Why the bible ISN'T evidence.

[Brian37]

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.

Yes the OP IS correct, just like we would be questioning any other religion. Either you have evidence or you don't. The only evidence any holy writing contains of ANY religion in human history is evidence of what the believers hold to be true. Those are not facts, like gravity or evolution. They are only evidence of the social norms of the people who buy into them.

"Atheist" is not scientific method, only scientific method is scientific method. Yes atheists have bias too, and I'd say the same thing to them I do believers, don't talk about it, prove it. And even among scientists outside of labels, the ethic is to even challenge other scientists. 

Religion does not have the same quality control scientific method does. Religion does not require testing with control groups and independent peer review. Scientific method is not there to prop up the bible, or Quran or Vedas or Torah or Buddha. It is a process, not even a religion or label. If an atheist said "the universe is a giant cognition" and I have run into that, I'd say the same thing, "BULLSHIT".

Atheists certainly can have their own woo, but that does not make any god claim or religion a requirement for the universe or life to exist.

[robvalue]

Even a broken cock is upright twice a day.

[brewer]

Even a broken cock is upright twice a day.

Down right trudat! hehe

[KevinM1]

Even a broken cock is upright twice a day.

Unless it's digital...

[Minimalist]

True, but enough do otherwise we'd still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

You were saying?

[vorlon13]

My disappoint at not seeing the ballsack hat above.

It is a real chortle during my otherwise dreary day.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

Nice sound byte. I've heard it before, Sam Harris maybe. I would say each recorded event is a single data point. Not much can be concluded from a single data point.

[vorlon13]

Well, (snicker), the bible is evidence, just not what the Christers need or want.

There is more than enough self-incrimination in scripture to get God convicted of just about any atrocity one can imagine.

[LadyForCamus]

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

Nice sound byte. I've heard it before, Sam Harris maybe. I would say each recorded event is a single data point. Not much can be concluded from a single data point.

And, even less than "not much" can be concluded when you connect them all together!

[Mister Agenda]

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.

To be honest, it's best to assume that 90% of what atheists have to say about the Bible is directed at fundamentalist evangelicals who would believe you if you told them semiotics was a venereal disease. It's cumbersome to continually specify which Christians your criticisms are specific to, especially with 40,000 different sects of Christians. Please take it as a given that when we're complaining about literal interpretations of the Bible, we don't have you or Swedenborgianism in mind.

(Raises arms in defensive posture in case of being slapped down for speaking for other atheists)