Jack the Bodiless

Some of us haven't forgotten that the SAB defeated YOU, Magus.

Is that why it's "crap"?

As for the Bible in general: yes, it's been disproved. This is not exactly news: just about every major Christian denomination and every competent Biblical scholar abandoned inerrantism a long time ago.
...Huh? Christian fundamentalists now constitute 2/3rds of the world's population? There are twice as many Christian YEC's as there are actual Christians? I'm sorry, this makes no sense to me.
If we're still taking about the God of the inerrantists: yes, I am quite certain that this God does not exist. Why do you assume that we are uncertain about this?
Aren't we still talking about inerrantists here? I see no reason to "respectfully disagree" with those who make bogus claims about things that I know about, and they do not.
What are you talking about here? What are these "enormous coincidences"? We already know the Bible's poor record on "prophecies", so there aren't any "enormous coincidences" there. And if you're into discussion of "enormous coincidences", we can address the truly enormous coincidences that magically shuffled billions of fossils into the evolutionary "Tree of Life" sequence of common descent: I doubt that you really want to go there.

Wyz_sub10

Magus' claim that the biblical events like the global flood took place require proof. Proof that a global flood did not take place exists in spades. I'm not arguing that proof to say "this particular flood didn't happen" is not required.

But "a claim is a claim" is somewhat misleading. If I claim that my "superpill" cures cancer, the FDA does not have the burden to disprove it to keep it from going to market as a pharmaceutical.

I think it's highly relevant when people want to treat this stories as true facts directed by a perfect being. If Adam and Eve was treated like the story it is, I would not have much of a problem with it. Instead it's being used to try and corrupt the teaching of biology in schools. Stories from the OT are being used to justify hatred of homosexuals.

These are not just "fab stories" being mined for cautionary tales. They are viewed as having happened by the will of god and, as such, are treated as directives applicable to society. Those that are not directives are promoted as "evidence" of an ultimate power. This, as noted, undermines education and science.

Wallener

If he wants to convince you, absolutely!

Agreed; there is ample positive evidence a global flood did not occur.

That's exactly how it used to work in the US, and in many parts of the world that is still how it works. In fact, that is precisely the approach Objectivism calls for.

The problem with sweeping generalizations is that you end up alienating people who would normally be on your side. It is entirely possible to derive meaning from the Adam & Eve story while accepting an abiotic origin of life. IMO the loudest anti-literalists are every bit as bad as rabid literalists and are themselves a major reason for the backlash against secularism seen in the US today.

From the Christian Right's perspective, I'm a liberal extremist, if not outright atheist, and yet I am thoroughly repulsed by the extremely derogatory and dismissive language that so often comes from the vocally-atheist edge of the spectrum. People like me should be your ally in keeping America from descending into theocracy; instead, we get turned away.

John A. Broussard

Really? All atheists? Many atheists? Some atheists? One atheist?

How about backing up that statement.

Sauron

Well, yeah. It kinda does mean we are right. That's the definition of being right: 100% factually concluded and proven.

Perhaps. But I can't think of any circumstances where science has been corrected by religion.

Science gets corrected by *better* science, or newer facts brought to light.

But not by religion.

Yes science does hold the last word - after all, there are no such things as supernatural miracles.


Nonsense. In fact, you'll find that the non-believers around here probably know more than the believers do, about context, time period, purpose, etc.

Funny that you never seem to be able to prove those flaws, though.

Of course it has. Biblical inerrantism crumbled over 200 years ago, for reasons of science, archaeology, history, textual criticism, etc. That is not to say that there isn't something interesting or useful from the text. But the perfect word of an almighty deity? Nonsense.