Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[KichigaiNeko]

The bible has made no scientific claims.

Just wishful thinking on the part of theists...you have to remember that the closest thing to "science" at the cusp of BCE and CE was astrology.

[Darwinning]

on top of that the bible had the best hygiene guidelines of it's time.

1. Good hygiene.
2. ???????
3. God.

QED

---

the bible has made some scientific claims that have been very accurate even though they were well ahead of their rime.
Job 26:7- speaks of in the northern heavens there is a vast space in which the most powerful telescopes have been unable to locate any celestial bodies. in every other direction stars can be found but not there. it also says he hangs the earth upon nothing, which is it speaking of the fact that the earth is floating in space not supported by anything.
Isaiah 40:22- says the earth is round and that the universe is expanding. he "streatches the heavens."
Luke 17:24-36- Jesus speaks of his second coming. He points out that for some His return would be during the day and for others it would be at night. this establishes that the earth is round and there is day on one side of the earth and night on the other.

Rap outfit the Coup designed a CD cover that depicted the twin towers being blown to bits only days before September 11th, 2001. Wold you say that is so stunningly (and painfully) accurate, therefore they must be Gods?

You might want to read up on observational selection bias and confirmation bias. I'm just trying to help.

[houseofcantor]

Idolatry.

That's the easiest argument against the Bible. Bible is derivative of the Greek for library. It is a library of scripture, written by prophets; divinely inspired means what? Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit + Bible = overkill. I can't get rid of Holy Spirit - that insanity is permanent - so my NIV went into the trashcan. Oh noes!

Bible without Holy Spirit? Idolatry, trashcan; works for me. How do I know I got Holy Spirit? Observational data. I am a creature of love, morality, faith; most often assumed to be Christian - fucking Phoenix - never assumed to be atheist. Yeah, it's an obvious thing. Any rational human being can use the scientific method to test non-scientific notions and turn an hypothesis into a verified hypothesis. Observation-Hypothesis-Experimentation-Repeatability. Using the subjective laboratory of the mind, all that can be repeated is local to the identity in this case; verified hypothesis is the end of the line, if it can be slapped into sense and sent to an independent laboratory, it might be eligible for theory. There is no need for this idiot to be packing theory of Holy Spirit, even if I could slap some sense into the verified hypothesis.

So the atheist goes, I do not accept that hypothesis; and me and that atheist, we ain't gonna talk about me having Holy Spirit no morez... you know, unless he witnesses a miracle, but I like to keep that shit to a minimum.

As for religion, with the Christian, it is hell. Holy Spirit = no fucking evil, period. They never get that one. Acceptance of the Christ is a fellowship - he ain't supposed to be god - they fluff that one regularly. Faith is a key element of my being, I don't mess with faith unless it happens here on the forums; in person I can tell where the faith begins and the religion ends. Many atheists don't like faith, so I don't argue it; theists often don't even know wtf? Faith? Religion? God?

I don't argue against Judaism. Sometimes I wear the hand of god; one time this guy was telling me it was Islamic, I said Jewish. We agreed it was both. "Easy argument against Judaism?" Don't; that's the easiest one, a flock of wolves right there. Go in there thinking you're shearing sheep, peel back a couple? Call yourself lucky. Try that on a couple of Rabbis, see who ends up with no pelt.

Islam has all kinds of pluses and minuses. A Muslim that doesn't understand Arabic is an obvious target. For a religion of peace, it's dang violent; don't let 'em tell you otherwise. It's straight up with the killing of the infidel. Yet I haven't had a problem with a Muslim; I've had all kinds of problems trying to defend Islam, and that is because of the violence. That seems to be the big minus. The pluses of Islam? It ain't Christianity. It's ripe for an epiphany. If my faith had a religion, it would be Muslim.

What else is there, Baha'i? Happy hippie nonsense.

Buddhism, Hindu, Tao? All of 'em are fine as a philosophy. Haven't heard any bs about Taoism; those other two get religious and go to war. There's a weak point.

Shinto? Ancestor worship, what I understand of it; might not be understandable. Not a problem.

Scientology? Wood chipper.

I think that covers it...

[chi pan]

The bible has made no scientific claims.

what about the ones i mentioned? they said the earth was round well before it was proven. they said the universe is expanding, something we've only recently discovered. isaiah 40:22.

[Darwinning]

what about the ones i mentioned? they said the earth was round well before it was proven. they said the universe is expanding, something we've only recently discovered. isaiah 40:22.

Read this. I'll quote some gems.

Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12: “Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens [shamayim] and looks down on all the stars, high as they are.”

Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”

The Biblical view of the universe is relatively clear and consistent. Biblical statements bearing on cosmology are (with one possible exception yet to be discussed) consistent with the well-known flat-earth cosmologies of the ancient Near East, but they are often flatly contradicted by modern science. How do spherical apologists reply?

Those who claim Biblical support for a spherical earth typically ignore this forest of consistency and focus on one or two aberrant trees. Some take refuge in audacity. Henry Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, cites one of the more explicitly flat-earth verses in the Old Testament Isaiah 40:22, the “grasshopper” verse quoted earlier as evidence for the sphericity of the earth. Quoting the King James version “he sitteth upon the circle of the earth” Morris ignores the context and the grasshoppers and claims “circle” should read “sphericity” or “roundness” [1956, 8]. This divide and conquer strategy is poor scholarship and worse logic.

In brief: no. Even your cherry-picked example does not support your position.

[Tobie]

Still waiting for that proof chipan. You're just quoting passages from the Bible that say something that might be interpreted as a scientific claim, but are more correctly interpreted as hocum.

[LastPoet]

Clearly, Isaiah 40:22 says:

The shape of the Earth approximates an oblate spheroid, a sphere flattened along the axis from pole to pole such that there is a bulge around the equator.

I mean, you'd expect clarity from those that know all right?

[Jackalope]

Clearly, Isaiah 40:22 says:

The shape of the Earth approximates an oblate spheroid, a sphere flattened along the axis from pole to pole such that there is a bulge around the equator.

I mean, you'd expect clarity from those that know all right?

Hey now, wait a minute. Isiah 40:22 doesn't say...

... oh shit, it does!

Fuck.

Therefore, God.

CHECKMATE, atheists.

[5thHorseman]

Isaiah 40:22

'He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.'

Haven't you noticed the view we have of the planet from where we stand is circular. Well done on presuming it means the world is round.

Universe expanding? you really are what we say when we say that it means what you mean it to mean.

[chi pan]

The shape of the Earth approximates an oblate spheroid, a sphere flattened along the axis from pole to pole such that there is a bulge around the equator

where did you get that interpretation?

Universe expanding? you really are what we say when we say that it means what you mean it to mean.

how would you interpret that? heavens refers to what is beyond the sky (example: when it says "stars in the heavens") and he streaches it. what does that mean to you then?