Would You Hire a Vocal Atheist?

[farslayer]

Originally Posted by watson3
Muslims, Jews..
They are biased, their existence is based upon the existence of god. Many ancients believed in Zeus; should we? Again, cite a source. Show a single published study which shows that the majority of historians accept that Jesus existed. Then show one that says they all believe he was the son of god. Then show me god.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by hagfish
Quickly, I will just say that if early Christians were aware that people actually knew Jesus existed there would be no reason to make a special note of this text.
There is no strong proof in your argument here anyway. This could easily be dismissed as opinion.
Can you say with 100% confidence that this isn't true and that the additional script wasn't added at a later time?

 

[watson3]

Originally Posted by Farslayer
Show me a photograph
Seriously..Do you believe Julius Caesar existed..I have never seen a photgraph of him..There are many stories of him and I have seen pictures and statues..What about dinosaurs..I have never seen a picture..This is faith..

 

[farslayer]

No, faith is the inability of one to take responsibility for their actions. Blind faith leads to Jim Jones and Waco, TX. Julius Caesar was greatly recognized as the leader of the Roman Empire, which we know existed because we have found their cities, read their history books, verified their activities with other nations and other historians. We know the dinosaurs existed because we have their fossils (although the religious will not believe in them since the earth, to them, is only a few thousand years old). There is a large difference.
There is nothing found of Jesus, no bones, no graves, no writings outside of the religious sect. Many people wrote about Caesar, there is quite a bit of evidence for him. Where is the evidence for Jesus? The shroud of Turin, a vision of the virgin mary in a cheese sandwich?

 

[hagfish]

To get an idea how much better the historical evidence for the bible is than pretty much anything from ancient history take a look at this...
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts (taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17).
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies (extent)
Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20
Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years
(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)
When you take all these copies of biblical manuscripts even when they are hundreds of years apart you can compare them to these early ones and see if there have been changes. Well, there have been no significant changes other than writing style for the times.
If I write a paper and ask 100 people to make an exact copy of it there are going to be errors in many of them. But they will not be the same errors. So we can figure out what the original text said by comparing commonalities between these texts.
BTW, nobody seems to have any doubts about these other writings, which have had much more time for people to make additions and subtractions to rewrite history.

 

[agent707]

If their question were "Should you hire an atheist?" I think everyone "should" answer YES.
But that wasn't the question... the question was "WOULD YOU" hire them.
My answer is a clear "NO".
Several reasons, but mainly.. God tells us not to have any dealings with the ungodly. I would consider "hiring" one.... "dealings". That's enough reason for me.
To the one who said "they would find themselves in a lawsuit." If a company were big enough Goobers to say "We're not hiring you because we saw your video's on utube.", then they would deserve a lawsuit. Truth is though, they don't have to give you a "reason", and they normally don't.
It's not hard at all to come up with a "reason" you hired one person over the other... and be well within the law. Come on, be realistic.
Am I a discriminator? I guess that was the main purpose of this poll, wasn't it?
Would I hire an agnostic? Yes. Then why wouldn't I hire the atheist? Here's my second reason. Throw an agnostic in amongst a bunch of religious folk, they could care less and wouldn't say anything about anything they overheard.
Throw an atheist in amongst a group of religious folk... you'll occasionally find the atheist making comments about how much of an "idiot" everyone is... causing disruption in the work place. And yes, they would. I have worked with several outspoken atheist, and they regularly spoke of how “dumb” people are that believe in God.
Why would I know this person would be like one of these? Well, the posted on uTube didn’t they?

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by hagfish
To get an idea how much better the historical evidence for the bible is than pretty much anything from ancient history take a look at this...
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts (taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17).
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies (extent)
Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20
Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years
(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)
When you take all these copies of biblical manuscripts even when they are hundreds of years apart you can compare them to these early ones and see if there have been changes. Well, there have been no significant changes other than writing style for the times.
If I write a paper and ask 100 people to make an exact copy of it there are going to be errors in many of them. But they will not be the same errors. So we can figure out what the original text said by comparing commonalities between these texts.
BTW, nobody seems to have any doubts about these other writings, which have had much more time for people to make additions and subtractions to rewrite history.
The difference in compiling and translating ancient history and events and religious scripts are people's agendas. A historian is looking at facts and recording those facts. A religious scholar might be looking add a little here and there to help support evidence or make something seem more grandiose then it really is.

 

[farslayer]

Originally Posted by Agent707
If their question were "Should you hire an atheist?" I think everyone "should" answer YES.
But that wasn't the question... the question was "WOULD YOU" hire them.
My answer is a clear "NO".
Several reasons, but mainly.. God tells us not to have any dealings with the ungodly. I would consider "hiring" one.... "dealings". That's enough reason for me.
To the one who said "they would find themselves in a lawsuit." If a company were big enough Goobers to say "We're not hiring you because we saw your video's on utube.", then they would deserve a lawsuit. Truth is though, they don't have to give you a "reason", and they normally don't.
It's not hard at all to come up with a "reason" you hired one person over the other... and be well within the law. Come on, be realistic.
Am I a discriminator? I guess that was the main purpose of this poll, wasn't it?
Would I hire an agnostic? Yes. Then why wouldn't I hire the atheist? Here's my second reason. Throw an agnostic in amongst a bunch of religious folk, they could care less and wouldn't say anything about anything they overheard.
Throw an atheist in amongst a group of religious folk... you'll occasionally find the atheist making comments about how much of an "idiot" everyone is... causing disruption in the work place. And yes, they would. I have worked with several outspoken atheist, and they regularly spoke of how “dumb” people are that believe in God.
Why would I know this person would be like one of these? Well, the posted on uTube didn’t they?


If you think a company does not have to provide a reason for not hiring, you are wrong. It is called equal opportunity, and if I don't get hired and I feel it is due to my beliefs, the company will be sued and will be required to explain themselves.
Secondly, I have never said a person who believes in god is dumb; they are wrong in my opinion. If someone wants to believe in god, that is fine with me. But keep it out of my schools, out of my workplace, and fund it with your own money. You can not prove the existence of a god no matter what reasoning you apply. There is no evidence. What if my religion said that blacks were ungodly, should I be allowed to not hire them? How far do you think I would get when I got sued because of my hiring practices.
Do not generalize and assume that atheists consider all religious people idiots; this is something you absolutely can not support and I challenge you to find a recognized study showing this. I am an atheist and I would never call someone an idiot because they have beliefs; it is their right to believe how they will.

 

[farslayer]

Originally Posted by Jmick
The differnce in compiling and translating ancient history and events and religious scripts are people agendas and that they are looking to boost evidence and events.
You have hit the nail on the head: bias. BTW, how many versions of the bible are there? And why is it that churches don't agree on what the bible says, even when it is the same version. Anyone really disagree on how WW2 ended? Anyone disagree on whether there was a Troy.
Oh wait, yeah, actually we did. Until we found evidence for it. Then it was generally accepted, after study of course. Anyone study the remains of Jesus?

 

[jmick]

also, why in the world didn't Jesus write anything himself? If he was the true son of god don't you think he would have felt compelled to write down all the great things he talked about?

 

[farslayer]

Originally Posted by Jmick
also, why in the world didn't Jesus write anything himself? If he was the true son of god don't you think he would have felt compelled to write down all the great things he talked about?
It is surprising that the books of the bible were written by so many different people over different periods of time, yet nothing by Jesus himself.
Of course, whether he existed or not really isn't that relevant. Was he the son of god? In my opinion, no, because there is no god. There's no proof of it. Science has peeled back the layers of our universe. We don't know everything, but we know a lot, and we know we don't know it all. That's why we keep on truckin'.

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Jmick
The difference in compiling and translating ancient history and events and religious scripts are people's agendas. A historian is looking at facts and recording those facts. A religious scholar might be looking add a little here and there to help support evidence or make something seem more grandiose then it really is.
History and archeology have only confirmed the historical parts of the bible so far.

 

[farslayer]

Originally Posted by hagfish
History and archeology have only confirmed the historical parts of the bible so far.
What parts? That there really is an Israel? (well, after 1967 that is). What specific facts which are not considered common knowledge has the bible proven? Where is Noah's arc, where is the arc of the covenant, where is the grail, what of significance has been shown by the bible? What great discovery has been due solely to the bible?

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Farslayer
What parts? That there really is an Israel? (well, after 1967 that is). What specific facts which are not considered common knowledge has the bible proven? Where is Noah's arc, where is the arc of the covenant, where is the grail, what of significance has been shown by the bible? What great discovery has been due solely to the bible?
I'd like to know that as well.

 

[hagfish]

Secular writings about Jesus.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

 

[hagfish]

Here's the first thing I found...
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html
Some highlights...
Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It...may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." [2] Christian apologist Josh McDowell tells us that "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy."
...
For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [4] Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.
...
Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, until archaeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospel's portrayals of the temple, Pilate's court, Jesus' crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed. The list could go on and on.
These are some very notable people. And some of them even turned to Christianity because of their historical findings.

 

[hagfish]

More Bible Vs. history...
http://www.biblehistory.net/content1.htm

 

[hagfish]

More...
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

 

[jmick]

how bout some non christain sites...you think they might be biased? those are meaningless.

 

[cowfishrule]

how is this thread still open ?
by now for sure, somebody should have crossed the line and ruined the fun for everybody....