Will The Internet Kill Religion?

[*Deidre*]

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

I wouldn't say most assume that, rather Christian apologists tend to argue for the validity of the Bible (the religious component), based on some historical references mentioned in it.

[Coffee Jesus]

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.

[archangle]

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

I wouldn't say most assume that, rather Christian apologists tend to argue for the validity of the Bible (the religious component), based on some historical references mentioned in it.

I don't understand that part either. Use what we know to describe what we dont know. Then use the bible as a refrence point in helping understand that if we ignore history we are destine to repeat it.

There is plenty of conservation laws that support the notion we may be part of a larger life form.

[Tonus]

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

I think they assume that because many Christians will use the "historical accuracy" of the Bible to bolster their claim that the stories are true. But I agree that the fact that some of the stories reference real people and places mostly helps us to understand when and where they may have been written, and little more than that.

[Coffee Jesus]

Having lived in that time, the writers of the OT or Tanakh would've had a basic knowledge of their geography and wars. In contrast, we don't have any reason to think they would've talked to angels or witnessed divine intervention.

Go ahead and ask the janitor where the men's room is, but don't ask him about thermodynamics.

[RobbyPants]

I have devout Muslim friends who honestly are quite pious about their faith and love others, putting them first. Not all Muslims are radical and hate those who are non-Muslim. But, it is the fastest growing religion, currently.

Well, I could also see Islam becoming much more moderate with the Internet, as well. From my understanding, your average American Muslim is much more moderate than a Muslim from a third-world country. That likely has a lot to do with education. They condemn the violence associated with radical Islam.

The most dangerous adherents tend to be xenophobic. Areas with a lot of diversity tend to be much more accepting of other cultures and views. As people get more and more connected, I can see the religion transforming at the same time.

I honestly "predict" atheism becoming the largest cohesive group, some day. Religions that are oppressive, don't last forever. I wonder what the great psychics have to say? Just joking, I don't believe in psychics.

I think it's still a while off, but I agree that it could happen. Before it does so, I'd expect to see the vast majority of Christian and Islam adherents become much more moderate/liberal in their beliefs, and I'd expect to see fundamentalism viewed with the same sort of disdainful mockery as Scientology is today.

[Chas]

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).

Obviously, only the Old Testament could be argued to have been written BCE.
The OT is not historically accurate: no Flood, no Egyptian captivity, no flight from Egypt, no great kingdom of Israel, and on and on.
The "Dark Ages" is when Christianity began to gain political power in Europe; by the Middle Ages, it was very well established.

You see, your 'facts' mostly aren't facts.

---

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?

Citation required. I don't know of any 'atheist' scholars who do so.

[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).

Obviously, only the Old Testament could be argued to have been written BCE.
The OT is not historically accurate: no Flood, no Egyptian captivity, no flight from Egypt, no great kingdom of Israel, and on and on.
The "Dark Ages" is when Christianity began to gain political power in Europe; by the Middle Ages, it was very well established.

You see, your 'facts' mostly aren't facts.

---

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?

Citation required. I don't know of any 'atheist' scholars who do so.

Well if my facts are wrong, then I guess all non-religious universities in the wolrd (the religious ones would never mention the 5 sources of the Torah) are wrong as well.

I wasn't aware the information likely provided via the Annals of the Kings of Israel and Judah had any mention of the Flood, Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, etc. etc.

It wasn't that the Kingdom of Israel was great compared to the world powers of the time (since it disappeared before the penning of the OT as you call it, I assume you mean the Kingdom of Judah), it was more sophisticated than its neighbors....that's the biggest detractor for the Canaanite slave/underclass hypothesis.

Look up the works of Eric H. Cline and his contemporaries. I still read to this day when Christians attack him for his statements about the the Biblical record....he accepts the validity of much of Kings and Chronicles, but accepts theories (Sea Peoples for him....he hasn't be able to definitely back it up, but little is known about that group save for the fact almost everyone I have read blames them for the Bronze Age collapse) outside of the Biblical framework for the origin of the Israelites in Canaan.

[sven]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04jjBv6QR8k

Personally, I began to question my faith at a time when I wasn't spending "400 bajillion hours a day" on the internet. However, given that I was on the internet at all, there may be something to this study. On the other hand, you can find anyone and anything on the internet that will say what you want them to say.

What do you guys think? Could the internet be a factor in people losing their religion? Or is this just a coincidence and nothing more?

Will the internet kill bill?

[Brian37]

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.

Why the dumbfounded look?

If I read the Egyptian book of the dead or Rosetta Stone, and go beyond simply writing an anthropology book that simply says "This is when these people lived and this is what they believed", and write a book that argued that the sun god was a real god, because of the Egyptian book of the dead or Rosetta Stone, would my book of apology for a sun god make a sun god real?

If I go beyond writing anthropology book about the Reg Vedas and write an apology book arguing for their gods does writing that book make those god's real?

I am fine with historians and anthropologists writing books about human history. But no Jew, or Muslim or Christian who is arguing for a god as if it was real is credible. They are not arguing for a real thing, they are merely marketing a invisible fictional sky parent to sucker the reader into buying that bullshit.

There is a huge difference between a historian, anthropologist and a con artist salesman. ALL APOLOGISTS are con artists. Or did I not make that clear enough for you?

---

The bottom line is the bible is a book of myth. If someone wants to write a book about it from a historical or anthropology aspect fine. But once they start arguing that the god of that book is real, that is a con at that point. Some apologists truly believe the bullshit they sell, others know it is bullshit but don't care.