An image that got me wondering

[JBoy]

The people and the historical events in the bible existed.

Do you want to change this to be a bit more specific? Like, 'some people and some of the historical events in the bible existed/happened', or are you happy with the statement as it is?

Nah mate jesus walked on water and some geezer rounded up two of every animal and put them on a big boat. Dont doubt it happened, because the bible has told you it did!

[wormcode]

In all honesty, the biggest hurdle for me and my beliefs is questioning, "what makes humans so special in the evolutionary chain that we're the ones who have a belief in a god?"

Because we are the only animals intelligent enough to question our existence and try to formulate an answer.

That wasn't my quote that you responded to (I fixed it), but anyway I think that is a large assumption. We can't communicate with most animals, but they do show intelligence, some are highly intelligent like dolphins. So much so that there is now attempts to get dolphins legally recognised as 'non-human people' due to recent advances in communicating with them and literally teaching them how to speak with voice. If they are advanced enough to question, who's to say, but I don't think it's out of the question that they are conscious. Besides dolphins, mammals especially, like whales. If you've ever 'met' one in person and looked into their eyes. Something more is there. It's much different than something like a lizard or fish.

[Phigure]

(I'm talking the non supernatural events). It is the most accurate text in human history.

So apart from all the things that make it non-historically accurate, it is historically accurate?

If you want a piece of text that is accurate, go read a science textbook.

seriously! historically accurate?!? is this the same book we're talking about? the one that talks about jews being enslaved by the egyptians? how about matthew 2:16 where Herod kills all boys in and around bethlehem that are two years old and under. something like that would certainly have been noted by contemporary historians. 1 chronicles 29:7 where king david collects 10,000 darics, named after king darius who ruled 500 years later? or how about when jesus was crucified, there was an eclipse for 3 hours, and then an earthquake happened and the dead rose from their graves in jerusalem?

you must be fucking kidding if you think that's anything near accurate

[Dub_freak]

In all honesty, the biggest hurdle for me and my beliefs is questioning, "what makes humans so special in the evolutionary chain that we're the ones who have a belief in a god?"

Because we are the only animals intelligent enough to question our existence and try to formulate an answer.

That wasn't my quote that you responded to (I fixed it), but anyway I think that is a large assumption. We can't communicate with most animals, but they do show intelligence, some are highly intelligent like dolphins. So much so that there is now attempts to get dolphins legally recognised as 'non-human people' due to recent advances in communicating with them and literally teaching them how to speak with voice. If they are advanced enough to question, who's to say, but I don't think it's out of the question that they are conscious. Besides dolphins, mammals especially, like whales. If you've ever 'met' one in person and looked into their eyes. Something more is there. It's much different than something like a lizard or fish.

What i meant to say was, that i doubt animals have the ability to question their existence and come up with their own idea of a creator, although it would be pretty impressive if they did. As you said, some animals are really intelligent, maybe one day dolphins will become as intelligent as we are.

[SCope13]

Can you prove Lazarus or Jesus were not raised from the dead? Neither can I, what I am saying is there are no archaeological finds that disprove any part of the bible, but many that give credence to specific events within the text.

And I saw an informal series of lectures on proving the bible outside of christian historians. It was mostly based on Roman historians of the New Testaments era, and Meditaranian scholars of the Old Testament area. I'll have a conversation with the guy who gave them, see if I can get his specific sources.

edit: cmgoodman I was referencing Scopes' post on making copies of something on his laptop, i wasn't directing anything at you

That is utterly stupid. I can say anything is true if I say "theres no proof saying it's not". Can you disprove earth is actually a reality tv show put on by aliens? Nope? Welp, it must be true. Try to disprove that you're in fact the only other person on this forum and that I and every other account are controlled by one person who is on his computer constantly? No you can't. Doesn't mean it's true.

[JBoy]

Can you prove Lazarus or Jesus were not raised from the dead? Neither can I, what I am saying is there are no archaeological finds that disprove any part of the bible, but many that give credence to specific events within the text.

And I saw an informal series of lectures on proving the bible outside of christian historians. It was mostly based on Roman historians of the New Testaments era, and Meditaranian scholars of the Old Testament area. I'll have a conversation with the guy who gave them, see if I can get his specific sources.

edit: cmgoodman I was referencing Scopes' post on making copies of something on his laptop, i wasn't directing anything at you

The bible says that the jews marched around the walls of jericho with the ark of the covenant and the walls collapsed. ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence shows us that the walls were long gone centuries before this supposedly happened.

[SCope13]

Can you please link to that evidence? I don't doubt you're right, I just want a source to use for ammunition for future discussions such as these.

[JBoy]

Can you please link to that evidence? I don't doubt you're right, I just want a source to use for ammunition for future discussions such as these.

I didnt read it online mate, someone i used to work with had a degree in biblical archaeology and she had millions of little factoids like that. Im sure there will be loads of webpages about jericho though.

EDIT: heres a nice wiki page on the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Jericho

[Phigure]

are any of you familiar with bertrand russell's teapot?

" If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

just because you can't disprove something (although i still assert you can disprove omniscient, omnipotent gods through logical arguments) doesn't mean it's real. why do you then take a default position of believing in it when there's absolutely no reason to do so. there's just as much evidence for the christian god as there is for the flying spaghetti monster, but you don't believe in his noodliness, do you?

[JBoy]

are any of you familiar with bertrand russell's teapot?

" If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

just because you can't disprove something (although i still assert you can disprove omniscient, omnipotent gods through logical arguments) doesn't mean it's real. why do you then take a default position of believing in it when there's absolutely no reason to do so. there's just as much evidence for the christian god as there is for the flying spaghetti monster, but you don't believe in his noodliness, do you?

Sounds about right to me but thats my opinion. A lot of people on here seem to feel like a god or being is responsible for a lot of the earth's wonders. I put that down to the genius of mankind and nature, but once again thats my opinion. I feel no spirituality or the presence of a greater being in my life, maybe thats because i dont smoke as much weed as some people on here. A lot of things can be explained by science and a lot cant but that doesnt mean its an act of god neccassarily.

Theres a great film starring rachel weiz where she plays hypatia, a mathmatician in alexandria. Theres a scene where an early christian quickly walks across hot coals in front of a crowd, he puts his lack of injury down to the fact that god protected him. He then throws a pagan on the fire who sets alight, apparently this is because god didnt protect him not because he was forced onto it. The point is that god didnt do anything but superstition and ignorance is easier than knowledge and truth.

[SCope13]

are any of you familiar with bertrand russell's teapot?

" If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

just because you can't disprove something (although i still assert you can disprove omniscient, omnipotent gods through logical arguments) doesn't mean it's real. why do you then take a default position of believing in it when there's absolutely no reason to do so. there's just as much evidence for the christian god as there is for the flying spaghetti monster, but you don't believe in his noodliness, do you?

Ah yes, Russel's Teapot is brilliant. Should've thought to mention that. Good work

[magma]

Given the amount of times it's been translated and reinterpreted, the Bible isn't even a particularly accurate record of the Bible.

[MrAural]

Itanimulli

[magma]

Can you please link to that evidence? I don't doubt you're right, I just want a source to use for ammunition for future discussions such as these.

I can't remember if it included Jericho, but the Beeb did a really good Doc on archaeological investigations into Bible stories:

Bible's Buried Secrets: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zp3j3

It's off the iPlayer at the moment, but probably on the web somewhere...

[cmgoodman1226]

@ jboy . I believe in god and I don't smoke weed (ir do anything else aside from nicotine and caffeine for that matter). But I absolutely understand where you're coming from and think that its a perfectly rational line of thinking.

[noam]

If anyone flat out say's that there is no God then this is as much a statement of faith as saying there definitely is a God, you cannot prove that there is no God so to make such statements is a bit hypocritical if you also accuse religious people of blindly follwing their faith.

nah G

its not

making a statement that you are unable to prove with empirical evidence and saying that it is the absolute truth?

sounds like faith to me

it is to a degree, faith. but it's a common, exhausting, and flawed argument. it's apples to oranges. Comparing faith in a claim that has zero empirical evidence, with faith in a claim that's backed by centuries of empirical evidence, is not the same. It takes a level of faith to believe there is no god, but it takes BLIND faith to believe there is a god.
The atheist faith is in the idea that future investigations will uphold the current conclusion. Theist faith is in the idea that future (afterlife) experiences will prove the current conclusions wrong

it just isn't the same faith.

What is the empirical evidence for lack of a God? I can see plenty of circumstantial evidence for one not being required, but actual evidence that there isn't one? That's skipped me by...

It doesn't require faith not to believe in God, but it does to actively believe there isn't one.

you cant test for God empirically

it isn't a leap of faith to deduce that there is no such thing as God when you are not able to empirically test for a God's existence.

having faith there is a God naturally requires the idea that you cant empirically test for a God's existence otherwise faith wouldn't be an issue

if you accept that, then you accept the premise you cannot empirically test for God, thus lacking evidence for God's existence doesn't require Faith to deny God's existence

there are two types of reasoning - deductive and inductive

'1+1=2' is deductive

'There is a God because there isn't a possibility that the universe wasn't intelligently designed' is inductive

there are no deductive arguments proving God's existence and it is impossible to empirically test for God's existence

if it is impossible to empirically test for god's existence then it is of negligible value to any argument whether you can empirically test for his unexistence

its possible that you might call it faith to state that 'God doesn't exist' but it simply depends on what set of logical rules you are following

i dont believe it a leap of faith in any way to state that God doesn't exist

to state that God CANNOT exist as a physical impossibility is beyond the boundaries of physical reasoning, and when you delve into the realm of metaphysics and modality i.e. possibility and existence, it is possible, to prove deductively, that literally anything and everything ever DOES exist, has existed and will exist....all at the same time.

again, depends what set of rules you apply and what you find plausible

[JBoy]

Can you please link to that evidence? I don't doubt you're right, I just want a source to use for ammunition for future discussions such as these.

I can't remember if it included Jericho, but the Beeb did a really good Doc on archaeological investigations into Bible stories:

Bible's Buried Secrets: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zp3j3

It's off the iPlayer at the moment, but probably on the web somewhere...

The whole series was excellent, definately worth a watch.

[wormcode]

are any of you familiar with bertrand russell's teapot?

" If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

just because you can't disprove something (although i still assert you can disprove omniscient, omnipotent gods through logical arguments) doesn't mean it's real. why do you then take a default position of believing in it when there's absolutely no reason to do so. there's just as much evidence for the christian god as there is for the flying spaghetti monster, but you don't believe in his noodliness, do you?

Ah yes, Russel's Teapot is brilliant. Should've thought to mention that. Good work

Hey I brought up his teapot argument a couple of pages back, and magma gave some good responses.

But then I started talking about dolphins. ...Fuckin' way she goes.

[fractal]

Given the amount of times it's been translated and reinterpreted, the Bible isn't even a particularly accurate record of the Bible.

[leyenda]

This thread sort of acted like more of a refresher on various arguments for me than anything else. Been a while since I've bothered having this debate. To the person who posed the question why mankind has conceived of a god and no other animals have I think Wormcode (I think it was you anyway) was correct in asserting we actually have no idea of whether other animals have conceived of some form of 'god', especially those which appear to be self aware like higher primates, dolphins etc. In my opinion the reason mankind throughout it's history has conceived of gods is a combination of lack of understanding of the universe and a fear of death. Nearly all cultures that have believed in gods also have believed in an afterlife and this is a comfort to people which stems from the deep rooted instinct for survival.