Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 07-25-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Herodotus does more than just see bones - he connects the dots and tells his readers that they are the bones of winged serpents. And there is no evidence that Herodotus finds this story fantastic, or has any problems accepting it.

Looking back in context, this is dealing specifically with supernatural claims in the Gospels, no? Not the gospels as a whole? If so, I have no further argument.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-26-2007, 05:35 PM

How useful are ancient records? Well, if you are a God, and want people to believe that you exist, and to know what you want them to do with their lives, not nearly as useful as they would be if they were combined with frequent, widespread, tangible, personal appearances. This invites the question "If a God inspired the writing of the Bible, why did he do it?" This is an important question, and Christians who believe that God inspired the writing of the Bible need to answer it.

Cheerful Charlie · 07-26-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

This sounds good.

What about the priority between written records and physical evidence?

If this question seems silly, you might want to read the recent thread about the Patriarchs. At one point, the argument was about which is more reliable.

So, it really isn't such a silly question. Even if your opinion is "Of course X is the more reliable of the two" it would still be good to put it in writing.

I'm not a historian and this isn't really my forum, so I'll just let the experts discuss this point.

By 'physical evidence' I take it that you mean archaeology? Obviously if we could dig up Cicero as he delivered his Philippics this would be preferable to the transmitted texts. Sadly this is not possible.

What we actually get are belt-buckles and the like. The use that can be made of these is naturally limited. To the extent that these are physical remains, they are certainly data and more directly from antiquity. But to speak they usually require interpretation. I would prefer not to oppose the two sources of data, myself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

What we get are things likes facts the cities Moses and Joshua supposedly destroyed were ruins long before there could be a Moses or a Joshua. Thus the tale of Moses's exodus and the genocidal tales of Joshua are nasty little myths. No Moses on the mount with God either. No Godkilling the first born. No genocide in Canaan.

Laws of 'god' such as Leviticus 20 condemning homosexuals are not from God and so we should not be using them as a basis for making laws as to who can marry who.

Noah's flood is a myth as was Adam and Eve. No reason then for myths like this to be an excuse to destroy science education in the US, which the fundy shit monkeys have pretty much gone a long way to doing.

Archeology, paleontology, physics and geology all condemn the Bible as being true in much of its bizarre mythology.

CC

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-26-2007, 05:35 PM	#52
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	How useful are ancient records? Well, if you are a God, and want people to believe that you exist, and to know what you want them to do with their lives, not nearly as useful as they would be if they were combined with frequent, widespread, tangible, personal appearances. This invites the question "If a God inspired the writing of the Bible, why did he do it?" This is an important question, and Christians who believe that God inspired the writing of the Bible need to answer it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.