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
166,561 - 166,580 of 224,019 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
LCN Llin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173525
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Louisville, KY

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

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173533
Aug 5, 2013
 
Exactly! Jesus is just another in long line of similar son of god messiah stories. You would think they could have changed it up a little bit right?
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>After you dissect Mithras here's a few more you need to dissect and then I wonder if I'm still welcome for dinner? ;)

The oldist churches on the planet have swastikas all over the windows and walls...WHY?

ANY Christian historian will tell you that the bible had reincarnation inside, but it was taken out due to political motive by the "Ecumenical Council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D"

It is interesting after reading up on them both... only difference is that krishna was the first to preach it then 7000 years later jesus comes along and start to preach the same kinda story line!

The word mother & father started off in indian via sanskrit which is older then the Hebrew writing... look it up!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit

Then we have Horus!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

Krishna and Buddha!

http://www.miraclescenter.us/jesuskrishnabudd...

Sorry RA that dog won't hunt!

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173534
Aug 5, 2013
 
Lol! Funny but true! People were so backwards back then!
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>The Abrahamic god does not restore flesh and blood, with one exception.

The houri, the Islamic piece of ass as reward, is forever being deflowered and then re-hymened. A continous virginal package, and this horde of see-through sluts are apparently deserving of every bit of the god's time and energy. Seriously, not a single suicide bomber has ever changed his mind after sampling those holy holes.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173535
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Still waiting for one of our Christians to answer why the bible traced the lineage of Joseph if he wasn't Jesus' father... Again messiah claims had to come trough the Father. If Joseph was not the after of Jesus he is disqualified as being a potential messiah and Yahweh would certainly know this as it was his command... If Joseph is his father than the gospels lied about the virgin birth.

So which is it Christians? You can stop cowering any year now.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173536
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.
So I'm not one of the people that thinks that Jesus may have never existed, but why do christians fight so hard against the fact that he was not a deity?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173537
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Ah this should be interesting. List them please. And what they ate for breakfast on their 16th birthdays. And how long they slept the night of their 21st birthdays. I won't hold my breath. My point being, my unreasonable request for evidence is every bit as stupid as yours. So ya better get busy cuz I ain't buying it.:)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173538
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet... you don't seem to be able to produce this ... "overwhelming evidence"....
...why?
Well Bob, on this point we'll have to disagree. I feel that the evidence presented is enough. I don't need 100% certainty. The evidence presented is sufficient to prove the existence of Christ. And the charges that historians wrote well after Jesus' time doesn't work. I've already shown that Bruce Catton wrote excellent histories of the American Civil War and he was born 34 years AFTER the civil war ended. And HIS sources were? Eye-witnesses! Ta-daaa! So if it works for Bruce Catton and the Civil war, why can't the same principles work for Jesus?

Do you know why we keep using the same evidence?

Because it's true. If it wasn't true we'd be inventing all kinds of things. But then we would need a motive. Gee, I wonder what kind of motive I would need to manufacture something like that.(Tapping fingers on my desk)

Afraid of death? Nope. If I die and there isn't a god then the worms get a free buffet. No big deal.

Is Quantum Bob going to send me money for charitable reasons? Nope. I wouldn't even ask.

Would Liberty humble himself and concede that he's not perfect? Nope. I would never hold my breath for that miracle. Besides I'd hate to infringe upon his ego. It's all he has.

Do I feel the need to be declared "correct" in public? Nope. I already believe I am. No need to brag about it.

So what motive is there to make anything up to support such a wonderful story?(Tapping fingers again)

Damned if I know, I guess the best answer is,(ready?)

Wait

for

it-

I present the same evidence because I believe it's the best possible explanation of why things are the way they are. No need to fear judgement. If there's a creator and I'm wrong in my life, who am I to object? Who am I to lie? No need to.:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173539
Aug 5, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Indeed they are-- as I understand it, the evidence for items/phenomena dating back at least 1/2 a billion are quite extensive.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173540
Aug 5, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
His imagination doesn't count as proof? What about his biblical fan fiction??
<quoted text>
Indeed.

If "imagination" was proof?

You could easily send your kid to Hogwarts...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173541
Aug 5, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Bob, on this point we'll have to disagree.
Okay.. hardly surprising.
Roman Apologist wrote:
I feel that the evidence presented is enough. I don't need 100% certainty. The evidence presented is sufficient to prove the existence of Christ.
But **you** already believe the tales... so who cares if it's enough for **you**?

The problem is-- you need more people in your camp, for world-wide, christianity is on the decline.

And without some proof that **is** convincing to people who are not already a member?

You're going to keep losing membership.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173542
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know why we keep using the same evidence?
Because it's true. If it wasn't true we'd be inventing all kinds of things. But then we would need a motive. Gee, I wonder what kind of motive I would need to manufacture something like that.(Tapping fingers on my desk)
You need a motive?

Easy: you wish to retain your wishful dreams.

That one was simple.

More: you wish to **justify** your membership in the **group**.

You have **already** decided it's all real-- so it would hardly matter to YOU if "facts" were fabricated.

Would it? YOU ALREADY BELIEVE, REGARDLESS OF ANY FACTS.

No.

Your arguments remain unconvincing:

## Jesus likely never lived as a human, but if he did? He was **only** human

## the bible cannot be divine in origin-- it's too evil, too flawed

## without those two? All basis for christianity has just evaporated into the aether.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173543
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
I present the same evidence because I believe it's the best possible explanation of why things are the way they are. No need to fear judgement. If there's a creator and I'm wrong in my life, who am I to object? Who am I to lie? No need to.:)
Good old Pascal's Joke.

Often miscalled "Pascal's Wager" but he was far from stupid.

No-- his "you may as well believe, what have you to lose" is his last JOKE on the gullible fools who think it's an argument.

For it means this:

YOUR GOD IS SO STUPID HE EASILY FALLS FOR A "JUST IN CASE" FAITH.

How lame is THAT?

Pretty lame, really... and pretty STUPID...

.... for a god...!!!

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173544
Aug 5, 2013
 
No I am asking for a single shred of secular historical proof for the existence of Jesus which seems a reasonable request.... Something you have failed to provide.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Ah this should be interesting. List them please. And what they ate for breakfast on their 16th birthdays. And how long they slept the night of their 21st birthdays. I won't hold my breath. My point being, my unreasonable request for evidence is every bit as stupid as yours. So ya better get busy cuz I ain't buying it.:)

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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••