Will The Internet Kill Religion?

[*Deidre*]

Let's hear your 'facts'. We're waiting.

Let's see Bible was written down in the 6th Century BCE from 5 sources including the Annals of the Kings of Judah and Israel (the main reason for its historical accuracy), Jesus is not based off Horus and all the points used to compare the two do not agree with accepted data from Egyptology (I'm surprised there are still those out there spreading that when most prominent atheists tore that claim apart), a bunch of the issues from Leviticus used as insults against Christians not following them pertain to ancestor worship of the Ammonites (and other tribes), and the "Dark Ages" was when religion lost power to control politics (there were a few overtly religious leaders, but it was rare for that time period).

The Bible is not a history book. If it were, I wouldn't be an atheist.

[Polaris]

Let's see Bible was written down in the 6th Century BCE from 5 sources including the Annals of the Kings of Judah and Israel (the main reason for its historical accuracy), Jesus is not based off Horus and all the points used to compare the two do not agree with accepted data from Egyptology (I'm surprised there are still those out there spreading that when most prominent atheists tore that claim apart), a bunch of the issues from Leviticus used as insults against Christians not following them pertain to ancestor worship of the Ammonites (and other tribes), and the "Dark Ages" was when religion lost power to control politics (there were a few overtly religious leaders, but it was rare for that time period).

The Bible is not a history book. If it were, I wouldn't be an atheist.

You're American I take it.

[Brian37]

Let's see Bible was written down in the 6th Century BCE from 5 sources including the Annals of the Kings of Judah and Israel (the main reason for its historical accuracy), Jesus is not based off Horus and all the points used to compare the two do not agree with accepted data from Egyptology (I'm surprised there are still those out there spreading that when most prominent atheists tore that claim apart), a bunch of the issues from Leviticus used as insults against Christians not following them pertain to ancestor worship of the Ammonites (and other tribes), and the "Dark Ages" was when religion lost power to control politics (there were a few overtly religious leaders, but it was rare for that time period).

The Bible is not a history book. If it were, I wouldn't be an atheist.

It is a history of myth, like we can prove the books of Harry Potter were written. But it is not a book of facts or science. It is merely a reflection of the social desires and superstitions of it's time.

[Doggey75]

I don't think that the internet will kill religion. But, it will make religion most likely frowned upon in the general public maybe within 20 years.

[Polaris]

The Bible is not a history book. If it were, I wouldn't be an atheist.

It is a history of myth, like we can prove the books of Harry Potter were written. But it is not a book of facts or science. It is merely a reflection of the social desires and superstitions of it's time.

So is that why many prominent atheist scholars use the Biblical narrative to corroborate the historical records of other Middle East cultures as well as the archaeological record?

[*Deidre*]

The Bible is not a history book. If it were, I wouldn't be an atheist.

You're American I take it.

Believe it or not, there are people who are atheists, who are not American. lol But, yes, I'm American. I was once a Christian, as well.

---

It is a history of myth, like we can prove the books of Harry Potter were written. But it is not a book of facts or science. It is merely a reflection of the social desires and superstitions of it's time.

So is that why many prominent atheist scholars use the Biblical narrative to corroborate the historical records of other Middle East cultures as well as the archaeological record?

One can get a sense of life during that time frame from reading the Bible. But, the reason the Bible was compiled was to promote religion, to promote a belief in God. (to instill fear and order and that was done through using the Bible as a religious tool to do that)

It wasn't compiled to use as anything remotely resembling a history book. Its purpose is to promote Christianity.

[Brian37]

It is a history of myth, like we can prove the books of Harry Potter were written. But it is not a book of facts or science. It is merely a reflection of the social desires and superstitions of it's time.

So is that why many prominent atheist scholars use the Biblical narrative to corroborate the historical records of other Middle East cultures as well as the archaeological record?

What the fuck?

Can you find atheists who will agree that things were written at certain times and that people and places existed at certain times? Yes. But you will NOT find and atheist I'd call credible claiming the flood happened or that virgin births happened or zombie gods exist, or that men pop out of dirt or women pop out of ribs.

If motifs overlap it isn't because a deity is real, it is because dumbass people spread their sky daddy stories around over time.

The Hebrew god exists as claims today because of the Canaanite polytheism they got their names and motifs from. Christianity exists today as a spin off of Jews. Islam is a spin of Christianity.

Overlap in culture only proves people shared stories. It does not make invisible sky parents by any name real.

[Coffee Jesus]

It is a history of myth, like we can prove the books of Harry Potter were written. But it is not a book of facts or science. It is merely a reflection of the social desires and superstitions of it's time.

So is that why many prominent atheist scholars use the Biblical narrative to corroborate the historical records of other Middle East cultures as well as the archaeological record?

Fictional stories still tend to contain true elements. If a scifi alien book mentions the geographic locations of cities, 41st century historians might use that to check their claims about 21st century geography.

I didn't understand your first post about Leviticus and the Ammonites.

[Polaris]

Why do people assume that just because the Bible contains accurate historical information that it's the same as validating a belief in God?

If I were to find historical proof of King Arthur (instead of finding two kings that likely contributed to the myth), would that also mean that I validate the Lady of the Lake as a real entity?

[Brian37]

So is that why many prominent atheist scholars use the Biblical narrative to corroborate the historical records of other Middle East cultures as well as the archaeological record?

Fictional stories still tend to contain true elements. If a scifi alien book mentions the geographic locations of cities, 41st century historians might use that to check their claims about 21st century geography.

I didn't understand your first post about Leviticus and the Ammonites.

So? Superman movies have depicted real cities like New York and San Francisco. Godzilla movies have depicted Tokyo. The original book Peter Pan mentions the city of London.

Some dumbass movie maker a couple years ago made a movie about Abe Lincoln being a vampire slayer.

In antiquity both in politics and in religion, both polytheism and monotheism, the writings were often peppered with real people and places to lend the legends and bullshit stories credibility. No real place or person you read about in or outside a holy book will ever make magic or invisible beings real. Otherwise if that were the case then the Oracle in the Oedipus Rex play was a real prophet because the play mentioned real places.