TonyN

Hey MadPhatCat, thanks for telling me about this thread. Honestly, I didn't know it existed. Maybe I don't read your posts that much since so often it is hard to take you for real. No slight intended.

For instance, how am I to take you atheists seriously when you post something like this after I ask for PROOF, yes, that's right, MPC, proof and what does SPIN give me? An unsubstantiated statement such as this:

"There was no universal flood 5000 years ago. Archaeology has frequently proved this claim inaccurate."

How do you expect me to take you Atheists seriously? If this were a court of law and a man was on trial because someone just said he murdered someone and in court the accusor was asked: ''What proof do you have that my client killed so and so?" And the accusor said: Well I heard it from someone who was told it from someone who was told it from someone.

And the judge said: Well that's all we need for proof! Hang him high!

I'm sure you atheists would say that's O.K. especially if it were you who were wrongly accused!

EarlOfLade

Then maybe we should start with the existence of your god first, else all this exercise is futile, don't you think?

Your turn, evidence as in court of law for your god... I'm waiting!

TonyN

You brought it up. YOU prove to me God does not exist and it has to be upheld in a court of law.

hatsoff

There are a couple ways to go about proving the Bible is not "historically accurate." First of all, you can look to its obvious mythical tendencies. What historical accuracy can there be in a book which describes the impossible (according to the laws of physics)? Divine intervention is a common theme of both testaments, which of course defies any demonstrable historical or scientific precedent.

Second, you can look at various internal inconsistencies. The differences between the Synoptic Gospels are a great place to start. You can look at doublets in the Pentateuch for further variants.

Third, you can evaluate the sources. Most if not all of the OT is written by unknown authors, oftentimes falsely claiming to be some historical person, who lived centuries after the events they describe. The New Testament is little better, with only seven or eight Pauline epistles known to be authentic to traditional ascriptions. How can we trust these writers?

Fourth, and finally, you can compare the claims of the Bible to the archaeological evidence, which runs counter in many cases. For example, we can find no compelling indication of any Hebrew exodus from Egypt. The accounts of the Tower of Babel and the great deluge are similarly incompatible with archaeological discoveries.

Whichever path you choose to pursue, however, there is no A-to-B-to-C method of determining the truth. You must gather a large quantity of data, and draw conclusions from the lot of it--looking at the big picture, so to speak. If you are Christian, then you will probably be unable or unwilling to do that properly, because it is darn near impossible to forget even for the sake of argument your religious biases and preconceptions on such a grand scale.

Jack the Bodiless

You were informed of the existence of this thread repeatedly, and not just by MadPhatCat.

You ignored us.

In my case: you managed to ignore a message in this font.

Amaleq13

It certainly cannot help this discussion that you have clearly misunderstood the roles in your analogy. The affirmative claim that the Flood actually happened is analogous to the prosecution claim that the man is a murderer. The negative claim that the Flood never happened is analogous to the defense claim that the man is not guilty of murder.

Likewise, the prosecution's lack of evidence beyond a repeated story is quite clearly parallel to your position defending the biblical account of the Great Flood.

I agree with you, however, that there is no question that such a pathetic case should result in a complete rejection of the accusation and the Bible story.

Jack the Bodiless

let's try an analogy here. Suppose I claim that the USA lost World War 2 to the Japanese, and was conquered by Japan. But you know enough about history to be quite sure that I'm wrong. If I was absolutely convinced of the rightness of my own position, don't you think you might begin by pointing out something like "There was no Japanese conquest of the United States in the 20th century. History has frequently proved this claim inaccurate"?

There isn't just one "proof" of the non-historical nature of the Bible. Rather, there is so MUCH proof that it's hard to know where to begin! But presenting this to a person who begins with so little relevant knowledge is quite difficult: in my example, just HOW would you disprove the Japanese conquest of the USA? What sort of evidence could you present, in this thread, that would convince me that I must be wrong about that?

For instance: how is my theory, that Japan conquered and then rebuilt the United States without leaving any discernible American record of this event, any less plausible than YOUR equivalent theory that Egypt was wiped out by a great cataclysm at the height of the Old Kingdom and then rebuilt by a tiny handful of people without leaving any discernible Egyptian record of that event?

FunkyDemon

That's funny. All he would have to do is stand up and say, "There is no proof of god, I rest my case." Then you would have to prove that their was. Kind of like in a murder case. The person does not have to prove that they didn't kill the person. The other side has to prove he did. His job is to counter any 'evidence'. So it the case of god, they don't have to prove he doesn't exist, they just have to destroy your evidence.

PS. I am not an atheist, but at least I can acknowledge that their is no evidence.

Julian

It should be well-known to everyone here that it is impossible to prove a negative. Since nothing can ever be shown to be 100% certain then nothing can ever be proven (mathematics being excepted here). It is possible to show that something is so incredibly unlikely that it might as well be considered as good as proven false.

The flood is a good example since there is no reasonable way, given what we know, that it could ever have happened even remotely similarly to how it is described in the OT. Is it 100% certain it didn't happen? Of course not, but it is obviously 99.999 (add a googolplex or so of 9s more) percent certain it didn't. That's good enough for most rational people.

Julian

OneInFundieville

A couple years ago I drove my Toyota to go watch the Air Force/Navy game here in Colorado Springs. Bought sushi for lunch there at the Air Force Academy stadium.