(October 27, 2011 at 8:18 am)Carnavon Wrote: I suggest you put forward some proper evidence, and not stereotypes on which you base your conclusions. That will be great. And the more recent evidence, the better.
Evidence for what? That we shouldn't use religious mythology and reliable historical evidence for events or people? I need to provide evidence to support that conviction?
You have the same conviction, I'll wager, when it comes to the mythology of other religions. You don't use the Iliad to conclude that Zeus existed and that his pantheon of gods and goddesses were involved on different sides of the Trojan War.
Now we do know there was a Troy and possibly a real war on which the myths were based only because of archaeological evidence that independently confirms it. Does that mean we necessarily conclude that Zeus must be real? Of course not. Neither do we consider that Achilles really was invincible except for his heel or that there's any truth to the supernatural beings Odysseus encountered in his trip home.
The Bible belongs on the same shelf as the Iliad. It's not a collection of "historical documents". It's a collection of myths.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist