Does it not behoove the god in question to keep track of these things, and to ensure that they don't become corrupted?

I would think that is a bare minimum of **godly** responsibilities!

Yet, that doesn't seem to be the case, here...

... hmmm.

Why?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173501 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on Bob that's bullshit and you know it dude.
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you. The latest arguments are quite persusave-- the **oldest** non-fraudulent NT text comes exclusively from Paul.

And his depiction of Jesus is entirely ethereal--never mortal.

That?

That right there says to me, that there was no **human** figure "jesus".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173502 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I know!! I laugh so hard when I see the Jesus Mythicists stretching so hard to "wish him out of history!" LOL
Have you noticed that they want and expect "objective scholarship" on the subject but then go out of their way to reject every historical reference to Jesus? And what's so laughable is that they will accept what the same historians say about other historical events!
Examples:
1) They'll accept Josephus' account of the Romans sacking Jerusalem and his account of Herod the Great's harbor, which was before Josephus' time. But they will reject the Josephus TF and writings regarding John the Baptist and James on the grounds that the entries are entirely fraudulent or are not contemporary to Josephus' own life.
2) They'll accept the Tacitus accounts of the rise of Augustus Caesar to power even though this happened before Tacitus was born!
3) They will accept Suentonius accounts of the 12 Emperors and virtually every modern secular scholar of ancient Roman history accepts that what we know of Virgil, Horace, Terence, and Lucan can be traced to Suetonius. Yet the Jesus mythicist rejects his references to Jesus because they were before his own time. Well so was Julius Caesar but they accept Suetonius writing on that!
Do you see an "I wish Jesus didn't exist" motif going on here?
I don't mind the argument that they don't believe that Jesus was a deity. I can see where they disagree with that. But denying Jesus existence is a lazy argument that deserves the same level of contempt and derision that they level at young earth creationism.
I had thought better of you than **THAT**.

Sad.

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

I am disappointed. Seriously.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173503 Aug 5, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
No one knows who wrote the gospels. They are anonymous works. The order they were written was [Paul,] Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. The key point is they >contradict< each other. This means they are not the word of any God, but simply stories cobbled together.
Yes.

This.

If they were, in **fact**, a message from a god who gave a damn?

Then it would be the **responsibility** of said god, to ensure that the message(s) were not garbled or diluted.

Responsibility flows both ways, here-- if the god in question wants people's loyalty? The god is **obligated** to support that loyalty with keeping the message(s) valid and godly.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173504 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I accept the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition which is derived from common word usage and is constantly reviewed by linguistic experts. Atheism is the rejection or denial that a god (any god) exists.
The key here? Is "common word usage".

Who is in the majority? Atheists? Or theists?

Theists.

Who miss-uses the word "atheist" more frequently? And therefore, their false definition gets listed?

Theists.

If you wanted to learn about BRAIN SURGERY, would you ask a PLUMBER?

No-- you'd ask a brain surgeon.

If you want to know how an ATHEIST thinks?

... ask one... he will not only TELL you-- he will likely go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ....

<LMAO>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173505 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
You accept Tacitus on everything EXCEPT Jesus right?
You accept Suetonius on everything EXCEPT Jesus right?
You accept Josephus on everything EXCEPT Jesus right?
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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173506 Aug 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Catcher should turn his knob to Bob.
Your jealousy of me is duly noted.

As is your inability to be... convincing.

Pity you.
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#173507 Aug 5, 2013
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?
Each author wrote according to his own perspective and to a specific audience. This doesn't mean they lied.
Luke wrote mainly to a gentile audience. Matthew was more concerned with reaching the Jewish audience. There's nothing even . Shall I continue?:)
Why not continue?

Though for much of Christian history the gospel of Matthew has been given primacy that honor actually belongs to the gospel of Mark, the shortest and least sophisticated of the Jesus stories. Mark's literary creation was the starting point for both Matthew and Luke. Of approximately eleven thousand words found in Mark, ninety-five per cent of those words – entire paragraphs and stories in fact – are reused in the gospel of Matthew and sixty-five per cent of them in the gospel of Luke. Contrariwise, where Matthew and Luke differ most from each other – in the nativity and resurrection episodes – it is in material not found and not copied from Mark. Thus, to understand the trajectory by which the Jesus tale developed from an original hero – a righteous man infused by God's holy spirit– through a hybrid god possessing powers, to find final form as God incarnate on earth, one is best advised to begin with Mark's pithy masterpiece.

"Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express."
– Trypho to Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, XLIX.

Between the era of the Maccabees and Bar Kochba's war the increasingly radicalized factions of the Jews were animated by an expected warrior/priest who would lead the 'nation of Israel' in triumph. The expectation was thus of someone in the imminent future, no doubt of 'Davidic' or even 'divine' lineage but otherwise, human.

This monumental hope/expectation was equaled only by the monstrous calamities of 69-73, 114-117 and 132-135. Respectively, these three conflicts:

1. destroyed the Temple, its priesthood, the city of Jerusalem and Judean 'temple-economy';
2. destroyed, impoverished, enslaved and disheartened Jews of the 'diaspora';
3. destroyed dozens of towns and hundreds of villages throughout Palestine, decimating the Jewish population and leading to the enslavement of tens of thousands.

With this in mind, we should not relate Mark to a spurious persecution of Christians by Nero – but to the very real suffering of a whole nation. Judaism itself was against the wall.

The weakness of its position had been exposed. The Hebrew god had always punished his chosen people because they had failed him: they had not obeyed the Law. But always the Jews had redeemed themselves – and lived to transgress again. The errors of one bad apple imperiled the whole people.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness.

Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173508 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
You accept Tacitus on everything EXCEPT Jesus right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173509 Aug 5, 2013
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.
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.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173510 Aug 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
No. When Josephus writes in his antiquities about the Exodus, I do not believe him. The archaeological evidence points to this event never happening.
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. 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?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173511 Aug 5, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not continue?
Though for much of Christian history the gospel of Matthew has been given primacy that honor actually belongs to the gospel of Mark, the shortest and least sophisticated of the Jesus stories. Mark's literary creation was the starting point for both Matthew and Luke. Of approximately eleven thousand words found in Mark, ninety-five per cent of those words – entire paragraphs and stories in fact – are reused in the gospel of Matthew and sixty-five per cent of them in the gospel of Luke. Contrariwise, where Matthew and Luke differ most from each other – in the nativity and resurrection episodes – it is in material not found and not copied from Mark. Thus, to understand the trajectory by which the Jesus tale developed from an original hero – a righteous man infused by God's holy spirit– through a hybrid god possessing powers, to find final form as God incarnate on earth, one is best advised to begin with Mark's pithy masterpiece.
Actually, I would go further and say that the gospel of Thomas is another good source. While it has no narrative, it is clear that Mark found most of his quotes either from Thomas or both got them from another source (Q?).
Between the era of the Maccabees and Bar Kochba's war the increasingly radicalized factions of the Jews were animated by an expected warrior/priest who would lead the 'nation of Israel' in triumph. The expectation was thus of someone in the imminent future, no doubt of 'Davidic' or even 'divine' lineage but otherwise, human.
This monumental hope/expectation was equaled only by the monstrous calamities of 69-73, 114-117 and 132-135. Respectively, these three conflicts:
1. destroyed the Temple, its priesthood, the city of Jerusalem and Judean 'temple-economy';
2. destroyed, impoverished, enslaved and disheartened Jews of the 'diaspora';
3. destroyed dozens of towns and hundreds of villages throughout Palestine, decimating the Jewish population and leading to the enslavement of tens of thousands.
With this in mind, we should not relate Mark to a spurious persecution of Christians by Nero – but to the very real suffering of a whole nation. Judaism itself was against the wall.
The weakness of its position had been exposed. The Hebrew god had always punished his chosen people because they had failed him: they had not obeyed the Law. But always the Jews had redeemed themselves – and lived to transgress again. The errors of one bad apple imperiled the whole people.
In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.
Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness.
Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.
Agreed. Context is one of the things most Christians seem to miss in this whole thing. This is a story about the conflict between the Romans and the Jews. The expectations of both sides are not what the Christians generally state them to be. Furthermore, much of the relevant story was either re-written by early Christians or burnt by them.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173512 Aug 5, 2013
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Any writings as old as the OT and NT scripture WOUKD normally be hailed
As great finds.
But because it's JESUS they are writing about they have to be fake.
Talk about convoluted thinking . They originally called the people the followers of the Way .
I think they are a great trove of information about the beliefs of certain cultures and peoples. But, like most ancient histories, they have valid history mixed with legend and pure mythology. This is as true of Livy's history of Rome as it is of the OT. The difference is, of course, that nobody today believes in Romulus and Remus or are basing morality on Horatio at the bridge.

“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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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

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 Anon 794,949
Husbands who constantly blame their wives....R ... 12 min Doctor REALITY 1
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min Anthony MN 567,932
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 14 min lil whispers 607,168
Homosexuals are servants and human children of ... 20 min Doctor REALITY 7
Will Satan, demons, and unbelievers be in hell.... 24 min Doctor REALITY 4
Will God show sympathy towards homosexuals on J... 33 min Doctor REALITY 3
Scientific proof for God's existence 47 min ChristINSANITY is... 542
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr WasteWater 267,396
More from around the web