Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:25 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
#11
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
The archaeological evidence is that the bible is primarily full of shit.
Reply
#12
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
(March 31, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The archaeological evidence is that the bible is primarily full of shit.

That exodus was a quite a thing, wasn't it?  Devil
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Reply
#13
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
(March 31, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The archaeological evidence is that the bible is primarily full of shit.

Ain't it funny, your christer on the street wouldn't pause for even a second to concur with;

"The Muslims are full of shit"

"The Hindus are full of shit"

"The Druids are full of shit"

but if you then informed them it was still an open question about THEM being full of shit too, you're going to see a shit hemorrhage erupt in full technicolor splendor.

Tongue
 The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it. 




Reply
#14
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
Seems to me that the OP is presenting an all-or-nothing view of the biblical canon. I agree that the Bible is not a science book. Likewise many passages reflect cosmologies current in their time, etc. That does not justify a blanket statement that the scriptural texts are not evidence of anything at all. The fact that some accounts within a larger story reflect different perspectives does not automatically mean that the entire story is a fabrication.

And it depends on what question you are trying to answer with the data. We can certainly glean a great deal of evidence about the culture, customs, and beliefs of the writers and the societies in which they lived. Historical details, once considered fabrications, are sometimes later confirmed with modern archaeological findings. Evidence is not always made from a single piece; but rather, an assembly of several bits of data such as a pot shard here, the inscription on a coin there, and ancient texts that point to a particular historical interpretation. Common themes that run through the centuries can be identified.

I most certainly do not agree with those Evangelicals and others that also insist on an all-or-nothing approach to biblical interpretation. The 66 books of the canonical Bible were assembled over centuries out of everything from poetry and prophetic visions to legal guides and eyewitness testimonies. It is unreasonable to demand that this wide variety of texts must run through only the filter of 20-21st Century science. Why that and not also modern literary textural analysis, linguistics, and semiotics? While it is true that some believers cherry-pick verses to support specific doctrines, it seems to me that many other (atheists among them) are cherry-picking from among a wide range hermeneutics to that support their own bias.
Reply
#15
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
(March 31, 2016 at 12:14 pm)robvalue Wrote: Even if it was evidence, it would be one more reason for me to steer clear of the whole religion. Trying to convince me they're worshipping a real evil fucker rather than an imaginary one doesn't do them any favours.

Of course, it's not evidence of anything except that people could write some stuff down. It offers some interesting insights about what society might have been like back then.

"Interesting" maybe like TSA figuring out how a plane crash happened. I find nothing valuable about antiquity outside of the artwork. Peppering some kind motifs into any religion is what they all do. The downside to religion back then is that it was still classed based and centered around sexism and tribal kingships.
Reply
#16
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
Quote: That does not justify a blanket statement that the scriptural texts are not evidence of anything at all.

I'll grant you that they are "evidence" of the primitive beliefs of primitive men.  I didn't think that was in serious doubt, though.
Reply
#17
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
(March 31, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The archaeological evidence is that the bible is primarily full of shit.

You don't save history because it is true, you save history because you can learn from it. There certainly are lots of pretty stories in all of antiquity both in monotheism and polytheism, but our species fear of being wrong holds us back far more often than not. The bible isn't the only holy writing that is full of shit, they all are, monotheistic and even the more earthy religions people like to cop out to calling "philosophies" like those of Asia.

If any religion were key to evolution we never would have gotten to our current form 200,000 years ago. If any religion were key to evolution, we'd find monuments cockroaches built to their gods. The only thing that proves religion exists is that humans make them up. The universe has never cared about us, it is up to us to care about us.
Reply
#18
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
People rarely learn anything from history.
Reply
#19
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
(March 31, 2016 at 1:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Seems to me that the OP is presenting an all-or-nothing view of the biblical canon. I agree that the Bible is not a science book. Likewise many passages reflect cosmologies current in their time, etc. That does not justify a blanket statement that the scriptural texts are not evidence of anything at all. The fact that some accounts within a larger story reflect different perspectives does not automatically mean that the entire story is a fabrication.

And it depends on what question you are trying to answer with the data. We can certainly glean a great deal of evidence about the culture, customs, and beliefs of the writers and the societies in which they lived. Historical details, once considered fabrications, are sometimes later confirmed with modern archaeological findings. Evidence is not always made from a single piece; but rather, an assembly of several bits of data such as a pot shard here, the inscription on a coin there, and ancient texts that point to a particular historical interpretation. Common themes that run through the centuries can be identified.

I most certainly do not agree with those Evangelicals and others that also insist on an all-or-nothing approach to biblical interpretation. The 66 books of the canonical Bible were assembled over centuries out of everything from poetry and prophetic visions to legal guides and eyewitness testimonies. It is unreasonable to demand that this wide variety of texts must run through only the filter of 20-21st Century science. Why that and not also modern literary textural analysis, linguistics, and semiotics? While it is true that some believers cherry-pick verses to support specific doctrines, it seems to me that many other (atheists among them) are cherry-picking from among a wide range hermeneutics to that support their own bias.



The fact that the Bible gets some historical things correct, offers ZERO evidence for any of the supernatural events.

As far as any of the supernatural events, the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
#20
RE: Why the bible ISN'T evidence.
(March 31, 2016 at 3:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote: People rarely learn anything from history.

True, but enough do otherwise we'd still be stuck in the Dark Ages. Our species doesn't like change, but at the same time we evolved to be curious. I'd like to think the curious can overcome the assholes stuck in the past.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nishant Xavier 38 2380 August 7, 2023 at 10:24 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  When were the Gospels Written? The External and Internal Evidence. Nishant Xavier 62 3099 August 6, 2023 at 10:25 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Veridical NDEs: Evidence/Proof of the Soul and the After-Life? Nishant Xavier 32 1567 August 6, 2023 at 5:36 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience. Nishant Xavier 91 4540 August 6, 2023 at 2:19 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God. Nishant Xavier 162 7392 July 9, 2023 at 7:53 am
Last Post: Deesse23
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 2716 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Why the resurrection accounts are not evidence LinuxGal 5 1013 October 29, 2022 at 2:01 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Legal evidence of atheism Interaktive 16 2506 February 9, 2020 at 8:44 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Evidence for Believing Lek 368 49142 November 14, 2019 at 5:39 pm
Last Post: GrandizerII
Information The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence Nogba 225 22999 August 2, 2019 at 11:44 am
Last Post: comet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)