Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Eric...
I've been following your " Philipic " for a while now ....
but I've just seen your claim ,
"because based on advanced study, science, and even archeological findings, the Bible has been substantiated from a historical perspective in many ways..."
I would dearly like some information from you on this ....
"the Bible has been substantiated from a historical perspective in many ways..."
particularly the bits "based on advanced study, science, and even archeological findings" .... if you wouldn't mind.
so perhaps you would kind enough to put forward some 2 or 3 examples (no more ,I can see you are busy) that I may study.
Ah...so I see that we are indeed the quintessential "watch"man lol.
Very well. Please continue to hang back, my clandestine friend, and your request will be forthcoming.
Thank you.
I shall await your post ....
Just checking in to see if anything posted ....
Nothing yet..... back tomorrow...
Again, the Bible could be useful to the atheist as a source of historical, existential, and practical truth. But the fear may be that, the longer he persists in studying it, the less likely he is to maintain his comfortable worldview.
"So far, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.
Nevertheless, many people used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about A.D. 27 (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people name Lysanias, and Luke had accurately recorded the facts.
Also, the walls of Jericho have been found--destroyed just as the Bible says.
Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea that has verified its existence.
Finds have verified the existence of Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas.
The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum.
Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet have been uncovered as well demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion.
The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones).
There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records on places such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc."
Ever wonder why the "eighth day" was (and still is) the ideal and safest day for Jews to hack a foreskin off of the male member? Because it is in the Bible and God said to do so, the Law of Moses, and all that covenant stuff most atheists don't believe in anyway? Nope...
...it is because the clotting chemical, prothrombin, peaks in a newborn on that very day. Modern medicine has now "discovered" and confirmed what an ancient book and people already realized many thousands of years ago.
At a time when many "intellectuals" and "free thinkers" of society thought that the earth was flat or rested on the back of an animal or beast, the scriptures describe the earth as being spherical and suspended.
Finally, people are still searching for Noah's Ark, right? Perhaps it will be discovered, perhaps it won't. But it's dimensions as described in the Bible are the exact proportions (the length six times that of the width) of a seaworthy vessel, providing ship stability, and the formula for what ship builders use to this day. Even if you disbelieve the account itself, the engineering and mathematical profundity represented in the story is astounding for that Age.
There are more examples, but please enjoy this for now.
Also, this information does not assert God's existence, prove the Resurrection, or offer that the skeptic abandon any belief that they may or may not have in Spiderman, Hercules, comic books, or ghosts, goblins, and ghouls lol.
It merely serves to invite the atheist to take a fresh look at the Bible itself, as possibly a source of something more substantive than previously understood.
Thank you.
"So far, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.”
Really ???
Not one ???
Also, the walls of Jericho have been found--destroyed just as the Bible says.
No…no they haven’t ….
Kathleen Kenyon ,a world famous archaeologist excavated Jericho during the 1950’s
“Although Kenyon had no doubt the sites she excavated were linked to the Old Testament narrative she nevertheless drew attention to inconsistencies, concluding that Solomon's "stables" at Megiddo were totally impractical for holding horses (1978:72), and that Jericho fell long before Joshua's arrival “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Kenyon
Subsequent work has determined that at the supposed period of the supposed Israelite conquest the then small township of Jericho had NO WALLS.
You can read more of this in “The Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman. (page 82)
Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea that has verified its existence.
No they haven’t ….
The 1962 forgery of the so-called “Caesarea inscription”
It appears the “Inscription” wasn’t quite all that it was supposed to be …
The “Caesarea inscription” is in three fragments. Fragment A is the one with the word Nazareth chiseled in its entirely.
One (fragment C) was lost. Fragment B itself appeared to have been tampered with. The three fragments did not match one another in color, size of lettering, or line spacing. Furthermore, no evidence could be found for a synagogue in the vicinity where these fragments were allegedly recovered
(extracts from the article)
Link:
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalnine.html
Finds have verified the existence of Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas.
Was their existence ever in doubt ?
After all we have many independent Roman references to the family.
The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum.
No…not actually….
What was discovered was the house of a successful fisher man…
even the ubiquitous Wikipedia says …”the major discovery was of a house which is claimed to be St. Peter's house,”…
See that …it’s that little word ….”claimed” “CLAIMED”…
just as you “CLAIMED” ,”So far, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.”
And just as much of a falsehood.
"Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet have been uncovered as well demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion."
Again I have to ask … was the “actuality” of crucifixion ever in doubt ???
"The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones)."
No…no they have not….
What was found was indeed an ossuary …but it was quite clearly inscribed with the name "Joseph son of Caiaphas".
Possibly meaning of the family of Caiaphas. Although it cannot at present be ruled out that this Caiaphas is THE Caiaphas … it should be noted that there is no mention of the status of the family as would be expected if it were the family of a High Priest.
There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records on places such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc."
Places … non of whose existence was ever doubted.
And just because the place exists it in no way endorses what is purported to have happened there.
Ever wonder why the "eighth day" was (and still is) the ideal and safest day for Jews to hack a foreskin off of the male member? Because it is in the Bible and God said to do so, the Law of Moses, and all that covenant stuff most atheists don't believe in anyway? Nope...
...it is because the clotting chemical, prothrombin, peaks in a newborn on that very day. Modern medicine has now "discovered" and confirmed what an ancient book and people already realized many thousands of years ago.
Total irrelevance …
Plus the number of procedures undertaken by this culture would have given a degree of expertise in the timing of the mutilation. Thus its no great surprise that they got the timings right.
At a time when many "intellectuals" and "free thinkers" of society thought that the earth was flat or rested on the back of an animal or beast, the scriptures describe the earth as being spherical and suspended.
References ?
Finally, people are still searching for Noah's Ark, right?
No...not people.... these are mostly American Evangelical organisations ,
Conning them out of vast ammounts of money has become something of a cottage industry in the Ararat are of Turkey.
Perhaps it will be discovered, perhaps it won't. But it's dimensions as described in the Bible are the exact proportions (the length six times that of the width) of a seaworthy vessel, providing ship stability, and the formula for what ship builders use to this day. Even if you disbelieve the account itself, the engineering and mathematical profundity represented in the story is astounding for that Age.
No it isn’t ….. men have been building boats and ships for millennia …. Of course the ratio’s were known.
There are more examples, but please enjoy this for now.
Thank you…
Also, this information does not assert God's existence, prove the Resurrection, or offer that the skeptic abandon any belief that they may or may not have in Spiderman, Hercules, comic books, or ghosts, goblins, and ghouls lol.
It merely serves to invite the atheist to take a fresh look at the Bible itself, as possibly a source of something more substantive than previously understood.
No it doesn’t ….
(still checking on Lysanius ... will return with findings once I have them.... Thank you for this one...its nice to have one that I haven't come across before...)
By the way ....what you have posted here is no more than assertions...without references and or sources they are meaningless ...you may want to address that failing in future posts...... remember ""What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
What is the archaeological discovery that has disproven the Bible? I don't see it listed in your reply...although you touched on it twice.
...and surely you know from my earlier, and somewhat "ubiquitous" posts on AR, that you won't be getting off that easily lol. I will await your response to my question (concerning your "assertion" that you have archaeological evidence that disproves the Bible), and then we will proceed :)
I think it would be appropriate for us to start "digging" more into Jericho for starters...sources abound, and this is going to be fun!
What is the archaeological discovery that has disproven the Bible? I don't see it listed in your reply...although you touched on it twice.
“I don't see it listed in your reply” ….
Of course YOU don’t ….
“...and surely you know from my earlier, and somewhat "ubiquitous" posts on AR, that you won't be getting off that easily lol.
I will await your response to my question (concerning your "assertion" that you have archaeological evidence that disproves the Bible), and then we will proceed :)
I think it would be appropriate for us to start "digging" more into Jericho for starters...sources abound, and this is going to be fun!”
“I will await your response to my question”
I’m sorry ? …. Did I post something that has led you to believe that I am prepared to interact with you on a debate/discussion model …?
I merely asked a question regarding your assertions vis-à-vis ,”advanced study, science, and even archeological findings”, and you were good enough to respond …I then commented on your responses.
Nothing more .
“concerning your "assertion" that you have archaeological evidence that disproves the Bible”
My assertion ?? I’d be obliged if you could point out to me exactly where I made such an assertion to you.
Otherwise I'll thank you not to try to rewrite the detail of our encounter.
It is dishonest.
“and then we will proceed”
Interesting …. And when ,exactly ,did you take charge of this exchange ?
“I think it would be appropriate for us to start "digging" more into Jericho for starters”
Do you …? Do you indeed ? ….. this is what you think ..is it ..? How very arrogant of you
…
Im afraid it is I who decides who , what and when I debate …..
and it aint you. It aint Jericho and it aint now.
If this comes as a disappointment to you …… all I can say is ,
” Ohdear,howsad,whatapity,never mind.
Only coming back to this because I said I would return with my findings....
"Nevertheless, many people used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about A.D. 27 (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people name Lysanias, and Luke had accurately recorded the facts."
It appears that in this case EricT is ,in fact ,correct....
"For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong ...."
Yes.....BUT its not quite as straight-forward as it appears.....
I can find no use of this "Lysanias" to debunk the bible this century (21st)..... nor in the last century (20th) ...the latest use I can find of this to attack Gospel veracity is 1896.
The discovery of the inscription that proved "Luke" right was published in 1901 by A.Plummer then again in 1915 by W.M.Ramsay....
So not actually a recent event ...but I'll not be a "dog in the manger" about this.
Eric was correct ..... on this one point.
Only ........
it wasn't Eric....
He has "Copied & Pasted" his entire post direct from the CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry ) website......
Link:
http://carm.org/christianity/bible/hasnt-bible-been-rewritten-so-many-ti...
Still , I suppose I should thank him .... I did enjoy the search .... even if it ended in a "strawman"
or perhaps it should be a "straw corpse" as it seems to have been a "dead" issue for over 100 years.
Eric,
You are accusing atheists of "cherry picking" in the bible?
An atheist that picks out a part to show the theist a point, for example to show how the texts contradicts the theists claims or the texts themself; does not have the consequence that the atheist is discarding parts of his own "belief system".
It is the theists that believe in the validity of the contents of their "holy" scriptures. It is the theists that therefore should not be able to cherry pick, as they in effect would be discarding parts of their "holy" scriptures.
When are theists going to understand that the burden of proof is on the one making extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is not on those who say, "Really? I find that hard to believe..."
You can try to twisting it around with words, but your claim that "atheists that are cherry picking from the bible is circular reasoning" remains unfounded and childish.
There is little point in debating with you, if you are going to resort to such tactics. If you are going to debate, raise the level a little.
"Travis, sorry but you can't "embellish" that Jesus Christ lived. He either did or he did not."
It is rather easy to embellish the life of Jesus, for example, having him being born of a virgin.
"You can't embellish that Christ rose from the dead. He either did or he did not."
The very fact that he was resurrected could very well be an embellishment.
"The whole heart of Christianity rests on these two claims.
If you reject the account of the Bible concerning these two things, then you most likely reject all else."
Some people might accept the account of Jesus and reject the claims of resurrection or miracles, others might reject the very existence of Jesus. I am not convinced that the Jesus of the bible actually existed, but even if one could prove a person named Jesus did exist, you would also have to prove the supernatural claims made about him before I would have any reason to consider it.
"This phenomenon of wholesale rejection is strange however, because based on advanced study, science, and even archeological findings, the Bible has been substantiated from a historical perspective in many ways...
...often much to the amazement of its detractors."
Which parts? The flood? The exodus? The six-day creation? That showing pregnant sheep striped sticks will mean spotted offspring? That a ceremony of sprinkling pigeon blood on a person can cure leprosy? That zombies walked in Jerusalem the day that Jesus died? That the sun "stood still"(I suppose the Earth stopped rotating?) during a battle(Jericho?)? Which miraculous parts of the bible have been historically verified?
"Therefore (and putting the account of Jesus' story completely aside), it is interesting that the atheist could also allow himself the luxury to "cherry pick" certain parts of the Bible, strictly from a historical perspective, to support certain empirical truths...
...much like he accuses the Christian of doing, concerning the establishment of certain moral truths.
But the atheist wisely (however dishonestly) avoids doing this, so that he/she can thereby discount the Bible as a whole, and wholly discredit the Christian for believing "any of the Bible"...
...as opposed to just the "parts" of the Bible that the atheist would themselves "believe in" and profess as factual."
The verifiable parts are pretty much limited to kings, wars, and places that actually existed. Spiderman comics feature people, events, and places that actually exist as well; do you believe in spiderman?
"So, when the Christian believes in just "part of the Bible", the atheist quickly discredits him on the basis of the whole Book itself being a work of fiction or some other fantastic argument.
...similarly, when the Christian believes in the "whole Bible", the atheist is even quicker to dismiss him on the basis of certain "parts" of the Bible that he/she would refute."
I dismiss much of the bible as being unverified, and in many cases completely wrong about things we actually know. The very fact that the books may contain events that really happened, or people or places that actually existed, in no conceivable way can be used to verify or add credibility to some of the laughable and utterly inane claims that it makes.
"And atheists accuse Christians of "circular reasoning" lol."
Demonstrate a single point at which my reasoning has been circular.
"Demonstrate a single point at which my reasoning has been circular."
Sure, Travis, no problem.
"The verifiable parts are pretty much limited to kings, wars, and places that actually existed. Spiderman comics feature people, events, and places that actually exist as well; do you believe in spiderman?"
Your conclusion and assumption that the Bible is largely fictional (but contains some verifiable parts such as kings, wars, and places that actually existed), because Spiderman comics are largely fictional (but also feature people, events, and places that actually exist) is circular. One statement does not, in any way, logically support or prove the other. The premise derives from the conclusion and so round and round we go.
Interestingly enough, this type of reasoning is also known as "begging the question", and you were more than happy to oblige your own fallacy by providing one: "do you believe in spiderman?"
The "begged question", in my opinion, was also a clever nuance or segue in attempting to further establish another fallacious conclusion (or answer) concerning the Biblical account or existence of Christ.
So, Travis, your circle looks something like this on a sunny day, while two philosophically dissimilar chaps are waiting together in the long line at a famed Orlando theme park, to eventually board The Amazing Spiderman Roller Coaster thrill ride lol:
Atheist: "Did you know that Spiderman comic books feature real things like people, events, and places that actually exist as well?"
Theist: "Um...ok...as well as what?"
Atheist: "The Bible."
Theist: "Ok...so?"
Atheist: "So, do you believe in Spiderman?"
Theist: "Um...no."
Atheist: "Really?! Then why in the world would you believe in Jesus and the Bible?
Hope you enjoyed the ride :-)
neither are examples of circular reasoning/begging the question. An example of that would be:
Person A: The Spider-man comic is an accurate depiction of reality.
Person B: Why do you believe that?
Person A: Because the Spider-man comic says so, and it is an accurate depiction of reality!
But it has so many verifiable details like people, events, and places; how could you not believe they are credible historical documents?
"Your conclusion and assumption that the Bible is largely fictional (but contains some verifiable parts such as kings, wars, and places that actually existed), because Spiderman comics are largely fictional (but also feature people, events, and places that actually exist) is circular. One statement does not, in any way, logically support or prove the other. The premise derives from the conclusion and so round and round we go."
Actually, the spiderman fallacy(yes, it is actually called that) was a direct response to a point you asserted. You said "based on advanced study, science, and even archeological findings, the Bible has been substantiated from a historical perspective in many ways." You literally inferred that since there may be a few pieces of actual fact throughout the many, many, many, many incorrect and incoherent things it claims; that it should be considered credible in some sense. That simply isn't the case, which has been amply demonstrated on many occasions, it is at best partially true; just like the spiderman comics. That isn't circular reasoning, it is a direct analogous comparison, and is actually a apt analogy to the situation.
"Interestingly enough, this type of reasoning is also known as "begging the question", and you were more than happy to oblige your own fallacy by providing one: "do you believe in spiderman?"
The "begged question", in my opinion, was also a clever nuance or segue in attempting to further establish another fallacious conclusion (or answer) concerning the Biblical account or existence of Christ.
So, Travis, your circle looks something like this on a sunny day, while two philosophically dissimilar chaps are waiting together in the long line at a famed Orlando theme park, to eventually board The Amazing Spiderman Roller Coaster thrill ride lol:
Atheist: "Did you know that Spiderman comic books feature real things like people, events, and places that actually exist as well?"
Theist: "Um...ok...as well as what?"
Atheist: "The Bible."
Theist: "Ok...so?"
Atheist: "So, do you believe in Spiderman?"
Theist: "Um...no."
Atheist: "Really?! Then why in the world would you believe in Jesus and the Bible?
Hope you enjoyed the ride :-)"
Actually, that is a good question and not simply "question begging". If the bible has been demonstrated to only be partially true at best, and it has, what makes it any more credible than any other text that is only partially true? Why on Earth would you build an entire belief system on, and live the only life you are certain to get, based on a book that could only be considered partially true at best? If some of it is known to be verifiably false, and the only verifiably true bits appear to be banal things like people and villages, why in the world would you believe that the unverifiable and supernatural claims made within it are anywhere near the truth? There is simply no amount of banal detail, or reports about someone who claimed to talk to someone who saw something, that could ever possibly justify belief in some of the bizarre and absurd claims of the bible.
Eric T
You are inventing your own interpretations of circular reasoning and fallacies and then use that to accuse others. Is it so important to win the debate that you are willing to forgo honesty and integrity? Your undermining your own credibility.
Prag, I encourage you to investigate examples of circular reasoning a bit further.
This has nothing to do with "honesty" and "integrity". My interpretation and representation is sound.
Pointing out that the only verifiable parts of the Bible are things that could be written down by humans without any help from gods, and still be accurate, is not circular reasoning. Comparing it to Spiderman, and pointing out that even though it contains real places, it doesn't mean the story is true. If the Bible were written by humans and not divinely inspired, you would expect to see events, people, and places that actually existed. That would not provide any evidence that anything else is in the book is true.
There is nothing circular about any of the reasoning provided.
The way of the apologist: Deny and blame the counterpart to be uninformed or stupid.
You do know pride is a sin, right?
"Many scholars do contend that some books of the...."
How many? The majority? A large minority? A small minority? How many? And they base this upon what evidence?
If you're going to say this and actually think it carries and weight, you'd best back it up with some substantive data. Otherwise it's just noise.
So, Cyber, would you like a list, a link, a little Wikipedia byte lol?
What exactly is the type of data concerning this "common knowledge" statement I have made ("Many scholars do..."), that you have such a "burning desire" to obtain?
By all means, please let me know and I'll endeavor to accommodate you.
Oh, Eric...(shaking my head). You say "many scholars" like it actually means something substantive, like it is data, like it is evidence of something.
You then go on to do exactly the same thing with "common knowledge". Again, it is not substantive, not data, not evidence.
If your goal is to debate with other posters, countering their arguments, to be taken seriously, or change people's minds, then perhaps you should consider coming to the table with something other than this sort of noise.
And, btw, I do indeed have some burning desires. However, anything you have to offer is likely not among them.
Cyber, now is that a bit a "sassiness" I detect coming my way?
How fun ;-)
Sassy? Here is a much better example of Sassy and disrespectful as well.
Example directed at ex-christian_atheist : “ Eventually you will attract multiple sex partners and so will he, which will destroy your marriage and cause him to despise you.
As always, it is your choice”
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/satanism
You’ve been reported, GROW UP!!
Considering the supposed patriarchs of Judaism often had multiple wives, concubines, and female slaves; the true irony of the abrahamic religionist decrying promiscuity is enough to induce fits of laughter that might rupture muscles.
One more little gem from the same source of Eric's drivel: "And if you really care for your husband like you say you do, you won't prostitute yourself to such a thing."
Considering the book his faith is coming from, that is an absurd statement, as the real difference is the "slaves" god demanded Moses take didn't even get paid.
Define what you mean by "sassiness".
Interesting that your response to my post was only this, since in it I suggested you bring something substantive to the table. Shall I assume, then, that the purpose of your response to that suggestion is actually a refusal to do so?
"And, btw, I do indeed have some burning desires. However, anything you have to offer is likely not among them."
Cyber, I took this to mean that you did not want the sources. I was going to provide them for Travis H as well, since he requested them.
But if you did, all the while, want something "substantive" (such as scholarly sources), then your remark is even more puzzling, or...most definitely sassy lol.
Why don't you take a stab at defining it?
Pages