Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
But is it fair to question the Bible's accuracy by classifying it as religious only? Can't the Bible be both religious and historical? We can see that certain findings from archeology do support the Bible. Almost all of the geographical places are seen to be accurate. Also, certain findings such as the Sumerian King List (which corroborates with the Bible's story of the flood (showing that the lifespan of the kings dropped tremendously after the flood is believed to have occurred). Also, the Cyrus cylinder, a royal edict, was found that prove the Bible's prophecy- that a man specifically names Cyrus would allow the Jews to return home.Deuteronomy also shares the form of the Hittite Suzerain Vassal Treaty that was commonly used in the second millennium.
If we can conclude that the Bible is a historically accurate document, then we can conclude that the Bible speaks truth on other matters (of faith, spirituality, etc.) that cannot be identified with reason and evidence alone.
@ ChristianAsking...
- "But is it fair to question the Bible's accuracy by classifying it as religious only?"
I don't classify it as such.
The Bible lacks credibility because it has very questionable sources, multiple unknown authors, multiple accounts that were not written down until many years after the alleged events, it was assembled at the First Council of Nicea as late as 325 CE (the first effort to attain consensus in the church) where it was decided that Jesus was indeed the son of god and co-eternal with the Father.
On top of that it completely lacks corroboration from outside sources, and completely lacks any archaeological evidence that support any of the supernatural claims.
- "Also, certain findings such as the Sumerian King List (which corroborates with the Bible's story of the flood (showing that the lifespan of the kings dropped tremendously after the flood is believed to have occurred)."
How is that corroboration of the flood story?
I would certainly want to see any evidence that supports this.
- "Also, the Cyrus cylinder, a royal edict, was found that prove the Bible's prophecy- that a man specifically names Cyrus would allow the Jews to return home."
Again, I would like to see how this actually proves anything.
- "Deuteronomy also shares the form of the Hittite Suzerain Vassal Treaty that was commonly used in the second millennium."
What does "shares the form of" mean?
...of the Hittititewhat? I'm lost here.
- "f we can conclude that the Bible is a historically accurate document, then we can conclude that the Bible speaks truth on other matters (of faith, spirituality, etc.) that cannot be identified with reason and evidence alone."
* But we cannot conclude that the Bible is a historically accurate document, only that a few fragments may have actual historical background.
* How does historical accuracy has any bearing on the truth of any supernatural claims?
ChristianAsking...
Ai and Jericho were not in existence when Joshua supposedly attacked! (Historical factors put a tight restriction on when Joshua could do his stuff.) Moreover, it's not too difficult to believe than an ancient work would know something about ancient sites, especially if it was using data handed down. The correspondence between long-lived Sumerian kings and the long-lived kings of the Bible only prove that the biblical nonsense had an older source! As to Cyrus, an important Persian king, his release of the Jews (and all other peoples taken to Babylon) was a well known fact of antiquity. What Bible prophecy are you referring to? Can you demonstrate that it was written BEFORE the fact? A lot of "prophecies" in Daniel are known to have been written long after the fact! Strange, but true, the book of Daniel also makes several real prophecies--which fall flat on their face. The Bible was not a historically accurate document for some of the reasons given above, but no one is saying that it was always wrong.
The bibles are man-made documents reflecting the morality and ignorance of the writers. No more accurate description has ever made sense to me.
Judaism gave women more equal rights than any culture at the time or up until just recently, women in ancient Israel had more rights than women in America during the early 20th Century. How is that based on the morals of the time?
If the Hebrew Bible was based on the ignorance of the writers of the time, why then does it say the earth is round, whilst everyone back then thought it was flat. Isaiah 40:22
Harry,
Isaiah 40:22 ? Do you mean the verse that depicts God looking down on a flat, pancake earth and seeing its circular boundary? Doesn't sound like a description of a spherical earth to me! Do you see the Hebrew word for "ball" anywhere in that verse? Since God is not that high up (doesn't the sky look rather close?) his keen eyesight, with a bit of poetic license, sees people as mere "grasshoppers." That poetic license would be grossly inappropriate if God were looking at a spherical earth tens of thousands of miles away.
In that same verse the heavens are stretched out like a curtain, spread out like a tent to live in. The sheet-like nature of the heavenly vault, which holds up an ocean (separating the waters above from the waters below) is attested by a number of verses in the Old Testament. If you want a thorough tour of the flat-earth and Babylonian cosmos-reflecting verses, read David Presutta's book "The Biblical Cosmos versus Modern Cosmology". Metaphorical usage can only be stretched so far!
What would be a more interesting question is why you would actually think the bible contained some truth, and what purpose would asking a group of atheist's opinions about your bible serve?
I have thousands of reasons why I think Christianity is made up with a made up god, and none of them have to do with the bible:
Achelois
Achelous
Aeolus
Aether
Alastor
Aphrodite
Apollo
Horus
Ra
Selene
Zeus
That's just a few from a single list. There are many others. And why doesn't your god have a name? It's like calling me Man, and my brother Man, oh, and my dad's name is Man too. It seems particularly discouraging when they couldn't even don Him with a name of his own. He's so generic he is just God. So he could be Zeus then since they both came from the same place: somebody's mind.
By not giving Himself a name, God is trying to prove a point. All the other idols/gods were all confined to certain names and therefore confined to certain roles. If there is a god, wouldn't it be far greater to have one, truly all powerful one? So great that He can't be confined to a simple name or generic specialty? (agriculture, sun, love, etc.)
Right. God has to prove the point that he is god by dismissing all the named gods that man created. Even though that is only something man would have to do. Sounds like another con. But you have enough confirmation bias to see the truth I'm sure.
" If there is a god, wouldn't it be far greater to have one"
Absolutely. And then that one god can be progressively diminished as we learn more and more about ourselves and the universe, until one day the god of the gaps finally evaporates away out of the collective human imaginations that spawned it. That would indeed be far greater for humanity.
I have lots of names for god. Brainchain. Lifesucker. Thoughtkiller. Hatemaker. Fearmonger. Strifefeeder. Mindmangler.
His name is YHWH. We just don't write the tetragramaton very much.
Who named him?
That name sounds a lot like Jove, which is an alternate name for Jupiter. In Latin the J is a Y and the V is a W, so the pronunciation is very close. I think Jehovah or YHWH or whatever is just one of a series of sky father gods invented by ancient Indo-Europeans. What's special about YHWH apart from the fact that the name has no visible vowels?
The bible is a collection of folklore taken from other and past cultures. The only truths in the bible are the occasional geographic references. Nothing in the bible is corroborated. Everything is hearsay. The versions that exist today are a far cry from the oldest bibles known. Who knows what the very first bible actually said. For centuries it has been changed for political reasons and is merely a corrupted version of itself.
Furthermore, as science makes discoveries that are proven facts, verified and tested and peer reviewed apologists for the bible have made wild inane re-interpretations to justify the bible. At best it is vague and non-specific.
Science proves that the sun doesn't revolve around the sun. Apologists make up wild justifications. Science prove the age of the Earth. Apologists reinvent the interpretation of what a "day" is.
Everyday there is a new apology to justify the fallacies in the bible.
Also the bible is used as a whole world understanding, yet it actually is limited in a geographic understanding, and limited in a time understanding. It is pretty clear that the bible is probably the most inacurate written work in history, yet modern apologist keep making up new inane justifications to try and keep it relevant.
Take the resurrection. The Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest bible known, has no direct witness to a resurrection. Also, the resurrection story exist far before the jesus era. So it is probably an adaptation from an older culture.
The New Testiment is completely without any form of verification. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet there is nothing about jesus, miracles, resurrection, in their records. Given the fact that the Romans made thousands of copies of every report, it's hard to believe that there is zero evidence that jesus even existed.
So, if I were to base my life on a book, I dare say it wouldn't be the highly speculative, highly corrupted, highly edited, highly inaccurate, bible.
No, I would choose a book that has had everything in it tested, verified, peer reviewed, was specific, logical, accurate, that didn't need apologist to think up lies to justify it's relevance.
The Codex Sinaiticus is actually missing the latter half of Mark chapter 16. However, Mark 16:1-8 is included and it actually does recount the resurrection. The angel is recorded as saying "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, He is not here."
In response to a few of your other points, I would say that the Bible was written in a time period that did not have the scientific knowledge that we now have. God knew this, and so He allowed Genesis, for instance, to be put into allegorical form to prove a larger point( that He is the creator). Therefore, it is not reinterpreting truth, but verifying it, because we now have more proof at our fingertips for how the world actually works. I believe that God is working with us in this, and that scientific discoveries further prove that He is the creator.
When you go to school do the teachers tell you ignorant stories because you aren't able to understand the truth? If god's word is the sole point of reference for belief would it make sense to tell false stories because we can't comprehend the truth? Wouldn't that just make you look like a liar and your word a con? If god needed us to understand science so he could express his word why didn't he just wait until we had such knowledge? If god needed to re-spawn Jesus in order to forgive us our sins why didn't he just wait until we all had camera phones?
Or do you think that the Ancient Greeks and Sumerians were just too stupid for god to waste any time with? Somehow it makes sense that god created us, even though we didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand what he was telling us, so he had to lie.
Sounds like a con to me, and you are well and truly a part of it.
@christianasking
The codex sinaiticus is missing the latter half of mark chapter 16. It isn't there because it wasn't written until the 5th century.
You said " would say that the Bible was written in a time period that did not have the scientific knowledge that we now have. God knew this, and so He allowed Genesis, for instance, to be put into allegorical form to prove a larger point( that He is the creator)."
No that is what YOU made up as an apology for the bibles inaccuracies. You literally just proved my point.
No, it isn't, and the bible wasn't altered for political gain, the Non-Testament was, but the Tsnakh has been confirmed to be the same Tanakh as 2,000 years ago by the dead sea scrolls.
Harry,
The Bible is full of political compromises as implied in the fusing of several accounts in the first 5 books and in the historical canonization process. The history of the Hebrew writings isn't quite as unchanging as you would have us believe, though there is a long period of rigorous effort at keeping it unchanged.
@christianasking
Who are you?
Why are you here (on this forum)?
What is your purpose?
What do you hope to gain?
What is your agenda?
Did someone or some organization put you up to this?
Are you reading from a script?
Will answer questions put to you or just ignore them?
Will just avoid real questions and just quote the bible?
What the FUCK do you want anyway?!
@mykcob4
I'm so sorry if I've offended you at all that was not my intent. I am just genuinely curious to hear the specific arguments atheists have against the Bible. No one has put me up to this, I am not reading from a script, I just have a lot of questions and things I've been thinking about lately. I have some friends who are atheists who haven't been able to give me reasons why they don't believe the Bible, and so I was curious to ask some people who probably have a more concrete answer. That is all. I'm sorry if that offends you, but thats not my intent. I just desire to have a civil discourse on the Bible.
You can't "offend" me. I'm blunt and to the point. I don't waste time with excuses or apologies. I force people's hands to get to the point.
Do your friends go to christian websites to get more concrete answers to why YOU believe in a myth?
I believe it because proof, right now In writing a blog post to prove my beliefs, we it here:
http://karaitesblogg.blogspot.com
ChristianAsking...,
I would like to add one more important entry to the many problems that forum members have brought up. Some of the books in the Bible are forged! In the New Testament, serious scholars widely accept that 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Peter are forged documents! In the Old Testament we have an outstanding example in the Book of Daniel which was written long after the time of Nebuchadnezzar and certainly not by a court functionary.
Altogether, we have given you a pretty good load of biblical errors. Until you can rebut them, you have no business carrying on about an inerrant Bible! With all these errors in plain sight, whom among us do you hope to convince? If you simply wanted to know about them, well there they are! At least some of them.
Interesting...and do you think that there was an imposter who imposted The apostle Paul? I have come to realize recently that the reason that all of Asia turned against Paul might be because someone imposted him. Do you have anything else on this?
Hawk Flint,
Just Google "forged biblical documents," "2 Peter" or some similar phrase. It's pretty established stuff as far as real Bible scholars are concerned. However, off hand, I don't see any connection with your statement that all of Asia turned against Paul. Those documents were probably generated by the circle of people surrounding Paul after his death, but don't quote me on that.
"In response to a few of your other points, I would say that the Bible was written in a time period that did not have the scientific knowledge that we now have. God knew this, and so He allowed Genesis, for instance, to be put into allegorical form to prove a larger point( that He is the creator)."
I hope you'll excuse my scepticism on this, because to me it sounds like theism suddenly claiming ownership of science after millennia of denying and suppressing it. I'm sure you're also aware that many Christian sects are denying evolution and the Big Bang and even trying to get young Earth creationism taught in schools as an alternative to real science. The bible is the literal truth until science overtakes it and proves it wrong, and then it turns into allegory and metaphor. Or science is simply rejected, and we see idiotic dioramas of cavemen living alongside dinosaurs in creationist "museums".
@ ChristianAsking...
If I may ask a counter question:
Other religions make the exact kind of claims regarding their holy scriptures as you do for the Bible. Suppose you were to look at their historical accounts and find that they have a fairly equal amount of supporting information (or even more), than what you find in the Bible.
Would this indicate that their supernatural claims are true?
Ok 2 things and not necessarily in the bible but related to it.
First why are only certain books chosen for the bible? Why those books and not others? There were other versions and gospels of the time created.
Answer: The early catholic church put them together because it fit best with their narrative of the time so as to unite their beliefs since many branches of the religion were being formed using different books gospels and letters. So that means some jackass arbitrarily decided hey I think this works with what we have to say lets put that in there. Likely one of the early popes. So to start right off the bat your entire religious basis was assembled in a room thousands of years ago by some moron that had a purpose of trying to unite the roman masses with a more palatable religious doctrine. So essentially the bible was constructed for a purpose by a man. Not by God. A man. That already should be sounding off some warning bells.
Secondly in the bible since creation God has been following man around and providing miracles. Why is it that suddenly God stopped doing that after the last books of the Bible were written? I mean according to the bible he(God) at least provided miracles to his most devote believers and even the not so true ones, even going so far as to give many multiple chances to believe in him after they had strayed. With all the super devotes that exist today, and the heathens as well, why is God not bestowing miracles and killing the wicked? Christians and Muslims are the two biggest religious groups in the world so if you guys are so correct in your religions why isn't God providing miracles to re-affirm your faith and the faith of millions of doubt having honest believers around the world?
Answer: Cause the authors of the critically acclaimed Bible series have stopped writing. And after the introduction of their Savior Jesus character they were content to leave the series as is. Its just a story.
When my oldest son (well into his 40s now) was in primary school, he enjoyed reading twist-a-plot books. In them, the reader decides in which of the offered directions they want the story to go. So many holy books remind me of twist-a-plot books. Readers simply pick and choose where the story goes.
Pages