The bible

[Mydian]

I have a hard time excepting the bible as the evidence of anything. Yet, here it is considered as necessary to have a debate about christianity. I understand that without the bible they have nothing to argue other than archeological evidence. But this would seem to lead to a more "literal" proof other than just the bible said. These people seem to be able to discount evolutionary theory as well as science in general to get their point across. Why should we except the bible when they so flagrantly disregard science? I know some of you deal with this continually and my gripe is probably nothing new. But i would say lets have a debate with out supernatural influence. Lets have a debate without I know cause the bible says so. I can only say i admire those that continually face the flagrant disregard of logic that theists seem to present. I can only salute you and pray that you continue because you are so needed.

Zzyzx, Bernee, Joey, McCulloch, only to name a few. Thank you for your efforts. I do not know if you get that enough but thank you for your logic and reason and sheer patience with others.

[McCulloch]

I have a hard time excepting the bible as the evidence of anything.

emphasis added.

The Bible is excellent evidence of the existence of a religious community in the first century and of what they taught.

[Zzyzx]

.

I have a hard time excepting the bible as the evidence of anything.

You are certainly not alone. I agree with McCulloch that the bible is an indication of religious thought within a small group of people a couple thousand years ago -- nothing more.

Yet, here it is considered as necessary to have a debate about christianity.

Accepting a certain amount of circularity IS necessary if one is to debate Christianity because there is NO evidence to support religious / supernatural claims. Yet the religious "message" is broadcast to each successive generation.

Debating here is some small contribution to showing the illogic in accepting unsubstantiated tales about ANY of the thousands of invisible, undetectable super beings proposed and promoted by humans.

I understand that without the bible they have nothing to argue other than archeological evidence.

The supposed "archelological evidence" cited by bible supporters does NOT relate at all to any of the supernatural, "miracle" or divinity claims of the bible. It relates ONLY to events that have nothing to do with any of the key issues or bases for Christian beliefs.

But this would seem to lead to a more "literal" proof other than just the bible said. These people seem to be able to discount evolutionary theory as well as science in general to get their point across.

Many apologists seem convinced that they MUST dispute ANY knowledge that counters the ignorance of Bronze Age and Iron Age bible writers – people who thought that disease was caused by "demons".

Why should we except the bible when they so flagrantly disregard science?

We should NOT and do not accept the bible as truthful – but repeatedly ask for evidence that it represents truth and accuracy.

Failure of supporters to reasonably address questions and doubt with evidence is compelling indication that their god theories are no more valid than any of the other competing god theories that abound (that many try to dismiss or demean as "false" when there is no more or less evidence than to support their favored "gods" and theories).

I know some of you deal with this continually and my gripe is probably nothing new. But i would say lets have a debate with out supernatural influence.

If supernaturalism is eliminated from debate we have only a handful of religious people who can engage in debate. In other words, if we insist on elimination of supernatural claims there is almost no debate.

Lets have a debate without I know cause the bible says so.

Again, there are only a very few theist members who can debate on that level – and NONE of them are fundamentalist / literalist. Even as religious / Christian, they recognize that the bible is not "inerrant" and it is far from clear in meaning or intent. Most recognize that the bible is a collection of writings ABOUT god(s) by humans – and not directly "the word of god".

I can only say i admire those that continually face the flagrant disregard of logic that theists seem to present. I can only salute you and pray that you continue because you are so needed.

That is exactly what keeps up the motivation.

Part of what we are doing is helping the next "generation" of Non-Theists recognize and debate against the defective "arguments" they encounter.

Zzyzx, Bernee, Joey, McCulloch, only to name a few. Thank you for your efforts. I do not know if you get that enough but thank you for your logic and reason and sheer patience with others.

We appreciate your support and acknowledgement, Mydian. Occasionally someone comments in threads or in private communication, but truthfully, there is not very much similar "feedback".

Mostly we encounter flack from fundamentalists when we encourage people to think and to make sound decisions based upon evidence.

[Mydian]

I have a hard time excepting the bible as the evidence of anything.

emphasis added.

The Bible is excellent evidence of the existence of a religious community in the first century and of what they taught.

Thank your for pointing that out. I see the theists claim that it is the word of god so many times i instinctively reject it hehe Which is of course wrong. It is as you say great evidence of a religious community and of what they taught.

[Mydian]

"We appreciate your support and acknowledgement, Mydian. Occasionally someone comments in threads or in private communication, but truthfully, there is not very much similar "feedback". "


Still not sure how to quote specific parts. I really need to go read that again hehe.
You are very welcome Zzyzx, I would hope others who have garnered knowledge from you and the others posts would at least say thank you. Because you guys really deserve it. Its not all about fighting the theists all the time sometimes its about thanking those who are out there helping and putting forth counter arguments and basically causing people to think. At least thats my opinion

[HelloDollyLlama]

1. Virtually the entire Bible is of unknown provenance, and that even includes most of the books which tradition attributes to a particular author: Moses and the Pentateuch, the Gospels, and at least half of the Epistles. Nobody knows who really wrote them, but the attributed authors probably didn't.

2. Even if Moses really wrote all of the Pentateuch and the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John...so what? Moses was a politician trying very hard to persuade people to embrace his monotheistic philosophy. Mark and Luke were not even real apostles -- they came along later. Matthew was a tax collector. "John" was probably a composite of multiple people, and even the one we think we know best was an illiterate fisherman. Even if "their" books were really theirs, what the hell did they know? They didn't even agree on the mundane details of Jeus' life.

[catalyst]

I am glad you are giving props to these guys Mydian. I concur.

I know sometimes "out there" I feel like I am ](*,) . Their tolerance and patience certainly amazes me.

Kudos!

[Angel]

I have a hard time excepting the bible as the evidence of anything. Yet, here it is considered as necessary to have a debate about christianity. I understand that without the bible they have nothing to argue other than archeological evidence. But this would seem to lead to a more "literal" proof other than just the bible said. These people seem to be able to discount evolutionary theory as well as science in general to get their point across. Why should we except the bible when they so flagrantly disregard science? I know some of you deal with this continually and my gripe is probably nothing new. But i would say lets have a debate with out supernatural influence. Lets have a debate without I know cause the bible says so. I can only say i admire those that continually face the flagrant disregard of logic that theists seem to present. I can only salute you and pray that you continue because you are so needed.

Zzyzx, Bernee, Joey, McCulloch, only to name a few. Thank you for your efforts. I do not know if you get that enough but thank you for your logic and reason and sheer patience with others.

Unless the Bible is proven false, the Bible can be used as evidence. Evidence can be anything that is used or offered to support a claim but of course we place priority on evidence. Scientific evidence being the greatest type of evidence among the other kinds, such as legal evidence, anecdotal evidence, historical evidence, circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc.