If a person has one small speck of life in him he is not truly dead, and if he has no spark of life he cannot be brought back, so in reality he/she was or is not dead, just near death. In some cases a persons brain activity is so low it doesn’t register on the eeg,but can in very rare cases return to a stronger activity. Just like in many cases a small child can be brought back after it has been in cold water. some animals have a simular thing when they hibernate! At least that is what I have heard from peopel who took care of such things!
Anyone who won the lottery,has the money in it’s hand and refuses to belive it, needs a mental check up. Some times the truth hurts but it still is the best thing in the long run ,in my estimation.
David42, let’s just look at the aforementioned flood myth. *If *Moses penned the Book of Genesis then he was a plagarist rather than historian. Please refer to the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which pre-dates Genesis by 700 years. The story can be found in The Epic of Gilgamesh, Book XI, which is a fast read, but if you’d rather hit the highlights, below are three sites with summaries (none of which is atheist in origin or tone):
Religious Tolerance.org comparison of the two flood myths.
Creation based site compares flood myths.
Sparknotes summary of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Book XI.
It wasn’t really 3 days but about 36 hours,and for some reason the 2 thieves lived longer than Jesus was said to have lived,plus there are people even today who live after a lot of doctors find it hard to see how they survived, we have much to learn about the human system! I find it hard to see how the people Jesus was supposed to see every day didn’t recognize him, and what happened to the dead that arose and walked around;why did they have to die again?
It is true, there was a great flood in the region,but not to the depth that is claimed in the OT. To cover the entire earth the water would have to be 29,000 feet to cover Mt. Everest, Ararat is 15,000 feet, so that much water would have no where to run off and would have to evaporate, the air would be so thick with water the people in the Ark(and animals) would drown just from that much moisture.There would be no palm branch for a dove to get, and many .many things to prove such a flood ever occur.
David42, I think you need to take a moment and breathe.
Let us do as you suggest and disregard the supernatural claims in the bible and focus upon what is left.
When you remove those accounts you have a collection of disparate cultural material. Including, but not limited to: Poems and songs, tribal laws dating over several periods in history that are often contradictory, Historical accounts (some corroborated by other sources some with no evidence at all), and some genealogical material (also fairly suspect). Let us examine them one at a time and decide upon their relevance to two assertions: One, that the material provides us with sufficient confidence to accept the claims of the rest of the material as accurate; and two: that this material further provides evidence of the existence of the supernatural claims made in the same document.
Poems and songs: Obviously these relate on a myriad of subjects, but nearly all literate cultures have song and verse recorded. Valuable culturally certainly, but they have no bearing on our two criteria. We can ignore these.
Tribal law: Now we are getting somewhere. There is evidence to suggest that this material was utilized by the Hebrews. Current Kosher laws are in a large part descended from this material. However, upon a detailed reading we find that these laws are often contradictory, and occasionally simply cribbed from other, earlier sources like Sumerian or Babylonian law. However, we still have problem in making this material relevant to our criteria. The fact exists that Jewish law is still practiced, but the existence of that does nothing to raise confidence in the accuracy of the supernatural claims at all. In fact, if could hurt them as it does not *need * the supernatural visitation of Moses to exist. Scientifically, it actually reads as if that story was tacked on later.
Historical accounts: Mixed at best. We have corroborated the accuracy of some of the material with other sources known to be highly accurate as proved by archeology. Other accounts are simply false, muddled, cribbed from earlier events, or have no evidence to support them despite significant effort. This material is like the end result of the telephone game, where the message only bears a passing resemblance to the original source. In science we have to prove each event by itself, or at least have proven a great deal of the other material to be highly accurate to have confidence in the unproven assertions. We don’t have that level of confidence in biblical accounts. We KNOW that many are wrong, borrowed, or most likely fabricated completely. Therefore, the proper mindset to approaching biblical claims as fact is one of extremely cautious skepticism. This does not inspire confidence in the veracity of the supernatural portions either.
Taken as a whole, this document has been shown to be a garbled account of certain historical events mixed in with a bunch of mythology, cultural effluvia, and rather contradictory legal precepts. When you take a hard look, the reasonable person is left with the conclusion that supernatural claims made in this document have to taken purely on faith. The portions of it that are actually able to be looked at are not highly accurate, much less the extraordinary claims.
Now, having said all that, what exactly other than faith makes you believe that this book is stronger proof of the supernatural than any other fairy story, myth, or tall tale?
Dial down the personal remarks, please. David42, you would be well served to take a step back and discussion this a bit more calmly. I realize these issues are important to people on both sides, but this is supposed to be a discussion of ideas and getting personally offended does not help either side.
It depends on the claim.
Here’s an example. The case for the dinosaurs being killed off by a meteor impact began with a curious discovery – a worldwide layer of iridium-rich sediment. Geologists at first were baffled. How could local geological processes produce the same strange sediment in widely different locations? Then they realized that a global cloud of dust kicked up by a massive meteor impact could have done it. And the timing of that cloud of dust was curiously close to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
The bible claims that a similar global die-off occurred not millions of years ago but a few thousand. If the Noahide flood had really happened, geologists should find a strange worldwide sediment layer that can’t be accounted for by local processes. If they did, THAT would be strong evidence for the veracity of the biblical account. And the fact that they DON’T (despite years of looking) suggests that the story of a worldwide flood is a gross exaggeration or outright fiction.
I apologize for my giving in to frustration.
No one is claiming complete and utter falsity. Genesis, yeah pretty much. David? There is some evidence that David existed (not substantial) but the empire certainly didn’t. It is very common for cultures with little power fantasizing about the glory days of the past. The latter books are far more accurate, though they are written for a very different reason than to be accurate history. We are hardly immune from this, any politician’s memoir has to be critically read.
As for authorship, I have a novel by Kilgore Trout. Does that prove he exists? In the ancient world it was common to attribute writing to someone famous. You are aware that Socrates didn’t actually say all the stuff Plato has him say, right?
Think of it. The actual Jeremiah seems to have written at least some of the Torah. He wants people to read and obey. Does he say it is by him, some shmucky priest who half the people hate, or does he say it comes from the legendary Moses?
That you get an email saying you won the lottery is an extraordinary claim. Do you buy that one? We don’t say that these things can’t happen, just that we are pretty certain that they don’t unless presented with irrefutable evidence that they do. That time is not constant was one of the most extraordinary claims ever, but it got accepted, and fairly quickly, because of the preponderance of evidence.
As usual, you missed the point. All written work must be read critically, even that coming from trusted sources.
Simple - independent primary and archeological evidence supporting the claims.
When I was in college there were some people convinced that with deep study of Beatles records we could prove that Paul is dead.
I, like many atheists, believed before I didn’t believe. My Hebrew school teachers were way too smart to ever claim that the first part of Genesis was true, but I learned that the rest of the stuff was. When I discovered what actual historians and scholars said about the authorship of the Bible, the scales fell from my eyes. Then I read the entire thing, from beginning to end, and I really became an atheist, seeing those absurd parts that don’t get shown to kids. Psychologically it is hard to see evidence against something you believe in, but you should really try it some time.
I was thinking more of the case where the winner doesn’t confirm his win or collect his winnings because the dream is better - sorry for the confusion. Your reading is a reasonable one of what I wrote (and shows the need for critical reading. )
An excellent example. I saw Luis Alvarez speak about this before they found the actual impact site. While he was an advocate, of course, he didn’t go out on a limb. The leading candidate at the time was Iceland, but he clearly said the issues with the asteroid hitting there. He also predicted that the real site would be found, as it was.
Quoted for truth. The religious people in my life treat the Bible like a User Agreement, they just clicked ‘yes, I agree’ without every reading it much less understanding it.
A real life debate between my Father-in-Law, his pastor and Dio would be a blood bath I’d pay to see.
We ask yet again for a cite that this has ever happened.
[QUOTE=David42]
And for those of you who won’t even contemplate believing the scripture without accompanying video evidence, please explain just exactly what form of evidence WOULD be acceptable to you to further a belief in an extraordinary claim.
[/quote]
Who here has asked for video evidence concerning scripture?
I’d say the type of evidence that would be accepted to further a belief in an extaordinary claim is commonly referred to as “any.”
But saying that any evidence would be acceptable is not the same thing as saying that anything would be acceptable as evidence.
I’ve completely lost track of syntax, here, (I think I agree with you) but my point was … show me *any *evidence – as in real, honest, according-to-Hoyle, evidence – that an extraordinary claim is verified and I’ll believe it.
As opposed to … here’s the Bible, there’s your evidence, put that in your incense ball and smoke it.
So if someone claims his name is Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, O.Henry, Ann Landers, George Orwell, Abagail van Buren, or Voltair, you’re fine with that?
Sorry, hit the post button by mistake; I’ll answer the rest of the above nonsense when I finish work. Also it’s Voltaire.
Well, it looks like this thread is on its way to the glue factory.
If I may make one observation, for the record:
Theists. It’s of no use at all if the entirety of your side of the dialogue is a complaint about how atheists wouldn’t believe something you might hypothetically argue, if you never actually get around to arguing it.