Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Rational belief - Christian god?

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why do Christians believe?

Sodom and Gomarrah

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone.

The Exodus

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archaeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

Conclusion

Lack of evidence is not all that spectacular in and of itself, but when coupled with an expectation of evidence - then we have evidence of absence. These stories we have of the Christian god give us a reasonable expectation of evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for these claims, and we have no reason to accept them as true. In fact, we have reason to accept them as false. If these stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 7:33:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Why do Christians believe?

Sodom and Gomarrah

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone.

The Exodus

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archaeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

Conclusion

Lack of evidence is not all that spectacular in and of itself, but when coupled with an expectation of evidence - then we have evidence of absence. These stories we have of the Christian god give us a reasonable expectation of evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for these claims, and we have no reason to accept them as true. In fact, we have reason to accept them as false. If these stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 7:45:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Why do Christians believe?

Sodom and Gomarrah

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone.

The Exodus

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archaeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

Conclusion

Lack of evidence is not all that spectacular in and of itself, but when coupled with an expectation of evidence - then we have evidence of absence. These stories we have of the Christian god give us a reasonable expectation of evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for these claims, and we have no reason to accept them as true. In fact, we have reason to accept them as false. If these stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.

What's interesting is that Christians will often bring up the concept of eye witness accounts in regards to the Crucifixion, the Resurrection or Saul on the road to Damascus. for example. These are minor events compared to the Exodus or Sodom and Gomorrah, yet they are vital for a Christians beliefs to be valid.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 8:48:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 7:45:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Why do Christians believe?

Sodom and Gomarrah

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone.

The Exodus

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archaeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

Conclusion

Lack of evidence is not all that spectacular in and of itself, but when coupled with an expectation of evidence - then we have evidence of absence. These stories we have of the Christian god give us a reasonable expectation of evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for these claims, and we have no reason to accept them as true. In fact, we have reason to accept them as false. If these stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.

What's interesting is that Christians will often bring up the concept of eye witness accounts in regards to the Crucifixion, the Resurrection or Saul on the road to Damascus. for example. These are minor events compared to the Exodus or Sodom and Gomorrah, yet they are vital for a Christians beliefs to be valid.

Christians implicitly acknowledge evidence is reasonable to expect when they seek to provide it for for some Bible stories. However, stories like these are starting to be swept under the rug (avoided) because they are a huge mind sink when read literally. That leads some Christians to modify their interpretation of the major stories to more figurative interpretations. This can only end up as some sort of Biblical 'water memory', I.E., something said to carry the essential essence of Bible which no longer has any Bible left in it.

'Water memory' - http://rationalwiki.org...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 1:37:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 8:48:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 7:45:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Why do Christians believe?

Sodom and Gomarrah

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone.

The Exodus

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archaeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

Conclusion

Lack of evidence is not all that spectacular in and of itself, but when coupled with an expectation of evidence - then we have evidence of absence. These stories we have of the Christian god give us a reasonable expectation of evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for these claims, and we have no reason to accept them as true. In fact, we have reason to accept them as false. If these stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.

What's interesting is that Christians will often bring up the concept of eye witness accounts in regards to the Crucifixion, the Resurrection or Saul on the road to Damascus. for example. These are minor events compared to the Exodus or Sodom and Gomorrah, yet they are vital for a Christians beliefs to be valid.


Christians implicitly acknowledge evidence is reasonable to expect when they seek to provide it for for some Bible stories. However, stories like these are starting to be swept under the rug (avoided) because they are a huge mind sink when read literally. That leads some Christians to modify their interpretation of the major stories to more figurative interpretations. This can only end up as some sort of Biblical 'water memory', I.E., something said to carry the essential essence of Bible which no longer has any Bible left in it.


'Water memory' - http://rationalwiki.org...

Rationalwiki such a great site known for it's unbiased logical foundations.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 1:45:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 1:37:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2015 8:48:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 7:45:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Why do Christians believe?

Sodom and Gomarrah

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone.

The Exodus

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archaeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

Conclusion

Lack of evidence is not all that spectacular in and of itself, but when coupled with an expectation of evidence - then we have evidence of absence. These stories we have of the Christian god give us a reasonable expectation of evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for these claims, and we have no reason to accept them as true. In fact, we have reason to accept them as false. If these stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.

What's interesting is that Christians will often bring up the concept of eye witness accounts in regards to the Crucifixion, the Resurrection or Saul on the road to Damascus. for example. These are minor events compared to the Exodus or Sodom and Gomorrah, yet they are vital for a Christians beliefs to be valid.


Christians implicitly acknowledge evidence is reasonable to expect when they seek to provide it for for some Bible stories. However, stories like these are starting to be swept under the rug (avoided) because they are a huge mind sink when read literally. That leads some Christians to modify their interpretation of the major stories to more figurative interpretations. This can only end up as some sort of Biblical 'water memory', I.E., something said to carry the essential essence of Bible which no longer has any Bible left in it.


'Water memory' - http://rationalwiki.org...

Rationalwiki such a great site known for it's unbiased logical foundations.

Lol, that's it? You attack a source I use to provide supplemental information for an analogy, but ignore the entire the OP and the analogy itself? I am willing to concede the source - it does not support any crucial part.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 3:28:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities.

Are you joking? We have contemporary story in the Bible.

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land.

Why? Why would Pharaoh tell to future generations that he acted like mindless idiot? What leader has ever told any bad things about him for future generations? I think it is stupid thing to assume that evil leader would tell about his evil actions.

We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence.

Why? What do you think should be found after over 2000 years? Apple devices?

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find?

Oil and gas fields, Grand Canyon, Mid Atlantic ridge, orogenic mountains, fossils"

Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans.

I think that is not reasonable expectation. "Modern" animals act differently when drowned and they usually live in different environment, they are able to escape easily.

For example I have seen drowned deer. It floated long time before it disintegrated and drowned. It would have been really improbable that it would have been fossilized

This fossil layer should be worldwide.

That is not true, because not all places have same conditions.

I think you make bad assumptions.
PureX
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 3:58:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mythical stories such as these almost always have some basis in actual events, but as the purpose of the stories is to convey some ideological or philosophical ideal, they become altered through their telling and retelling to better convey that ideal.

I saw a documentary some years ago in which archeologists tracked down the historical source of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, and of course it was rooted in actual, natural events. But the story had been embellished over time to better convey the ideal that this event had come to represent for the people who witnessed it and then held onto the story. And that's only natural, too, because they held onto the story because of it's meaning for them, not because of it's factuality.

I don't know why some people choose to insist on the pretense that these myths are factual in every detail, when the whole point of these mythical stores is to convey some deeper truth, or insight, and the actual facts of the events involved are not particularly relevant or necessary to that purpose. To me, such behavior reflects a kind of willful ignorance that I find both dishonest and counter-productive.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 5:15:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 3:28:30 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities.

Are you joking? We have contemporary story in the Bible.

The alleged destruction is thought to have taken place around 1700 BC, and the book of Genesis is thought to have been written around 1400 BC. That is hardly contemporary, not to mention, the Bible is not evidence of its own claims.

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land.

Why? Why would Pharaoh tell to future generations that he acted like mindless idiot? What leader has ever told any bad things about him for future generations? I think it is stupid thing to assume that evil leader would tell about his evil actions.

Well, we wouldn't need to rely on an 'evil' pharaoh to write of his own death, or the death of the soldiers that were with him. The Egyptians are fairly well known for their tendency to keep records, and neighboring countries would have surely seen and written of it (had any of it happened).

We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence.

Why? What do you think should be found after over 2000 years? Apple devices?

The Bible tells us many died in the desert before reaching the promised land. It is unreasonable to conclude that the living carried the dead out of the desert. They would have been left there, and we are talking about the bones of millions of people. Do we find any bones? No.

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find?

Oil and gas fields, Grand Canyon, Mid Atlantic ridge, orogenic mountains, fossils"

According to the Bible, the flood occurred around 2300 BC. None of these things support a global flood 4000-4500 years ago.

Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans.

I think that is not reasonable expectation. "Modern" animals act differently when drowned and they usually live in different environment, they are able to escape easily.

Do modern animals swim better and longer, or do they float better after death? For the record, there is absolutely no way you could know the answers to these questions. You're grasping for straws.

If the fossils of 'non-modern' animals were related to a great flood, then they should be jumbled - Some more complex animals higher and lower in the strata layers mixed with less complex animals, but that is not what we see. We see less complex organisms in deeper strata.

For example I have seen drowned deer. It floated long time before it disintegrated and drowned. It would have been really improbable that it would have been fossilized

Basically, animals don't float for a year, and once they sink into the sediment they can become fossilized. Granted, the faster they sink the better, but they would eventually sink before decay has completely destroyed the body and could have possibly been fossilized. We're talking about the simultaneous death of 10's of millions of animals so it is not unreasonable to expect many many fossils related to this event if it occurred.

This fossil layer should be worldwide.

That is not true, because not all places have same conditions.

If all of the Earth is underwater, then the conditions are pretty much all the same.

I think you make bad assumptions.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 5:18:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 3:58:58 PM, PureX wrote:
Mythical stories such as these almost always have some basis in actual events, but as the purpose of the stories is to convey some ideological or philosophical ideal, they become altered through their telling and retelling to better convey that ideal.

I saw a documentary some years ago in which archeologists tracked down the historical source of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, and of course it was rooted in actual, natural events. But the story had been embellished over time to better convey the ideal that this event had come to represent for the people who witnessed it and then held onto the story. And that's only natural, too, because they held onto the story because of it's meaning for them, not because of it's factuality.

I don't know why some people choose to insist on the pretense that these myths are factual in every detail, when the whole point of these mythical stores is to convey some deeper truth, or insight, and the actual facts of the events involved are not particularly relevant or necessary to that purpose. To me, such behavior reflects a kind of willful ignorance that I find both dishonest and counter-productive.

http://www.debate.org...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 5:40:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
But to read the Holy Bible as a history book is to miss the point entirely.

Well, unless you are Jewish and are referring to the Old Testament. Or the Torah.

But for us gentiles, I believe it is of utmost importance to read the Bible for what it truly is: A compendium of myths; fables; allegorical and metaphorical tales' poetry and wisdom. Written a long time ago over the span of a dozen centuries, by dozens of different authors.

Instead of asking yourself, "Did this really happen exactly like it says it did?" I believe we are better-served by asking ourselves, "What compelled these people to write this?" Or "what momentous experiences did they have with their God to compel them to write this?"

I have always found it ironic that us Agnostics and liberal Christians who do not take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but rather a collection of Hebrew Mythology, actually get MORE out of its message then those who try to parse every single word looking for falsehoods or contradictions. As one would with a history or anthropology book.

Or even the biblical literalists, who naively believe it to be the indisputable word of God. Wow..I cannot imagine how they explain some of the book's more evil and distasteful stories. Must be tough. And sort of depressing. (The story from II Kings where God helped Elisha murder 40 children because they called him "baldy" comes to mind.)
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
PureX
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 6:01:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 5:40:54 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
But to read the Holy Bible as a history book is to miss the point entirely.

I completely agree.

Instead of asking yourself, "Did this really happen exactly like it says it did?" I believe we are better-served by asking ourselves, "What compelled these people to write this?" Or "what momentous experiences did they have with their God to compel them to write this?"

Even more then that, those ancient texts were intended to be used to keep the adherent's mind on the inexplicable nature and mystery of "God". It was not a book of answers. Those stories were meant to inspire questions, and discussions, and even arguments and debates. They were meant to keep man's mind active and focussed on the great divine mystery that had no name, but that created and rules over all things.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 7:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 1:45:34 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 1:37:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2015 8:48:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 7:45:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Why do Christians believe?

Sodom and Gomarrah

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone.

Brimstone, which is now equated with sulfur, is arguably not what the Hebrew means. In the Hebrew it has been argued to mean any burning mineral. examples like white phosphorous or a burning rock that emits smoke. So fire brimstone could be a reference to an asteroid.

In articles and a book written by Dr. Steven Collins (archeologist) him and a colleague find evidence for cities in the dead sea plain and an air burst event.
http://books.simonandschuster.com...
http://trinitysouthwest.com...

Maybe a better explanation is seismic activity. Sulfur fumes and fire accompany seismic activity. The area is well known for seismic activity, that can uplift asphalt blocks and emit a sulfur smell.
http://www.aapg.org...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

So there is evidence. And towns found in the region at the appropriate time. There is seismic activity. ect.. Archeologist debate the issue, but to announce this as a case of "no evidence" is surely an uninformed opinion.


The Exodus

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archaeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll begin with the common explanations. "the Egyptians didn't record their losses".. When we talk about the "record" from this time it is not an encyclopedia or "Egyptian history abridged". The "record" is the artifacts, artwork, few written records. these things took an effort to make so they are naturally heavy on the Egyptian wins and lacking on their losses.

There are also centuries that go with little found evidence for anything. And they are gaps in the historians understanding.

now honestly the agreement among archeologist is Hebrews were not in Egypt. It should be noted Biblical that the Jews were in Egypt making bricks, not building the pyramids.

Egyptians did use hired slaves to do such work. If a group of Hebrews were in Egypt the group was probably a lot smaller. Or another group only fairly related to the Hebrews.

With this there is a lack of evidence that warrants a reasonable doubt.


The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

All I can say is there are stories told by all kinds of people about a world flood. They don't agree on the name of God/s or the reason for the flood. But they agree on a flood, and a man saving the animals. Something happened. I just don't know what or if we will ever know.


Conclusion

Lack of evidence is not all that spectacular in and of itself, but when coupled with an expectation of evidence - then we have evidence of absence. These stories we have of the Christian god give us a reasonable expectation of evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for these claims, and we have no reason to accept them as true. In fact, we have reason to accept them as false. If these stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.

I think that is a leap in logic. It would be reasonable to disbelieve all that was written in the Bible, but not necessarily the character or being in it.


What's interesting is that Christians will often bring up the concept of eye witness accounts in regards to the Crucifixion, the Resurrection or Saul on the road to Damascus. for example. These are minor events compared to the Exodus or Sodom and Gomorrah, yet they are vital for a Christians beliefs to be valid.

If a few claims in a collection of claims is found to be false, it does not negate every claim in the collection.

Pick up an old science book, the chapter on gravity gets rewritten after Einstein but not the chapter on hydraulics.



Christians implicitly acknowledge evidence is reasonable to expect when they seek to provide it for for some Bible stories. However, stories like these are starting to be swept under the rug (avoided) because they are a huge mind sink when read literally. That leads some Christians to modify their interpretation of the major stories to more figurative interpretations. This can only end up as some sort of Biblical 'water memory', I.E., something said to carry the essential essence of Bible which no longer has any Bible left in it.

OR they can have hope that as new evidence is found, such stories will validate more and more the Bible. While many atheist jump to a conclusion that the events in the bible are pure fantasy, they are often later confronted with emerging evidence. Such as the dismissal of Pilate being a real person, later to be accepted.

I think every story, piece of art, has a bit of truth in them.

Consider that the oldest manuscripts (new testament) are copies written in the first century. There must have been a circulation of originals prior to 90a.d. these would be within a lifetime after Jesus death. People during that time would have a better knowledge of things like if Pilate existed or not.



'Water memory' - http://rationalwiki.org...

Rationalwiki such a great site known for it's unbiased logical foundations.

Lol, that's it? You attack a source I use to provide supplemental information for an analogy, but ignore the entire the OP and the analogy itself? I am willing to concede the source - it does not support any crucial part.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 10:13:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 7:42:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Sodom and Gomarrah
Brimstone, which is now equated with sulfur, is arguably not what the Hebrew means. In the Hebrew it has been argued to mean any burning mineral. examples like white phosphorous or a burning rock that emits smoke. So fire brimstone could be a reference to an asteroid.

I'm not sure where that argument is taking place, but gophriyth is only used 7 times in the KJV and the NSAB, and each time "brimstone" is proper for the context. We cannot point to a re-interpretation of the Bible and claim we have evidence for that version of the story. I will flatly reject that.

http://www.blueletterbible.org...

In articles and a book written by Dr. Steven Collins (archeologist) him and a colleague find evidence for cities in the dead sea plain and an air burst event.
http://books.simonandschuster.com...
http://trinitysouthwest.com...


Maybe a better explanation is seismic activity. Sulfur fumes and fire accompany seismic activity. The area is well known for seismic activity, that can uplift asphalt blocks and emit a sulfur smell.

The seismic activity is much more plausible than the asteroid, as it describes the landscape of the area. However, it seems like more of an explanation (from ignorance) for the landscape rather than an eyewitness account of any actual destruction. Especially when we consider there are no contemporary writing to the time period S&G were said to have been destroyed. The Bible story was not written until at least 300 years later.

Overall, it is a guess. The Bible does not say Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to seismic activity.

So there is evidence. And towns found in the region at the appropriate time. There is seismic activity. ect.. Archeologist debate the issue, but to announce this as a case of "no evidence" is surely an uninformed opinion.

What you have presented is highly subjective. The location of these cities is not known, and in fact, it is not known if these cities actually existed. If we had evidence we would have answers to these questions.

The Exodus

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll begin with the common explanations. "the Egyptians didn't record their losses".. [...]

Presumably, the Egyptians would have mentioned the Jews living there before this defeat, plus, there are records of Egyptians recording their own defeats. Secondly, neighboring people's records would have certainly covered parts of this, but there are none. There is reasonable expectation for this evidence, and it is significant that it is lacking.

There are also centuries that go with little found evidence for anything. And they are gaps in the historians understanding.

now honestly the agreement among archeologist is Hebrews were not in Egypt. It should be noted Biblical that the Jews were in Egypt making bricks, not building the pyramids.

Egyptians did use hired slaves to do such work. If a group of Hebrews were in Egypt the group was probably a lot smaller. Or another group only fairly related to the Hebrews.

With this there is a lack of evidence that warrants a reasonable doubt.

Agreed.


The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

All I can say is there are stories told by all kinds of people about a world flood. They don't agree on the name of God/s or the reason for the flood. But they agree on a flood, and a man saving the animals. Something happened. I just don't know what or if we will ever know.

I agree that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of flood myths, but only one with the Christian god at the helm of a global flood and no evidence for it.


Conclusion

Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.

I think that is a leap in logic. It would be reasonable to disbelieve all that was written in the Bible, but not necessarily the character or being in it.

The Bible is the claim. If there is no evidence to back up the claim, then it can be rejected.


What's interesting is that Christians will often bring up the concept of eye witness accounts in regards to the Crucifixion, the Resurrection or Saul on the road to Damascus. for example. These are minor events compared to the Exodus or Sodom and Gomorrah, yet they are vital for a Christians beliefs to be valid.

If a few claims in a collection of claims is found to be false, it does not negate every claim in the collection.

That would be true if the Bible wasn't said to be the "inspired word of God". Either the Bible is not inspired by God, God does not live up to the claims, or God does not exist.

Pick up an old science book, the chapter on gravity gets rewritten after Einstein but not the chapter on hydraulics.

Science is provisional. It can and probably will be changed later as our understanding changes dues to new observations, new measurements, and new experimental results. It is no surprise that it changes since this is the admitted nature of science. Religion is generally rigid and unchanging until there is no alternative. So changes in science are expected, and changes in religion reveal the certainty it clings to as unrealistic and arbitrary.

This can only end up as some sort of Biblical 'water memory', I.E., something said to carry the essential essence of Bible which no longer has any Bible left in it.

OR they can have hope that as new evidence is found, such stories will validate more and more the Bible. While many atheist jump to a conclusion that the events in the bible are pure fantasy, they are often later confronted with emerging evidence. Such as the dismissal of Pilate being a real person, later to be accepted.

I think every story, piece of art, has a bit of truth in them.

Time will tell how much truth there is. I don't claim to know the truth of every story or artifact associated with the Christian religion, but I also don't see that as necessary when certain flaws and contradictions are obvious.

Consider that the oldest manuscripts (new testament) are copies written in the first century. There must have been a circulation of originals prior to 90a.d. these would be within a lifetime after Jesus death. People during that time would have a better knowledge of things like if Pilate existed or not.

It is no surprise that some things will be accurate in the Bible, but let's not draw a circle around it and call it a bulls eye.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 10:29:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 5:40:54 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
But to read the Holy Bible as a history book is to miss the point entirely.

Do you think Jesus was a real person? If so, then you should respect that he thought these stories were real. He spoke of the murder of Abel, and the actions of the people right up until the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. You can cherry pick if you like, but it is disingenuous. That is not the way the Bible has historically been understood, including the alleged son of God.

Well, unless you are Jewish and are referring to the Old Testament. Or the Torah.

But for us gentiles, I believe it is of utmost importance to read the Bible for what it truly is: A compendium of myths; fables; allegorical and metaphorical tales' poetry and wisdom. Written a long time ago over the span of a dozen centuries, by dozens of different authors.

Instead of asking yourself, "Did this really happen exactly like it says it did?" I believe we are better-served by asking ourselves, "What compelled these people to write this?" Or "what momentous experiences did they have with their God to compel them to write this?"

I have always found it ironic that us Agnostics and liberal Christians who do not take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but rather a collection of Hebrew Mythology, actually get MORE out of its message then those who try to parse every single word looking for falsehoods or contradictions. As one would with a history or anthropology book.

Or even the biblical literalists, who naively believe it to be the indisputable word of God. Wow..I cannot imagine how they explain some of the book's more evil and distasteful stories. Must be tough. And sort of depressing. (The story from II Kings where God helped Elisha murder 40 children because they called him "baldy" comes to mind.)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 11:50:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 10:29:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 5:40:54 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
But to read the Holy Bible as a history book is to miss the point entirely.

Do you think Jesus was a real person? If so, then you should respect that he thought these stories were real. He spoke of the murder of Abel, and the actions of the people right up until the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. You can cherry pick if you like, but it is disingenuous. That is not the way the Bible has historically been understood, including the alleged son of God.

Well, unless you are Jewish and are referring to the Old Testament. Or the Torah.

But for us gentiles, I believe it is of utmost importance to read the Bible for what it truly is: A compendium of myths; fables; allegorical and metaphorical tales' poetry and wisdom. Written a long time ago over the span of a dozen centuries, by dozens of different authors.

Instead of asking yourself, "Did this really happen exactly like it says it did?" I believe we are better-served by asking ourselves, "What compelled these people to write this?" Or "what momentous experiences did they have with their God to compel them to write this?"

I have always found it ironic that us Agnostics and liberal Christians who do not take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but rather a collection of Hebrew Mythology, actually get MORE out of its message then those who try to parse every single word looking for falsehoods or contradictions. As one would with a history or anthropology book.

Or even the biblical literalists, who naively believe it to be the indisputable word of God. Wow..I cannot imagine how they explain some of the book's more evil and distasteful stories. Must be tough. And sort of depressing. (The story from II Kings where God helped Elisha murder 40 children because they called him "baldy" comes to mind.)

I DO think the man we have cone to know as Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

But..the thing is, I believe he was just that. A person. Fully mortal. A great teacher. Just like Lao Tzu; Siddartha Gautame (the Buddha); Confucious; Rumi; Martin Luther King, Jr; and Mothatma Ghandi.

And, as such, and as a Jewish man raised in 1st Century Palestine during a tumultuous time in which their culture and Hebrew religion was being threatened, he believed in the zealous teaching to him, as a kid, of his peoples' religion. That is: the Old Testament writings.

This is not to say said writings were true. Jesus was human. He had his flaws and delusions, and made mistakes, just like anyone. (Do not ever forget he publicly disrespected his family and parents on more than one occasion.) He was also a hothead and a political firebrand. An insurrectionist. Which is REALLY what got him killed, BTW).

True..he was damn near perfect in his faith and morals..much closer than most of us. But he still had misconceptions. But I DO feel that one can use his teachings and parables to help them lead a good life. And we can also learn much from him in regards to humility and being non-judgmental.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 1:26:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 11:50:07 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/6/2015 10:29:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 5:40:54 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
But to read the Holy Bible as a history book is to miss the point entirely.

Do you think Jesus was a real person? If so, then you should respect that he thought these stories were real. He spoke of the murder of Abel, and the actions of the people right up until the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. You can cherry pick if you like, but it is disingenuous. That is not the way the Bible has historically been understood, including the alleged son of God.

Well, unless you are Jewish and are referring to the Old Testament. Or the Torah.

But for us gentiles, I believe it is of utmost importance to read the Bible for what it truly is: A compendium of myths; fables; allegorical and metaphorical tales' poetry and wisdom. Written a long time ago over the span of a dozen centuries, by dozens of different authors.

Instead of asking yourself, "Did this really happen exactly like it says it did?" I believe we are better-served by asking ourselves, "What compelled these people to write this?" Or "what momentous experiences did they have with their God to compel them to write this?"

I have always found it ironic that us Agnostics and liberal Christians who do not take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but rather a collection of Hebrew Mythology, actually get MORE out of its message then those who try to parse every single word looking for falsehoods or contradictions. As one would with a history or anthropology book.

Or even the biblical literalists, who naively believe it to be the indisputable word of God. Wow..I cannot imagine how they explain some of the book's more evil and distasteful stories. Must be tough. And sort of depressing. (The story from II Kings where God helped Elisha murder 40 children because they called him "baldy" comes to mind.)

I DO think the man we have cone to know as Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

But..the thing is, I believe he was just that. A person. Fully mortal. A great teacher. Just like Lao Tzu; Siddartha Gautame (the Buddha); Confucious; Rumi; Martin Luther King, Jr; and Mothatma Ghandi.

And, as such, and as a Jewish man raised in 1st Century Palestine during a tumultuous time in which their culture and Hebrew religion was being threatened, he believed in the zealous teaching to him, as a kid, of his peoples' religion. That is: the Old Testament writings.

This is not to say said writings were true. Jesus was human. He had his flaws and delusions, and made mistakes, just like anyone. (Do not ever forget he publicly disrespected his family and parents on more than one occasion.) He was also a hothead and a political firebrand. An insurrectionist. Which is REALLY what got him killed, BTW).

True..he was damn near perfect in his faith and morals..much closer than most of us. But he still had misconceptions. But I DO feel that one can use his teachings and parables to help them lead a good life. And we can also learn much from him in regards to humility and being non-judgmental.

We have every reason to believe many of the stories were written to be literal. Jesus' understanding is a good illustration of that. I have no problem with someone using the Bible as a allegorical guide for their life, but it must be taken out of context to do that. Let's not pretend it was written as a grand figurative tale. Other than that, I think you and I agree.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 1:52:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 1:26:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/7/2015 11:50:07 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/6/2015 10:29:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 5:40:54 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
But to read the Holy Bible as a history book is to miss the point entirely.

Do you think Jesus was a real person? If so, then you should respect that he thought these stories were real. He spoke of the murder of Abel, and the actions of the people right up until the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. You can cherry pick if you like, but it is disingenuous. That is not the way the Bible has historically been understood, including the alleged son of God.

Well, unless you are Jewish and are referring to the Old Testament. Or the Torah.

But for us gentiles, I believe it is of utmost importance to read the Bible for what it truly is: A compendium of myths; fables; allegorical and metaphorical tales' poetry and wisdom. Written a long time ago over the span of a dozen centuries, by dozens of different authors.

Instead of asking yourself, "Did this really happen exactly like it says it did?" I believe we are better-served by asking ourselves, "What compelled these people to write this?" Or "what momentous experiences did they have with their God to compel them to write this?"

I have always found it ironic that us Agnostics and liberal Christians who do not take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but rather a collection of Hebrew Mythology, actually get MORE out of its message then those who try to parse every single word looking for falsehoods or contradictions. As one would with a history or anthropology book.

Or even the biblical literalists, who naively believe it to be the indisputable word of God. Wow..I cannot imagine how they explain some of the book's more evil and distasteful stories. Must be tough. And sort of depressing. (The story from II Kings where God helped Elisha murder 40 children because they called him "baldy" comes to mind.)

I DO think the man we have cone to know as Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

But..the thing is, I believe he was just that. A person. Fully mortal. A great teacher. Just like Lao Tzu; Siddartha Gautame (the Buddha); Confucious; Rumi; Martin Luther King, Jr; and Mothatma Ghandi.

And, as such, and as a Jewish man raised in 1st Century Palestine during a tumultuous time in which their culture and Hebrew religion was being threatened, he believed in the zealous teaching to him, as a kid, of his peoples' religion. That is: the Old Testament writings.

This is not to say said writings were true. Jesus was human. He had his flaws and delusions, and made mistakes, just like anyone. (Do not ever forget he publicly disrespected his family and parents on more than one occasion.) He was also a hothead and a political firebrand. An insurrectionist. Which is REALLY what got him killed, BTW).

True..he was damn near perfect in his faith and morals..much closer than most of us. But he still had misconceptions. But I DO feel that one can use his teachings and parables to help them lead a good life. And we can also learn much from him in regards to humility and being non-judgmental.

We have every reason to believe many of the stories were written to be literal. Jesus' understanding is a good illustration of that. I have no problem with someone using the Bible as a allegorical guide for their life, but it must be taken out of context to do that. Let's not pretend it was written as a grand figurative tale. Other than that, I think you and I agree.

Wow. SO you are a biblical literalist?

And think that to believe some of the tales in it are allegorical is to take it out of context?

Then I would say you have a lot of explaining to do, my friend.

If some of the tales are NOT allegorical--or just plain fabricated--then please enlighten me as to wtf Yahweh was thinking with these?

I will be eagerly awaiting your reply, sir.

http://www.evilbible.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 2:01:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 1:52:17 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/7/2015 1:26:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/7/2015 11:50:07 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/6/2015 10:29:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 5:40:54 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
But to read the Holy Bible as a history book is to miss the point entirely.

Do you think Jesus was a real person? If so, then you should respect that he thought these stories were real. He spoke of the murder of Abel, and the actions of the people right up until the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. You can cherry pick if you like, but it is disingenuous. That is not the way the Bible has historically been understood, including the alleged son of God.

Well, unless you are Jewish and are referring to the Old Testament. Or the Torah.

But for us gentiles, I believe it is of utmost importance to read the Bible for what it truly is: A compendium of myths; fables; allegorical and metaphorical tales' poetry and wisdom. Written a long time ago over the span of a dozen centuries, by dozens of different authors.

Instead of asking yourself, "Did this really happen exactly like it says it did?" I believe we are better-served by asking ourselves, "What compelled these people to write this?" Or "what momentous experiences did they have with their God to compel them to write this?"

I have always found it ironic that us Agnostics and liberal Christians who do not take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but rather a collection of Hebrew Mythology, actually get MORE out of its message then those who try to parse every single word looking for falsehoods or contradictions. As one would with a history or anthropology book.

Or even the biblical literalists, who naively believe it to be the indisputable word of God. Wow..I cannot imagine how they explain some of the book's more evil and distasteful stories. Must be tough. And sort of depressing. (The story from II Kings where God helped Elisha murder 40 children because they called him "baldy" comes to mind.)

I DO think the man we have cone to know as Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

But..the thing is, I believe he was just that. A person. Fully mortal. A great teacher. Just like Lao Tzu; Siddartha Gautame (the Buddha); Confucious; Rumi; Martin Luther King, Jr; and Mothatma Ghandi.

And, as such, and as a Jewish man raised in 1st Century Palestine during a tumultuous time in which their culture and Hebrew religion was being threatened, he believed in the zealous teaching to him, as a kid, of his peoples' religion. That is: the Old Testament writings.

This is not to say said writings were true. Jesus was human. He had his flaws and delusions, and made mistakes, just like anyone. (Do not ever forget he publicly disrespected his family and parents on more than one occasion.) He was also a hothead and a political firebrand. An insurrectionist. Which is REALLY what got him killed, BTW).

True..he was damn near perfect in his faith and morals..much closer than most of us. But he still had misconceptions. But I DO feel that one can use his teachings and parables to help them lead a good life. And we can also learn much from him in regards to humility and being non-judgmental.

We have every reason to believe many of the stories were written to be literal. Jesus' understanding is a good illustration of that. I have no problem with someone using the Bible as a allegorical guide for their life, but it must be taken out of context to do that. Let's not pretend it was written as a grand figurative tale. Other than that, I think you and I agree.

Wow. SO you are a biblical literalist?

I have stated many of the stories were meant to be taken literally, that does not mean I think every story was intended that way.

And think that to believe some of the tales in it are allegorical is to take it out of context?

Yes, it depends on which stories your are referring to. The stories on the OP are meant to be taken literally.

Then I would say you have a lot of explaining to do, my friend.

No, no I don't. These stories were written by primitive ignorant peoples. Explaining done. ;-)

If some of the tales are NOT allegorical--or just plain fabricated--then please enlighten me as to wtf Yahweh was thinking with these?

I will be eagerly awaiting your reply, sir.

http://www.evilbible.com...

You do realize that I am not a believer, right?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 2:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 2:01:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/7/2015 1:52:17 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/7/2015 1:26:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/7/2015 11:50:07 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/6/2015 10:29:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 5:40:54 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
But to read the Holy Bible as a history book is to miss the point entirely.

Do you think Jesus was a real person? If so, then you should respect that he thought these stories were real. He spoke of the murder of Abel, and the actions of the people right up until the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. You can cherry pick if you like, but it is disingenuous. That is not the way the Bible has historically been understood, including the alleged son of God.

Well, unless you are Jewish and are referring to the Old Testament. Or the Torah.

But for us gentiles, I believe it is of utmost importance to read the Bible for what it truly is: A compendium of myths; fables; allegorical and metaphorical tales' poetry and wisdom. Written a long time ago over the span of a dozen centuries, by dozens of different authors.

Instead of asking yourself, "Did this really happen exactly like it says it did?" I believe we are better-served by asking ourselves, "What compelled these people to write this?" Or "what momentous experiences did they have with their God to compel them to write this?"

I have always found it ironic that us Agnostics and liberal Christians who do not take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but rather a collection of Hebrew Mythology, actually get MORE out of its message then those who try to parse every single word looking for falsehoods or contradictions. As one would with a history or anthropology book.

Or even the biblical literalists, who naively believe it to be the indisputable word of God. Wow..I cannot imagine how they explain some of the book's more evil and distasteful stories. Must be tough. And sort of depressing. (The story from II Kings where God helped Elisha murder 40 children because they called him "baldy" comes to mind.)

I DO think the man we have cone to know as Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

But..the thing is, I believe he was just that. A person. Fully mortal. A great teacher. Just like Lao Tzu; Siddartha Gautame (the Buddha); Confucious; Rumi; Martin Luther King, Jr; and Mothatma Ghandi.

And, as such, and as a Jewish man raised in 1st Century Palestine during a tumultuous time in which their culture and Hebrew religion was being threatened, he believed in the zealous teaching to him, as a kid, of his peoples' religion. That is: the Old Testament writings.

This is not to say said writings were true. Jesus was human. He had his flaws and delusions, and made mistakes, just like anyone. (Do not ever forget he publicly disrespected his family and parents on more than one occasion.) He was also a hothead and a political firebrand. An insurrectionist. Which is REALLY what got him killed, BTW).

True..he was damn near perfect in his faith and morals..much closer than most of us. But he still had misconceptions. But I DO feel that one can use his teachings and parables to help them lead a good life. And we can also learn much from him in regards to humility and being non-judgmental.

We have every reason to believe many of the stories were written to be literal. Jesus' understanding is a good illustration of that. I have no problem with someone using the Bible as a allegorical guide for their life, but it must be taken out of context to do that. Let's not pretend it was written as a grand figurative tale. Other than that, I think you and I agree.

Wow. SO you are a biblical literalist?

I have stated many of the stories were meant to be taken literally, that does not mean I think every story was intended that way.

And think that to believe some of the tales in it are allegorical is to take it out of context?

Yes, it depends on which stories your are referring to. The stories on the OP are meant to be taken literally.

Then I would say you have a lot of explaining to do, my friend.

No, no I don't. These stories were written by primitive ignorant peoples. Explaining done. ;-)

If some of the tales are NOT allegorical--or just plain fabricated--then please enlighten me as to wtf Yahweh was thinking with these?

I will be eagerly awaiting your reply, sir.

http://www.evilbible.com...

You do realize that I am not a believer, right?

Oops. My bad. No--I did not realize you were a non-believer.

I thought at first you were claiming the stories WERE literally true, like a literlist or fundamentalist would.

But I see now you were only saying that the stories were meant to be true by the peoples who wrote them.

That clears things up a bit, yes. But I still disagree. I maintain that they DID use allegory and metaphor. Especially in the OT, but even in the NT.

Google "midrash" in regards to Hebrew writing techniques. You might enjoy learning about it and it will clear some things up for you on some of the methods used in Hebrew Mythology.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 4:30:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 5:15:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
The alleged destruction is thought to have taken place around 1700 BC, and the book of Genesis is thought to have been written around 1400 BC. That is hardly contemporary, not to mention, the Bible is not evidence of its own claims.

So, how could Egyptian writing then be evidence for its own claims? How could our modern history be evidence for anything? In my opinion your claim revokes all written history.

And my Bible is also made about 20 years ago. Does it mean that all that it tells is also developed 20 years ago? The date when something is written, is not necessary the date when it was first written or told.

The Bible tells us many died in the desert before reaching the promised land. It is unreasonable to conclude that the living carried the dead out of the desert. They would have been left there, and we are talking about the bones of millions of people. Do we find any bones? No.

According to the modern science modern man has existed over 200 000 years. If we look how fast people in poor conditions reproduce, we should find lot of bones. Why that is not true? If you can accept that, why should we assume that Moses and his group left bones of millions of people?

According to the Bible, the flood occurred around 2300 BC. None of these things support a global flood 4000-4500 years ago.

That is not correct. Our modern dating methods don"t support it. But they can be wrong. The actual true findings that everyone can see support the Bible flood.

Do modern animals swim better and longer, or do they float better after death? For the record, there is absolutely no way you could know the answers to these questions. You're grasping for straws.

Of course that can be known, by studying how those animals are constructed, how they move, how they float etc.

If the fossils of 'non-modern' animals were related to a great flood, then they should be jumbled - Some more complex animals higher and lower in the strata layers mixed with less complex animals, but that is not what we see. We see less complex organisms in deeper strata.

Less complex are not able to escape from the first wave.

If all of the Earth is underwater, then the conditions are pretty much all the same.

No they are not, some areas are deeper and some areas have more sediments than others, depending on for example from what direction the flood came. What matter was in front of the flood. If you open your eyes, you could notice for example that plants and animals near coast line are different than those that are for example in mountains. There were easily many different situations that formed different things during the flood event.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 5:24:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 4:30:14 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 5/6/2015 5:15:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
The alleged destruction is thought to have taken place around 1700 BC, and the book of Genesis is thought to have been written around 1400 BC. That is hardly contemporary, not to mention, the Bible is not evidence of its own claims.

So, how could Egyptian writing then be evidence for its own claims? How could our modern history be evidence for anything? In my opinion your claim revokes all written history.

Egyptian records are verified by records of other civilizations and Egyptian artifacts. We don't take the records as proof of themselves.

And my Bible is also made about 20 years ago. Does it mean that all that it tells is also developed 20 years ago? The date when something is written, is not necessary the date when it was first written or told.

The Bible tells us many died in the desert before reaching the promised land. It is unreasonable to conclude that the living carried the dead out of the desert. They would have been left there, and we are talking about the bones of millions of people. Do we find any bones? No.

According to the modern science modern man has existed over 200 000 years. If we look how fast people in poor conditions reproduce, we should find lot of bones. Why that is not true? If you can accept that, why should we assume that Moses and his group left bones of millions of people?

Your objection is completely irrelevant to evidence of the Exodus. If the Israelites wandered the Sinai desert a few millennia ago, and millions of people died during their trek (as the Bible states), then we have every reason to expect bones, 12.

According to the Bible, the flood occurred around 2300 BC. None of these things support a global flood 4000-4500 years ago.

That is not correct. Our modern dating methods don"t support it. But they can be wrong. The actual true findings that everyone can see support the Bible flood.

Uh huh, and what might those findings be?

Do modern animals swim better and longer, or do they float better after death? For the record, there is absolutely no way you could know the answers to these questions. You're grasping for straws.

Of course that can be known, by studying how those animals are constructed, how they move, how they float etc.

Sure, you can know about modern animals, but what are you comparing them to? Extinct animals. How might you go about determining how they move and float?

If the fossils of 'non-modern' animals were related to a great flood, then they should be jumbled - Some more complex animals higher and lower in the strata layers mixed with less complex animals, but that is not what we see. We see less complex organisms in deeper strata.

Less complex are not able to escape from the first wave.

Speculation, and not supported by the fossil record. According to your logic, there should be no invertebrates mixed in the same layer as vertebrates. There should be no primates in the same layer as insects. This is simply not what we find.

If all of the Earth is underwater, then the conditions are pretty much all the same.

No they are not, some areas are deeper and some areas have more sediments than others, depending on for example from what direction the flood came. What matter was in front of the flood. If you open your eyes, you could notice for example that plants and animals near coast line are different than those that are for example in mountains. There were easily many different situations that formed different things during the flood event.

A worldwide flood would leave a worldwide sediment layer. A sediment layer would provide proper conditions for fossilization especially since we would expect the animals to die and be covered by this sediment. There is no such sediment or fossil layer.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:16:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 5:24:40 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Your objection is completely irrelevant to evidence of the Exodus. If the Israelites wandered the Sinai desert a few millennia ago, and millions of people died during their trek (as the Bible states), then we have every reason to expect bones, 12.

On what basis there should be bones of millions of people? Where does the bible claim that million people died there?

Uh huh, and what might those findings be?

Oil and gas fields, Grand Canyon, Mid Atlantic ridge, orogenic mountains, fossils

Sure, you can know about modern animals, but what are you comparing them to? Extinct animals. How might you go about determining how they move and float?

Actually even modern time animals drown differently in flood situations. Some animals can better escape from flood water than some. For example beetle is not able to run like gazelle. Also their density is different and ability to float is different. Same is with reptilians (and their "ancestors") that are not able to swim.

Speculation, and not supported by the fossil record. According to your logic, there should be no invertebrates mixed in the same layer as vertebrates.

In some cases it could be possible. I don"t have any reason to claim that in great flood all animals would drown exact same way. It depends on many conditions.

A worldwide flood would leave a worldwide sediment layer.

I don"t think that is true. If the water came like in the Bible story, it came from a specific direction and flushed sediments to specific direction. So the layers didn"t form even layer.

http://www.kolumbus.fi...
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:47:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 1:45:34 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 1:37:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2015 8:48:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/6/2015 7:45:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Why do Christians believe?

Sodom and Gomarrah

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone.

The Exodus

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archaeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

Conclusion

Lack of evidence is not all that spectacular in and of itself, but when coupled with an expectation of evidence - then we have evidence of absence. These stories we have of the Christian god give us a reasonable expectation of evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for these claims, and we have no reason to accept them as true. In fact, we have reason to accept them as false. If these stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.

What's interesting is that Christians will often bring up the concept of eye witness accounts in regards to the Crucifixion, the Resurrection or Saul on the road to Damascus. for example. These are minor events compared to the Exodus or Sodom and Gomorrah, yet they are vital for a Christians beliefs to be valid.


Christians implicitly acknowledge evidence is reasonable to expect when they seek to provide it for for some Bible stories. However, stories like these are starting to be swept under the rug (avoided) because they are a huge mind sink when read literally. That leads some Christians to modify their interpretation of the major stories to more figurative interpretations. This can only end up as some sort of Biblical 'water memory', I.E., something said to carry the essential essence of Bible which no longer has any Bible left in it.


'Water memory' - http://rationalwiki.org...

Rationalwiki such a great site known for it's unbiased logical foundations.

Lol, that's it? You attack a source I use to provide supplemental information for an analogy, but ignore the entire the OP and the analogy itself? I am willing to concede the source - it does not support any crucial part.

What better way to act pompous and condescending without actually having to substantiate ANYTHING? It's the only way he knows how to "debate." He's a more benign iteration of a (thankfully) departed "neutral."
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 3:26:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 1:16:36 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 5/7/2015 5:24:40 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Your objection is completely irrelevant to evidence of the Exodus. If the Israelites wandered the Sinai desert a few millennia ago, and millions of people died during their trek (as the Bible states), then we have every reason to expect bones, 12.

On what basis there should be bones of millions of people? Where does the bible claim that million people died there?

Exodus 12:37

37 Now the sons of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, aside from children.

600,000 men who were capable of war - that does not include the tribe of Levi, the women, the children, or the elderly. Estimates consistently range in the millions.

Numbers 14:29-34

29 your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me, 30 not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. 31 But your little ones, who you said would become a prey, I will bring in, and they shall know the land that you have rejected. 32 But as for you, your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness. 33 And your children shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years and shall suffer for your faithlessness, until the last of your dead bodies lies in the wilderness. 34 According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure."

Everyone in the current generation will die before reaching milk and honey land.

Uh huh, and what might those findings be?

Oil and gas fields, Grand Canyon, Mid Atlantic ridge, orogenic mountains, fossils

Your answer is circular. I stated none of these thing supported a great flood, then you said our dating methods don't support the flood (I agree) and that true findings support it. I ask what are those findings - and here we are back to the beginning of the circle. These still don't support a great flood.

Fossils are millions of years too old to have happened in any recent flood, same with oil and gas fields. I'm not even sure how the Mid Altlantic ridge is evidence for a global flood. The Grand Canyon has been cut by a river over millions of years, and it is not exclusively sedimentary.

There are actually many more specific objections to each of these, but seeing as how you are unable to provide peer reviewed articles validating your position - I see little point in going to the trouble.

Sure, you can know about modern animals, but what are you comparing them to? Extinct animals. How might you go about determining how they move and float?

Actually even modern time animals drown differently in flood situations. Some animals can better escape from flood water than some. For example beetle is not able to run like gazelle. Also their density is different and ability to float is different. Same is with reptilians (and their "ancestors") that are not able to swim.

Great, now we're getting somewhere. If we follow your logic, then we should see fossils sorted by species or according to like densities, but again, this is not what we see. We have plenty of examples of animals of different types (and different densities) in the same strata.

Speculation, and not supported by the fossil record. According to your logic, there should be no invertebrates mixed in the same layer as vertebrates.

In some cases it could be possible. I don"t have any reason to claim that in great flood all animals would drown exact same way. It depends on many conditions.

We can observe what modern floods do - they do not sort - they jumble everything together. If this were the case in your great flood, then we should see humans in with Precambrian fossils, or humans with dinosaurs (as an example), but again, this is not what we find.

A worldwide flood would leave a worldwide sediment layer.

I don"t think that is true. If the water came like in the Bible story, it came from a specific direction and flushed sediments to specific direction. So the layers didn"t form even layer.

Even if the water came from a specific direction, it would have made no difference. Once the water stopped, then all the accumulated sediment within the water would have started accumulating everywhere there was water (which was the entire Earth).

http://www.kolumbus.fi...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 1:47:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 3:26:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
600,000 men who were capable of war - that does not include the tribe of Levi, the women, the children, or the elderly. Estimates consistently range in the millions.

Ok, we could agree that almost million people died there. However, there is no good reason to assume that all those bones should have remained till this day. That is why your bone argument means nothing.

Fossils are millions of years too old

I don"t believe that, because there is no good and reasonable evidence for that.

Great, now we're getting somewhere. If we follow your logic, then we should see fossils sorted by species or according to like densities, but again, this is not what we see. We have plenty of examples of animals of different types (and different densities) in the same strata.

Density is just one variable that affects to how animals get drowned, not the only one.

We can observe what modern floods do - they do not sort - they jumble everything together. If this were the case in your great flood, then we should see humans in with Precambrian fossils, or humans with dinosaurs

Local flood is very much different than global flood. All animals don"t usually live in same conditions and same areas. Therefore they also would get drowned different ways and in different places. I think you make too simple generalizations.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 2:22:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 1:47:02 AM, 12_13 wrote:
At 5/8/2015 3:26:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
600,000 men who were capable of war - that does not include the tribe of Levi, the women, the children, or the elderly. Estimates consistently range in the millions.

Ok, we could agree that almost million people died there. However, there is no good reason to assume that all those bones should have remained till this day. That is why your bone argument means nothing.

We have many examples of bones lasting for thousands of years in certain environments - a dry desert is among those locations. Human teeth last even longer than than bones, as well.

Fossils are millions of years too old

I don"t believe that, because there is no good and reasonable evidence for that.

Well, that is not true, but I have a feeling you reject the good and reasonable evidence for radiometric dating.

Great, now we're getting somewhere. If we follow your logic, then we should see fossils sorted by species or according to like densities, but again, this is not what we see. We have plenty of examples of animals of different types (and different densities) in the same strata.

Density is just one variable that affects to how animals get drowned, not the only one.

What we find in the geological record and what you suggest are not complimentary.

We can observe what modern floods do - they do not sort - they jumble everything together. If this were the case in your great flood, then we should see humans in with Precambrian fossils, or humans with dinosaurs

Local flood is very much different than global flood.

No, a flood is a flood. It is only the scope that changes.

All animals don"t usually live in same conditions and same areas. Therefore they also would get drowned different ways and in different places. I think you make too simple generalizations.

You come to this conclusion based on your unsupported assumptions. The fact that you have dropped many objections to your explanations is telling.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 2:27:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 11:13:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Why do Christians believe?

Sodom and Gomarrah

What kind of evidence would the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah leave behind? First off, we would expect contemporary writings about the destruction of two cities. In other words, eyewitnesses who tell us about this destruction and what they saw. There are none. The Bible tells us these cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Is there evidence for the existence of cities destroyed in this manner? No. Archeologists have been searching for these cities for almost a hundred years and have found no trace of any cities destroyed with brimstone.

The Exodus

What about all of the event surrounding the Exodus? We would expect to find Egyptian records mentioning the death of a pharaoh or the death of every first born in the land. There are none. We would expect to find a lot of evidence of millions of people living in the desert for 40 years, but again there is no evidence. In fact archaeologists have given up on searching for evidence of such a large group of people ever roaming the Sinai desert.

"The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Flood

If the flood occurred, what kind of evidence would we expect to find? Well, there would be massive amount of evidence. We would expect to find a relatively recent fossil layer which included modern animals (zebras, lions, tigers, wolves, giraffes, etc.) and modern humans. This fossil layer should be worldwide. In addition to this we, should expect to find a worldwide layer of pebbles, boulders, and sludge moved about by the flood. What do we find? Nothing like this - there is no fossil layer with 100,000's of modern fossils, and there is no sludge layer. Its like it never happened.

Conclusion

Lack of evidence is not all that spectacular in and of itself, but when coupled with an expectation of evidence - then we have evidence of absence. These stories we have of the Christian god give us a reasonable expectation of evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for these claims, and we have no reason to accept them as true. In fact, we have reason to accept them as false. If these stories are false, then it casts serious doubt on the Christian god who is said to have participated in them. Considering this, I submit it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the god of the Bible.

"Rational belief - Christian God?"
Answer: Nope.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass