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

[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where there may have been some questions that were resolved, but as far as viewing the Christian Bible as an accurate historical document...they do not.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fact that you made an implication that "thousands of historians" validated the acceptance of the Christian Bible as a historical document (granted you qualified that statement with "many instances", but the implication is - nevertheless - there).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.

[Alawen Everywhere]

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

Here are some examples:

* Clay Tablet, Ebla. Photo copyrighted.The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

Clay tablets written in Sumerian and the local Ebla dialect, with no connection whatsoever to Hebrew or Israelites do not prove the truth of the Bible, despite the unfounded religious fervor drummed up before they were translated. No evidence here.

* The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

References to Kheta/Khatti/Hatti were discovered almost 150 years ago. You make absolutely no sense whatsoever here. Even if you did, the existence of a Syrian culture unrelated to the Hebrews does not prove the validity of the bible. No evidence here.

* Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

Some kings were very rich, therefore Solomon really existed. I don't think I need to say anything else about this. No evidence here.

* It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

An Akkadian king named Sargon probably existed, therefore the bible is true. Another impossible logical jump. No evidence here.

* Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

A Babylonian king named Belshazzar probably existed, therefore the bible is true. Same bad logic. The fairy tale associated with Belshazzar is that his great wealth was stolen from Solomon's temple. We have evidence (Nabonidus Cylinder) of the Babylonian but no evidence of Solomon or Solomon's temple. Funny, huh?

So if I write a book that has Reagan and Gorbachev in it and in my book I was the emperor of a country greater than the US or USSR, is my book true? Also, Switzerland stole all my gold. Give it back.

[Humerox]

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

(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.)

Please enlighten us.

[Kassel]

So we should ignore most every history book or book written about past events unless they are written by someone who was actually there huh? Makes sense to me...NOT!

Would you try to navigate the world with a map of a flat earth? How about a 2000 year old medical journal to save your young childs life?

Completely false. You're all limited by your perspectives

There is no prespectives here ...read the fucking thread and please pass what you are smoking

[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.

[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.]

[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.

[Massive Marc]

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.]

You reminded me of something...

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/m538VFf5MH8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

A fellow philosophy degree holder, nice.

[Kassel]

Hitler existed thus all stories regarding SPACE HITLER must be true !!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]