Chris Weimer

The only people it will affect are the ones that have already been affected.

Peter Kirby

What would be the purpose? All the effort just to show that the Bible contains some errors?

best,
Peter Kirby

Magus55

Actually you haven't done so. One thing atheists fail to understand is not everything that they assume is proven by them is so. Even if we use the flood as an example, while to you, you assume science has 100% factually concluded that it didn't and couldn't happen, doesn't mean you're right. Science has been wrong in the past, and when we are talking about supernatural miracles, science doesn't hold the last word.

Atheists by far, are the biggest know-it-alls on the planet. You are so close-minded in your anti-theist, anti-biblical views, that as long as other atheists agree with you, you assume you are absolutely, 100% correct. The mere fact that you are using SAB as a tool for disproving the Bible shows that you will always assume you're right. SAB is a complete and total piece of crap, plain and simple. I have never seen a more biased, inconclusive, misrepresented attack on the Bible. Its the Biblical critique equivalent of saying Evolution is just a theory, therefore its wrong, or monkey's still exist, therefore evolution is wrong.

Atheists look at the Bible and they see a verse that seems ridiculous, or unrealistic, and obviously assume that its wrong, all the while failing to take into fact the context, time period, purpose, writing style, etc. You could study the entire Bible in detail your entire life, and still never get the whole thing. It is beyond complex, but atheists just look at it on the surface and say, omg this is so stupid cause I don't believe in it, its obviously wrong!

I'm not even a Biblical scholar and the vast majority of arguments I see presented on this board against the Bible have major flaws in them, and if you can't convince me, you aren't gonna convince most people, especially liberals.

Atheists take the "holier than thou" attitude far above most theists. You think you're always right, its impossible for you to be wrong, and everyone else that disagrees with you is stupid, delusional or irrational. And then you wonder why atheists are so unpopular and there is such an "ick" factor placed on that title. Are there atheists that don't act like this? Probably, but strong atheists in particular make it hard to not look at atheists in general in a negative light. Atheists don't bother me because they don't believe in God, its the Atheists who say I know for a fact God, especially the Christian God doesn't exist, and all you theists are complete delusional morons that bother me. You call theists close-minded, but you need to start looking at yourself and see the hypocricy in that statement.

As to the OP, the Bible has never in its history been disproven in the sense you're talking about. Anyone that would buy into your universal disproval theory, would be atheists who already don't buy into, and thats just preaching to the choir. The Bible is far too complex to actually make the claim that you can disprove it. You may not agree with the apologetic explanations for certain parts, but if there are explanations that can work, it hasn't been disproven. Despite the often stated cliche of God did it, and how that doesn't really get us anywhere, when you face the extraordinary miracles in the Bible, what more do you expect? Do you expect us to use scientific evidence to prove Jesus rose from the dead, when its outside the realm of science? You may require more evidence to accept such "miracles", but they are miracles because they aren't explainable. Just because you are trying to fit a square into a circle to explain the Bible, when such a square won't fit, doesn't mean you automatically win the argument and can claim you've destroyed religion.

Wyz_sub10

So what you're saying is proof means nothing, facts don't exist, and anything is possible so there is no sense in reaching any conclusions?

The burden of proof rests on those endorsing the bible's accuracy. So much of the bible - from the global flood to the fabricated historicals - has been proven false beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you feel that acceptance of the bible means checking reason at the door, then fine. But that has to be your personal choice. You cannot criticize others because they won't engage in similar detachments.

Magus55

No, i'm saying that automatically assuming you're right, just because you're using science to try and prove/disprove that which is by nature and intent outside the realm of science is a poor method. And isn't it atheists who say that everything is subjective? Why do you assume that you have the truth, and are absolutely without a doubt correct, when you don't even know what truth is?

Magus55

No it hasn't, all you've proven is that science concludes its wrong or can't explain it. Science doesn't automatically equal objective truth. At least 2/3rds of the worlds population disagrees with many of your conclusions. Thats not beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree that something like the flood is not an easy topic, and from the surface probably appears to not have happened. But frankly, none of us truly knows what happened. An omnipotent being opens up a whole world of possibilities. And since you can't prove that such a being doesn't exist, us believing in something you don't doesn't make is idiots, or delusional.

I'm not saying you have to check reason at the door. But it isn't rational to assume that everyone who disagrees with you, is a delusional moron. And it isn't rational to assume you are absolutely right, when you haven't the foggiest clue whether God exists or not. You shouldn't criticize theists and look down on them, just because they have arrived at a different conclusion and don't hold human thought to be the end all be all of universal truth. Its one thing to respectfully disagree with their views. Its another to essentially say they are idiots, and you without a doubt are right.

Wyz_sub10

But when one using a scientific method they are going beyond simple assumptions. Science (which, to be clear, is a process, not some kind of lumbering behemoth that enforces a point of view) is how we come to know the world around us. If you argue that your subject is beyond the world around us, beyond science, then you are still left with an "anything goes so facts don't matter" situtation.

No. I certaintly don't, and I'd be surprised if anyone beyond only the most flighty existentialist said that everything was subjective.

I don't know what you mean by your last phrase, so you can elaborate on it if you choose. But I don't assume I'm correct about biblical matters, a priori. When it comes to a specific claim, look into the claim and I look into what we know about what is being claimed.

You claim to be in bed at 3 a.m.

I don't assume you were out at 3 a.m., but if you tell me you were at your house, in bed, and your roommate says you weren't, and a camera in your room shows you weren't, and your buddy says he was with you at the movies at 3 am, and the theatre manager says you were there at 3 am, and you have a ticket for a 3 am movie, paid by credit card with your signiature and stamped at 3 am, then I can be reasonably sure that your claim is false.

Sure, by some fantastic process, everyone could be mistaken. But how reasonable would it be to think this? How certain can I be - all things considered - that your claim is false?

Amaleq13

:rolling:

You owe me a Sprite and a new keyboard!

Christians take the "holier than thou" attitude far above most theists. You think you're always right, it's impossible for you to be wrong, and everyone else that disagrees with you is willfully disobedient or demonically possessed. And then you wonder why Christians are so unpopular and there is such an "LOL" factor placed on that title. Are there Christians that don't act like this? Probably, but fundamentalist Christians in particular make it hard to not look at Christians in general in a negative light. Christians don't bother me because they believe in God, its the Christians who say I know for a fact God, especially the Christian God exists, and anyone who disagrees will burn for eternity and the laws of this country should specifically reflect my beliefs that bother me. You call atheists close-minded, but you need to start looking at yourself and see the hypocricy in that statement.

With regard to the OP, I seem to somewhat agree with you in the sense that the Bible can really only be said to have been proven false if one is restricted to a literal interpretation of the entire collection but that is not the best way to understand it.

Magus55

Or I could have a twin

But we don't have that kind of witness to the events in the Bible. No one that witnessed Jesus is alive today, so all either of us can do is base it on written material that has survived since and assume that which we are reading is in fact accurate. If you take the copied accuracy of the Bible compared to other literature, the context of the Bible, the enormous coincidences that would have to exist to claim certain things didn't happen, etc. etc, to me that is making a reasonable assessment that while I still may be wrong, its fairly convincing to me that the events in the Bible aren't completely false. So just because you disagree with what I find to be reasonble enough to base my conclusion on, that automatically means I'm wrong?

Wyz_sub10

"Science concludes it's wrong" is what I'm saying, exactly. You have added "can't explain it" as a catch-all. This basically says that no matter what we observe, test, discover, or learn that opposes something in the bible, it has to be classified as "unexplained" rather than " false" because you cannot accept that it is false.

You position is that it happened, facts be damned. Therefore, if the facts contradict the bible, it is either the facts that are wrong or there are "facts" which are unobservable or misunderstood. Again, you can choose to accept this, but it is not a reasonable position.

Science doesn't equal objective truth. The scientific process, however, leads to objective knowledge.

The support of numbers does not make something more or less reasonable. Christianity and Hinduism are at great odds theologically, but both worldviews are supported by great numbers. Does one become more reasonable based on numbers?

I never said you were an idiot. I was a Christian for my first 25 years of life, and my parents reamin strong Christians. I don't think I was an idiot then and I don't think they are idiots now.

What I do think is exactly what I've stated - the the desire to accept these stories as truth will lead to a suspension of disbelief, or the conscious decision to not apply logic or reason to a seemingly impossible situation.

'Omnipotence' is a panacea to brush aside any bit of evidence that causes difficulty for stories and lessons from the bible. The flood is a great example. Scholars have intorduced concepts like "water canopy" to somehow try and explain an otherwise impossible phenomenon. Others simply say "god is al-powerful" and leave it at that.

Again, your wors not mine. But "agreeing with me" is not the criteria and hasn't anything to do with it. But when the facts are presented, and they are swept aside in favour of a "god transcends science/physics" approach, then yes, reason is checked at the door.

1) I'm not assuming I'm right about a particular fact. I am basing my position on facts that lead to the most reasonable conclusion.

2) This isn't about the existence of a god. This is beyond the scope of science. It is about whether there was a global flood or whether the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. These are well within the bounds or science unless, returning to my original post, we agreed that nothing is provable and facts are meaningless.

Weeeeelllll, be fair Magus. Would you ask your fellow theist not to criticize atheist and not look down on them just because they have arrived at a different conclusion?

I don't "look down" on theists, but I must admit that I think many of their positions - positions I once held - are nonsensical.

I never said they are idiots. But I will stress that "respectful disagreement" is not always necessary. Quite frankly, not all views are worthy of respect. I am not saying that this applies to all theist ideas (or all theists), but I don't have respect for the view that homosexuality is immoral or that black people are cursed.