I think GEEPERS and I discussed this yesterday. I’ll explain it again if you think that’s necessary, but in the meantime I think that if I do, I won’t get an answer to what I actually said in post #310 this morning.
That’s sweet…but it doesn’t really address the question. How is this evidence that supports the existence of the deity you believe in, and not some other benevolent deity?
I’m glad you’ve found happiness. But wouldn’t it be simpler for God to heal you?
And how do you know that God didn’t decide to torture you and you rose above it?
Stephen Hawking is in a similar condition, but he is an atheist. Is that evidence that there is no God?
Fair enough.
I’m not sure it is necessary. What I see happening is that Geepers makes some claims, those claims are questioned, and then he moves on to new claims (while not responding to the original questioning).
I never said that he was claiming that the Bible was all fiction. Regardless, it came across as a reversal from his previous position. I believe a more honest position is that atheists NEED the Bible to be a work of fiction.
What, I take it on faith that archeaology supports the Bible? I guess the scholars could be lying, but I’m sure the skeptics would be on them like white on rice if they tried to fake Bible evidence.
Right so the Bible doesn’t contain real names and places. Umm ok, archaeology says otherwise.
So now scholars must discover finds that support every single story in the Bible or it’s all a work of fiction? And if it is semi-fictional, one must wonder why the story was fabricated. Funny skeptics never do that. Even more funny, why would these fiction writers create Bible heroes so flawed and even despicable? Even the great King David is shown in all his sinful nature. The guy actually had an innocent loyal soldier murdered so he could have sex with his wife. Not a flattering portrayal of someone that you want recorded as the King of Israel.
Another problem with finding extra-biblical texts of the Exodus is that rulers like the Egyptians didn’t like to record embarrassing defeats. A race of slaves bending the will of Pharoh? Umm, no didn’t happen. Kings wanted to be painted in the best light possible especially in Egypt where rulers were seen as gods.
Lack of evidence does not prove that the flood or Exodus never occured. It just means there is a lack of evidence. There are limitations on what you can prove with ancient events.
You have it exactly backwards. You need the bible to be accurate, because you’re basing your life on it. But an atheist looks at the data and draws a conclusion from that.
I asked you earlier, and you ignored it, is the Bhagavad Gita supernatural? Do you assume that its supernatural claims are true?
The scholars who state that the supernatural stories in the bible are true, are in the vast minority. And people like you, who really, really want it to be true are the reason it has any traction at all.
You’re not being fair there. He said that some names and places aren’t actual areas.
No one said that. You’re not honestly representing his comments. The bible is largely fictional, in that the supernatural elements didn’t happen. But it takes place in the world that the primitive writers knew.
You believe that every other holy book on Earth was fabricated, right? Why are you unable to imagine why one more might be?
Primitive people do shitty things. Which is why using the bible as a source for morality is laughable.
We know that that the Exodus didn’t happen because the Jews weren’t there. You can’t escape from a prison you’re not in.
The flood would leave world wide telltale geological evidence. It not being there means the flood didn’t happen.
If I’m dead on the ground and you say I was shot, and there are no bullet holes in my body, it means you’re wrong.
It wasn’t. Now, before you get too busy strawmanning Meatros’s position, will you please address the substance of what I wrote?
Which post are you refering to?
This one:
Do you agree with this? The idea is that all historical assertions need to be supported by other evidence such as independent sources and archeology. If so, is there are a reason the Bible should be treated differently - for example items like the Genesis story and the genealogy of Jesus should be taken as factual even though the Biblical accounts are contradictory? Should Exodus should be taken as factual despite the lack of expected historical evidence?
You seem to have some rather unfair views of atheists. I do not need the Bible to be a work of fiction - I wish to follow the truth where ever it goes.
Yes, I believe you do take it on faith that archeology always supports the Bible. There is clear evidence that it does not. This has been pointed out to you.
It’s not all or nothing as you are implying. I pointed out two figures who’s existence is very much in contention. You assert otherwise. Let’s explore this further, can you show that A&E really existed? How about Abraham? Moses? Does archeology support their existence?
Again, it’s not all or nothing - you are suggesting it is though when you suggest that archeology always supports the Bible. That claim does not hold water.
It’s not the case that it’s either true or a lie. It could be misremembered, confabulated, the result of hallucinations, etc, etc. Are urban legends always lies? Are they always truth?
I just gave several reasons why the stories could be false. Perhaps you do not fully read what the skeptics say?
This assumes they knowingly wrote lies - which I am not supposing. Why were the Greek heroes/Gods flawed? Your logic indicates that those stories must be true. Zeus and the pantheon must exist because they participated in morally reprehensible actions.
Lancelot sleeps with Guinevere, does that mean he existed? Does that mean all the myths revolving around him were true?
This is absurd on the face of it - are we to believe they erased everything related to Israelite slavery? When they were trying to ‘erase’ the influence of Pharoahs, we still found their statues. We found their attempts to ‘erase’ the history.
We find nothing about slavery of the Jews. No scratched out inscriptions, nothing. There are no archeological finds that suggest that they existed, from here:
What it means is that archeology does not support the Bible. Further, when evidence is expected (as is the case with the Exodus) and it’s not found, that does mean that we have reason to reject it, from an archeological point of view.
I had to retract something from the above which I had misread, hence the editing.
Nonsense, a living God threatens your way of life. You need it to be false.
I’m not familar with the text so I can not offer a response.
And those scholars have noted that there is an extreme biased in their fields against Christianity and the Bible. Many of the scholars are working hard to disprove the Bible, but fail every time. But even if you revealed the Bible has fiction, it would not be a deathblow to my faith. I know God is real because of my life experiences.
Well give an example then.
Where is your proof that the supernatural elements never occured? That’s a good portion of the Bible that is non-supernatural as well.
I don’t see people being healed, saved, lives transformed with other religions. Most of it is engrained in the culture and follows strict rituals. That’s smacks of something man-made. Yet Christianity does not simply work by performing a physical action. Christianity is about forming a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. One way to create power and control over people is to invent religion and have them perform specific actions. You see this today with cults. Christianity is nothing like that.
I take it that you never read the Bible. Every human being does shitty things. The Bible is merely offering an honest recording of what really happened. Despite their flaws, they often find redemption.
Again, lack of evidence is not concrete proof that the Jews were never in Egypt. There is still many sites that have not been excavated or surveyed. And there is certainly evidence for the destruction of Jericho which occured not long after the Exodus.
You are assuming that the geology of the earth was exactly the same as it is today. I’m sure life was quite a bit different during the ice age compared to present day. At any rate, I’m not an expert in geology so no point really going there with me.
My “way of life”? Please elaborate.
Again, it’s evident you don’t understand anything about atheists despite your constant string of complaints and sarcastic comments. If he’s an atheist, he already thinks the basics of the Bible are false. He’s not desperate to disprove the Bible to justify his position as an atheist.
Yes, we already know that literalist Christians are experts in complaining about bias from atheists. Unfortunately a lot of those people are happy to lie about what they’re discovered and the biases against them.
That’s already been demonstrated there are parts of the Bible that are inaccurate.
Then why do you keep insisting that everything in the Bible is factual? It’s plain to see that’s not true and you’ve just said it doesn’t matter anyway, so why not acknowledge the errors?
I don’t think you have any familiarity with other religions. Yes, just about any religion can change a person’s life, and people in many religions refer to that as being saved. Other religions may not emphasize the personal relationship with god the way Christianity does, but a lot of the basics are the same. You don’t have to do a lot of Googling to find people talking about being saved by other religions.
There’s no evidence that a tribe of thousands of people were in Egypt or the Sinai peninsula for decades and decades. That’s a very strong indication they were never there.
What’s your background in geology?
???
What exactly do you mean by this? The only difference in my life that I could see it possibly making is that I would believe in said God. Otherwise, I don’t think my life would change all that much.
Fairly obvious example of begging the question.
Then you don’t investigate other religions very closely.
Even you have to see that this is silly.
What would evidence of Jews never having a mass exodus or being slaves look like?
Do you think we should find some Egyptian engravings that state ‘many centuries in the future the Hebrews are going to say that we made them slaves…These Hebrews are obviously deluding themselves…’.
Trying to have it both ways - sure we could assume the world was created magically last tuesday, just as we could assume the world was magically flooded, we have no actual credible evidence to believe either of those things though and evidence to believe they didn’t happen (brought up earlier in this thread which you ignored).
Check out D.6. from this creationist site:
6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Wow.
O_o
One odd thing is that if that’s true, that man’s interpretation is fallible then how can we claim what the Scriptural record actually is?
Sorry, but Emma Watson still looks like a young Jeremy Irons in drag. 
First I don’t believe most of what’s in the Bible. Second, the fact that I believe that there is one creator for all of mankind shouldn’t threaten you, the God I believe in loves you whether you believe in him.
Why doesn’t he cure me? Who knows, while he’s at it why doesn’t he make me a millionaire?
I’ve only met him once. It was when 5 doctors declared me legally dead. Next time I meet Him I’ll ask. That is if I get my voice back.
I’m glad you think it’s “sweet.” Taking care of a totally paralyzed person is anything but sweet.
Infidel!
I’m guessing he thinks that secularism is an invention to excuse sinful behaviour, rather than sinful behaviour being assessed on moral grounds once secularism is assumed. Since Biblical literalism is a requisite of believing in God, such an argument is very powerful. Otherwise we wouldn’t see such a preponderance of Christians cutting off the hand that causes them to sin, refusing to give alms or pray in public and donating all their money to the poor.
At any rate, I think “atheist” is the wrong nomenclature. “Anti-theists” are those that would reject Christian dogma even if incontrovertible evidence demonstrated its veracity, purely on personal grounds. I doubt many atheists would also fall into the “anti-theist” camp, given the allure of eternal bliss… It would be rather tough to give up on lusting after Emma in one’s own heart though.
As for whether religions other than Christianity claim miracles: surprisingly few do as far as I’m aware (due to how easily they can be debunked). There are those Spiritualist ones though… Not to mention the claims of Scientology to treat addictions.