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

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

“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

Louisville, 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

Louisville, 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

Louisville, 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

Louisville, 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

Louisville, 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.

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min atemcowboy 550,773
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min dirty white boy- 753,497
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 26 min Commander Bunny 262,057
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 31 min Blk Thndr 602,758
Long Term Effects of Alcohol – What it Really D... 39 min Commander Bunny 3
Homosexuality is wrong-- SIMPLE FACTS you dont ... (Sep '11) 1 hr toby_7 32
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 1 hr andet1987 4,837
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 7 hr Chris Clearwater 174,524

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE