The validity of the Bible

87 posts / 0 new
Last post
Grinseed's picture
@ poeticpug

@ poeticpug

You are obviously a person of high class and breeding to quote poetry from MAD magazine...jeez, MAD magazine, the memories. I started reading it when I was eight years old.
My grandma gave me my first copy and she knew exactly what she was doing. It taught me about the power of satire, written and drawn, of the fact that nothing was sacred, and about the absolute importance of questioning everything.
The CO2 probably explains why I've been falling off my perch lately.

David Killens's picture
Me too, I grew up on Mad

Me too, I grew up on Mad magazines. But my favorite cartoonist was Don Martin.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Cognostic's picture
@Jackson 5: "if" Sad!

@Jackson 5: "if" Sad! Obviously you don't even believe it is true.

Sheldon's picture
@Jackson5

@Jackson5

What is the most compelling objective reason you have for believing a deity is real?

Since he ignored my question I'll repeat it, and I will also point out, as I have done many times before, how bizarrely inconsistent it is when theists come here and loudly proclaim evidence in post after posts, and yet don't open in their very first post with the most compelling piece of evidence they think they have? It's almost as if at some level they suspect themselves that they're holding an empty bag.

JACKSON5's picture
Are you for real? Do you

Are you for real? Do you exist in reality?

Sheldon's picture
@Jackson5

@Jackson5

What is the most compelling objective reason you have for believing a deity is real?

Since he ignored my question (twice) I'll repeat it, and I will also point out, as I have done many times before, how bizarrely inconsistent it is when theists come here and loudly proclaim evidence in post after posts, and yet don't open in their very first post with the most compelling piece of evidence they think they have? It's almost as if at some level they suspect themselves that they holding an empty bag.

JACKSON5's picture
My best evidence for god is

My best evidence for god is YOU :)

If there was no God there'd be no reason to become an atheist

David Killens's picture
@ JACKSON5

@ JACKSON5

"If there was no God there'd be no reason to become an atheist"

Today's lesson will be grammar. One should not use a double negative because they can cancel themselves out. So let us eliminate those two negatives and see the message.

If there was God there'd be reason to become an atheist.

That is not logical. Period.

Lesson two: "there'd" should be spelled "there would".

Nice attempt at logic JACKSON5. Can you come up with anything original, rational, or logical?

doG's picture
@ cowardlylion

@ cowardlylion

ROTFLMAO. Too funny,

So, the best evidence for a gods existence is disbelief that he exists? So, he must exist, because people don't believe he does?

ROTFLMAO.

Basic reason is the religious believers nemesis...if you are serious, you may need to restart your learning at, maybe kindergarten...LOL.

Try this question, as its only the fourth time asking you...

Do you have any objective evidence that your version of a god exists?

cranky47's picture
@Jackson5

@Jackson5

"My best evidence for god is YOU :)"

You really don't have a clue, do you. That sentence is a CLAIM, not proof of anything.

"If there was no God there'd be no reason to become an atheist

You seem to think that being an atheist is a matter of choice. I speak only for myself. After describing myself [incorrectly] as an agnostic for 20 years, it dawned on me that I simply no longer believed in; god(s), heaven, hell, angels , the devil, demons, a supernatural realm, the paranormal, mediums, fortunetellers of all kinds, witchcraft, ghosts, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, mountain trolls, dragons and fairies at the bottom of my garden. (this not an exhaustive list)
My disbelief in these things is because of a lack of proof for any of them.

Becoming an atheist was never a matter of choice for me. Rather it was simply an inevitable conclusion over two decades of study and reflection. I can no more make myself believe than I can make myself disbelieve.

Did you decide to believe and to be a christian, or as I suspect, was there no decision involved.?

I have a serious suggestion: Look up the difference between a claim and evidence, as well as the meaning of the word 'atheist' . I suggest this in sincerity because it's clear to me you have not grasped the meaning of those things.

This matters not a jot nor a tittle to me you understand . I have made my suggestions simply because I'm not a sadist. It gives me no pleasure to see you ridiculed and disrespected.

If you act on my suggestions, you might seem less of an ignoramus and a fool. Perhaps then you might then be accorded some respect and credibility.({in terms of your sincerity] Right now, you have neither as far as I can tell.

ADDENDUM: Christians tend to claim (not all) our creator endowed as with free will. However, out choices are limited. We MUST love and obey God. If we do not he will send us to hell. That's called Hobson's choice. Free will must include the choice not to obey god, without punishment. If not that is coercion so any decisions I make are not free.

CyberLN's picture
Jacksonfive, you wrote, “If

Jacksonfive, you wrote, “If there was no God there'd be no reason to become an atheist”

That’s really amusing! Atheist is merely a response to the assertion that god(s) exist.

You assert god(s) exist, I respond by saying, “I don’t believe you.” That means I BECAME something? That means there is/are god/s?

Apparently, you’ve not an understanding of what atheism is.

Sheldon's picture
JACKSON5 "If there was no

bumped

David Killens's picture
@ JACKSON5

@ JACKSON5

"Are you for real? Do you exist in reality?"

Oh yea, the old "are we living in a sim?" proposition.

If everything we experience is a sim, then there is no way for us to determine if we are in a sim, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

So all one can do is live their life with what they experience.

doG's picture
@cowardlylion

@cowardlylion

I will remind you. This is a debate forum. Answering questions posed to you, about your assertions, is how debate works. Coming back to your post to trash talk people, is not debate. Deflecting questions to you with other questions from yourself, that do not answer the question someone asked you, is not debate. Please answer the questions posed to you, as I have honestly directly answered yours.

I will repeat for the third time...

Do you have any objective evidence of your version of a god existing?

Algebe's picture
@Jackson5: Are you for real?

@Jackson5: Are you for real? Do you exist in reality?

No. I live in an alternate reality in which every sub-atomic particle, every law of physics, and every event is identical to the reality that you inhabit. So which one of us is real?

Are you a line of code in an AI routine cobbled together by some basement-dwelling programmer working for Answers in Genitals? Prove to me that you aren't.

Tin-Man's picture
I just don't understand why

I just don't understand why you guys are all being so tough on J5. After all, the poor guy is just learning his alphabet and can barely count to three....

https://youtu.be/X0Ph9Tc8tUw

Algebe's picture
@Tin-Man

@Tin-Man

What a great video of a really happy and well-adjusted bunch of children. They're a credit to their religion.

I wonder how that little guy in the front turned out.

David Killens's picture
@JACKSON5

@JACKSON5

I was raised by a devout christian family, and although we went to church each Sunday and had bible books liberally sprinkled around the house for us kids to read, I never really learned enough about the bible until many decades later. I am telling you this part of my life story because I believe you are in the situation I once was in, namely devout and full of the desire to do god's bidding. But with more enthusiasm and energy than knowledge.

Person to person, I admire your courage just to come in here, and the fortitude not to turn tail and run at the first sign of resistance.

Please understand that the great majority of atheists in here were former theists, and each one of us had to do a lot of soul-searching, research, and deep thinking to realize "we" (us atheists) did not have enough evidence to believe in this creature. It is not that anyone had a bad experience and is driven by hate, but rather one day you begin to understand that there really isn't a dude dressed in red who delivered presents in one night. But as one begins to learn more and question, some answers that you never pondered at the age of three now become important questions that lay in the path of believing the stories.

And many were on the end of pleas and pressure from family and friends to remain a theist.

So coming in here and basically making a plea is like entering a lion's den full of starving loins, and wearing a raw steak suit. If you desire to pursue this further, I advise you to arm yourself better, to learn the true history of the bible, and to become very familiar with the arguments, fallacies, and debunking.

I am not your enemy, we just have opposing positions. I wish you and your loved ones are doing well in this time of pandemic.

Sheldon's picture
JACKSON5 "If there was no

JACKSON5 "If there was no God there'd be no reason to become an atheist"

Au contraire, that is the best and the only reason to be an atheist.

What is the most compelling objective reason you have for believing a deity is real? The more you evade this, the more obvious it becomes you are a troll holding an empty bag.

Sheldon's picture
"The Arguments from Confusion

This isn't a new idea of course, indeed many posters here, including me, have made this very argument in as many as words.

The Arguments from Confusion and Biblical Defects (2006) by Theodore M. Drange

"Ted Drange develops two arguments for the nonexistence of the God of evangelical Christianity, an all-powerful and loving being greatly concerned about the fate of human beings and desiring a personal relationship with them. According to his argument from confusion (AC), widespread confusion between Christians over matters of ultimate importance entails that the God of evangelical Christianity probably does not exist. In particular, the rampant diversification of Christian sects on such matters entails that, even if any one of those sects is correct, large numbers of Christians must hold false beliefs about issues of ultimate importance--contrary to what one would predict if the God of evangelical Christianity existed. The argument from biblical defects (ABD) contends that if the God of evangelical Christianity existed, then the Bible would probably be perfectly clear and authoritative and without marks of solely human authorship; but since the Bible does not meet either of these criteria, the God of evangelical Christianity probably does not exist."

Sheldon's picture
I think we can all agree it

I think we can all agree it takes a "special" rationale to come up with the idea that no deity existing is no reason to disbelieve in them.

JACKSON5 "If there was no God there'd be no reason to become an atheist"

I think a round of applause is due for JACKSON5 there, for producing that moment of comedy gold.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh look, he's brought

Oh look, he's brought Arsewater In Genesis to the table.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

In case you never learned this, Ken Ham is a lying sack of shit. Creationism is bullshit and lies from start to finish, all of which has been repeatedly destroyed by the people who paid attention in class. Oh, and your sad little mythology isn't "unique", it's merely one of dozens of mythologies that humans have invented during the pre-scientific part of the history of our species.

cranky47's picture
@Calilasseia

@Calilasseia

"Oh, and your sad little mythology isn't "unique", it's merely one of dozens of mythologies that humans have invented during the pre-scientific part of the history of our species."

Just so.

I've been aware for over 20 years that christianity introduced no new ideas. It was only this last couple of weeks that I began to learn just how deeply unoriginal it may be.

Have watched a couple of Richard Carrier's lectures. He is a mythicist, so does not believe in an historical Jesus. Carrier claims that Christianity is a synthesis of Judaism and the Greek Mystery religions. He claims for example that Jesus is an upgraded Moses. (also a mythical figure)

Carrier also claims christianity also meets all of a list of criteria such religions possess.

It is my opinion that Carrier is a compelling speaker, albeit with a tendency to glibness. He seems to conflate coincidence with causality. As well as using a logical fallacy to try to prove his point . '("it is irrational to think otherwise," that kind of thing)

I find Carrier fascinating, but am some distance from being convinced by his claims. I think I will need to actually read some of his stuff rather than just watch a few lectures. I need to be able to take my time,and not allow the glossing over or facile dismissals of opposing thought.

I've posted this because I would like the opinions of others, especially of anyone who has read at least one of his books.

doG's picture
Look up funded religious

@cranky

Look up funded religious physical and forensic anthropologists. Or any historical overview of paleoanthropological research associated with religious figures. Most religious characters are only defined by myth...no objective evidence exists for either moses or cheeseass.

Sheldon's picture
"In case you never learned

"In case you never learned this, Ken Ham is a lying sack of shit"

Fucking brilliant, fair play...I'm giggling away in work now, smirking to myself...

I think Calilasseia just took a pretty good shot at writing Ken Ham's obituary...

Grinseed's picture
@ Cranky

@ Cranky
Sorry mate, but having neither read a book by either Ehrman or Carrier, despite having watched several lectures of both, I could not venture an honest opinion on the relative strengths or weaknesses of their views or theories about Christianity or the Bible. I learn slow too. But I don't think it matters which of the two is more correct or who has the more congenial delivery of his views. I have learned a lot from both just from their videos. What's more important is that their talks and especially their 'disputes' just generate more publicity about the errancy of the Bible and serves to undermine the tenets of various Christian faiths. One man talking is just the public airing of an opinion, while two talking at odds is a controversy which creates much more interest and sometimes money.

On the matter of Jesus being the 'new' Moses, its the body of research the Rev Spong refers to that shows each of the gospels is a mini-Pentateuch following the liturgical progress of the annual worship in the synagogue. So just when the Jews were celebrating the festival of Shauvot, they were reading from Deuteronomy about Moses's giving of the Law on Mt Sinai, while in services, earlier or later that same day, the early Jewish Christians were also reading Matthew's account of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus supposedly set out some basic ground rules for his followers including how to pray in private. The convergence of Moses and Jesus as law givers wasn't just a happy coincidence, nor was it history. It was literary licence contrived to marry the new heresy to the old doctrine.
Just something else Jackson5 can chew on.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.