If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

I'm just gonna say this again - Since there is no concrete evidence that god exists or does not exist, any beliefs we can have concerning the topic are speculative. We all hope very much that we possess an eternal soul that will continue on in some way after death. It is this hope that drives and has driven humanity to construct mythologies that help transform hope into belief. While religion has had enormous sociocultural impact historically and obviously continues to do so, the fact is that it remains a constructed mythology. You all can continue to talk past each other, beating the dead horses you rode in on, but that's the way it is folks. When you say you believe in God, do you really believe in it the way you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that if you jump off a cliff you will be injured? I submit that what you call belief, is in fact hope so strong that it has been transformed into a type of belief for you. This is only natural; death is the greatest fear in the heart of every man. But the rational man must face this fear without resorting to the crutch of mythology, because we have a threshold for belief rooted in the observable, the provable. All else is ghosts and wind.

[Massive Marc]

Originally Posted by Massive Marc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol@christananswers.com

Sorry, http://www.christiananswers.net.

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Originally Posted by Massive Marc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol@christananswers.com

http://history-world.org/sargon_the_great.htm

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/HITTITES.HTM

And the last from your favorite site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belshazzar

lol. Sorry I linked you from a site dealing with religion...my bad.

[Krimsin]

Originally Posted by DetroitVelvetSmooth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm just gonna say this again - Since there is no concrete evidence that god exists or does not exist, any beliefs we can have concerning the topic are speculative. We all hope very much that we possess an eternal soul that will continue on in some way after death. It is this hope that drives and has driven humanity to construct mythologies that help transform hope into belief. While religion has had enormous sociocultural impact historically and obviously continues to do so, the fact is that it remains a constructed mythology. You all can continue to talk past each other, beating the dead horses you rode in on, but that's the way it is folks. When you say you believe in God, do you really believe in it the way you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that if you jump off a cliff you will be injured? I submit that what you call belief, is in fact hope so strong that it has been transformed into a type of belief for you. This is only natural; death is the greatest fear in the heart of every man. But the rational man must face this fear without resorting to the crutch of mythology, because we have a threshold for belief rooted in the observable, the provable. All else is ghosts and wind.

+++ brilliant.

Pant wearing monkeys trying to rationalize their mortality.

Get back to me when you trump Pascal's Wager! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

A fellow philosophy degree holder, nice.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here are some examples

None of these point to biblical historical accuracy. They point to a few specific instances where there may have been some questions that were resolved, but as far as viewing the Christian Bible as an accurate historical document...they do not.

Archaeology offers both confirmation of parts of the biblical record and also poses challenges to the naive interpretations made by some. The careful examination of the evidence demonstrates that the historical accuracy of the first part of the Old Testament is greatest during the reign of Josiah. Some feel that the accuracy diminishes, the further backwards one proceeds from this date. This they claim would confirm that a major redaction of the texts seems to have occurred at about that date.


My issue was more with the fact that you made an implication that "thousands of historians" validated the acceptance of the Christian Bible as a historical document (granted you qualified that statement with "many instances", but the implication is - nevertheless - there). More accurate historical data could probably be found in the manuscripts that comprise the Kolbrin Bible than can be found in the Christian Bible.

[Humerox]

To clarify further:

What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu.

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

None of these point to biblical historical accuracy. They point to a few specific instances where there may have been some questions that were resolved, but as far as viewing the Christian Bible as an accurate historical document...they do not.

Archaeology offers both confirmation of parts of the biblical record and also poses challenges to the naive interpretations made by some. The careful examination of the evidence demonstrates that the historical accuracy of the first part of the Old Testament is greatest during the reign of Josiah. Some feel that the accuracy diminishes, the further backwards one proceeds from this date. This they claim would confirm that a major redaction of the texts seems to have occurred at about that date.


My issue was more with the fact that you made an implication that "thousands of historians" validated the acceptance of the Christian Bible as a historical document (granted you qualified that statement with "many instances", but the implication is - nevertheless - there). More accurate historical data could probably be found in the manuscripts that comprise the Kolbrin Bible than can be found in the Christian Bible.

First off...nice quote off of Wiki. You guys and you open source Wiki knowledge...lol. Secondly I am not sure how I can get you guys to grasp the basics of the English language. I said and I quote, "(You do realize that thousands of History scholars even agree that many of the events in the bible are historically accurate and coincide with accepted historical teachings.)" I did not allude to events that you guys find questionable, but rather events in general like the ones I listed earlier.

[soup]

Originally Posted by Krimsin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

+++ brilliant.

Pant wearing monkeys trying to rationalize their mortality.

Get back to me when you trump Pascal's Wager! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pascal's Wager? Wait, are you trying to use Pascal's Wager as a reason to believe?

roflroflrofl

I wager that by believing in a specific religion, you will anger the one true and yet undefined God who will then banish you to to not hell, but an equally miserable place, for believing in such heresy. Since there are infinite possible hypothetical true Gods who could be angered by such a thing, I feel the only prudent course of action is to believe in nothing in hopes of appeasing any of the possible infinite yet undescribed gods.

Pascal's Wager, what a joke.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I did not allude to events that you guys find questionable, but rather events in general like the ones I listed earlier.

Then who fucking cares? Congratulations, you have shown the Bible is loosely based on reality. Except for the magic part.