those london floods? for Christians only

[fuddam]

No.

You can't use archeology to prove the bible. You can say it's accurate about some events but simply saying a place exists doesn't validate the bible as anything other than a story with fictitious character and real places.

we were talking about the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. If the most credible piece of literature, from an archeological point of view, can't verify the existence of a PERSON (not talking deity here), then how can you place credibility in figures of far less veracity? the mind boggles.

You want to try to prove the bible is right by saying the bible is more credible than every other piece of literature available. That's pretty arogant

I want to point out that, based on archeological evidence (not hearsay, assumption, theory), when a book which mentions people, places, times and events, and has yet to be proven false, mentions a pivotal person, what grounds do you have to say that it is false?

I am NOT trying to prove the Bible is the 'Word of God'. I am looking at archeological, documentary & manuscript evidence to support the historical veracity of the Bible, in order to prove that the Bible is not a book made up of myths and legends (as you would have it) but a book which is historically credible.

The bible deals with historical material. As such, we can investigate it on that level, corroborating (or denying) those areas that touch history, and in so doing, verifying (or denying) its historical veracity.

why is that arrogant?

You can't use your holy book to prove your holy book, especially when it is filled with so many contradictions.

Well, if you'd not jumped to conclusions, you would have noted the word 'archeology'. I can supply REAMS of information which examine various artefacts in the museum, which you can see for yourself, which validate what is described in the Bible. See? Using HISTORY to examine the bible, not using the bible to verify itself. I'd not thought it necessary to expound on that in length, but I can if you require it.

as far as contradictions go, examples, please.

The secular manuscripts you mention simply don't support the existence of Jesus.

where did I imply they did? lol. Go back and re-read why I mentioned them.

[fuddam]

On a more personal note, you're arrogance is astounding, for someone who can claim near the beginning of this thread the 'superior attitudes of atheists', for all of your 'lol's' and 'time will tells'.

lol again. Well, time will tell, won't it? Why is that arrogant to say that we can't answer the question now?
To go on about a particular point when there is no answer that is mutually acceptable sounds like masochism.

and for you to get on your high horse about me laughing, when people constantly berate me, jeer, scorn, and attempt to belittle, is a bit rich. Stinks, actually.

There are more than a couple of responses in this very thread where posters have said how they are amused. Heaven forbid they laughed!

[dave87]

I started reading the 140 odd posts and got, well, bored.

I'm a Christian, I make no apology, but perhaps like Neon, I keep an open mind. I am not one to follow everything said in the old testament (otherwise I wouldn't be eating Bacon for breakfast....) nor do I hang on every word of the new testament. What I do do, however, is use the principles displayed in Christianity to guide my life. These are traits that are not peculiar to Christianity, but are common to most religions. That is where I think people go wrong - Religion is a means to an end, a way to promote a system of thought, much like society, not something which needs to be consulted at every occasion. Obviously, I accept that the study of the Bible/Koran etc can be rewarding, but I don't think we should take it at face value. Story of Creation - literal account, or metaphor aimed at explaining complex events in a simple manner?

Dave

[yamangman]

lol again. Well, time will tell, won't it? Why is that arrogant to say that we can't answer the question now?
To go on about a particular point when there is no answer that is mutually acceptable sounds like masochism.

and for you to get on your high horse about me laughing, when people constantly berate me, jeer, scorn, and attempt to belittle, is a bit rich. Stinks, actually.

There are more than a couple of responses in this very thread where posters have said how they are amused. Heaven forbid they laughed!

Well done for picking up on the moot point, again.

[TeePee]

Because the bible is not credible. It's a fiction written only to justify a religion. Sure it acurately reports some historical events but so do many works of fiction. The bible also talks about things like the Kingdom of Solomon for which there is no physical evidence.
The difference between this and the secular manuscripts which don't support the existence of christ, is that these manuscripts are not trying to push a particular agenda with relation to jesus. Some are merely histories of notable events. The birth of a possible messiah and the impossibly large movement he spawned could be considered a notable event (Consider David Koresh and Waco) and it would be highly surprising to have it omitted.
The difference is objectivity. Remember that word?


Pages and pages of bible contradictions can be found all over the web. Try these:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity...adictions.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html

[Stoo]

Not to mention that the bible has been rewritten and translated so many times it's very simple for the whatever was first written to have been changed.

Especially when you consider that very few people could read back in the day, and even fewer could write and translate.

The simplest explanation would appear to be that the bible is merely a common-sense guide on how to lead a good life, which has been twisted and warped over the years to suit those in power.

Oh and fuddam, re-read what you said, you clearly said that my life couldn't compare to yours, no matter how complete mine is, because yours has extra deity love.

How is that not superior attitude?

Your assumption is just that, an assumption, which Christianity feels it has the right to thump people with until they capitulate and take on board the "religion".

You can clearly see it when you get the missionaries travelling over the world "converting" people, it's accomplished using fear, numerous dirty tricks, hijacking local festivities etc etc.

All in the assumption that you're right and the other several billion are wrong.

You immediately assume that your religion must be better (because you feel that your are more "complete", and everyone else therefore must be less complete, therefore inferior) than all of the other religions and belief systems out there, because nobody could possibly feel as great as you do.

How can you possibly know if say, a Buddhist's life is less complete than yours?

Have you been a Buddhist? Or a Hindu? Or any of the other religions out there?

If you haven't, how can you possibly compare how complete your life is with Christianity with other people's lives?

The simplest truth is, that you can't.

At the end of the day all you can have is a belief, and a feeling, which is the same as everyone else out there.

[JPreston]

Well HAPPY CHRISTMAS, AND GOD BLESS US, EVERY ONE!

[neonplanet40]

timmy tim for win

[Stewart]

Gawd bless ya Mr Scrooge! I'll drink to ya 'ealth!

[TheAnimus]

since fuddam started his reply to my last post with lol, i can't help but feal he isn't having a discussion, enless he finds the fact that out of the lecturers/postgrades i've met, only two have been religious. The rest agnostic too atheist.

Thats a fact. Most i know, from purely an academic pursuit (the sample is maths,physics,chemistry,engineers,cs types) rather than any religion race creed, or country for that matter.

The idea that proof of anything is a relative few people beliving it for sub 2000 years is at best proposterous, enless you belive the sun revolves around the earth, which was also belived for thousands of years by some. Whilst at the same time most catholic religions been rather harsh on anyone who dare think else. Yes, that must prove it correct.

[kasavien]

Ok time to get a few things off my chest as it were. Sorry if this post is long winded and not very concise, i've never been good at arguing a point or putting things well, but i'll try my best.

Before i start, i'd like to say thank you to fuddam, who has kept up with this thread, repplied as best he knows how, and who has tried the hardest not to resort to the derision of other people's views, like directhex said a while since, most people would have given up by now.

Ok first off, in response to something said on around page 6

on what grounds? A Christian is not simply a person who believes that Christ is who he claims to be, but ACCEPTS him. At that point, the relationship can develop.

I assume also that you didn't assume yourself to be a Christian based on church attendance.

After all, from a Biblical standpoint, who recognises Christ's position / claim more than satan? He just doesn't accept it.

When i was younger i never automatically assumed myself to be a christian. I know that the fact i went to church, read the bible, prayed every night etc, does not make me a christian. I used to believe (and i wanted to believe) that god sent his only son to save us all, that he died on the cross to forgive all our sins etc. I whole heartedly wanted to be a christian, to follow the life of a christian and to accept god as my saviour, but each time i think about that stage of my life, it never felt at all real.

Now to the reasons why i can't believe in god. Well there aren't many reasons as such, only that i started to learn; to see the proofs that science can provide. I started to learn about how the world worked and saw that it made more sense than a religion. Having said that i still think that belief sytems have a place, since there are many good things that can be attributed to them for example the work done by christian aid in third world countries.

The main reason or the event that completely turned me off from believing in god happened 2 years ago on the 26th Dec - the tsunami that killed so many thousands of innocent people - men, women and children. A loving god wouldn't allow that to happen, so therefore a loving god doesn't exist. I don't want to hear any excuses about how we live in an imperfect world, that just doesn't cut it with me.

But what made me even more incredulous, was hearing so called christians saying that the tsunami was gods judgment on the sinfullness of the those affected, i can't put into words how horrified that makes me feel when i hear a fellow human saying something like that.

The above are my views and reasons for not believing in god, they are not scientific, i haven't tried to give any evidence for why god does or does not exisit, i aren't intentionally trying to sway the opinion one way or the other. People should be entitled to believe in whatever they like, whether it is right or wrong, and other people certainly shouldn't try to sway them one way or the other. What right does anyone have to try to enforce a belief on someone else?

Having said all that if anyone has any answers to the above post then feel free to post them, since i at least would be interested to hear what peoples opinions are.

[Stewart]

See your point about the Tsunami, but to be honest, isn't the idea that the Earth was made thousands of years ago by a supernatural entity, a slightly better reason for not being a Christian?

There are countless claims in the Bible that should be insulting to the intelligence of any sane person, which I'd have thought is reason enough to disbelieve them, Tsunami or no Tsunami.

Thousands of years ago Fuddam... can you imagine it... before the dinosaurs!

[kasavien]

See your point about the Tsunami, but to be honest, isn't the idea that the Earth was made thousands of years ago by a supernatural entity, a slightly better reason for not being a Christian?

I know what you're saying, and weight of evidence against a god existing is partly my reason for not believing in god. But the tsunami affected me more personally and was the straw that broke the camels back as it were.

Edit: By the way i don't see creation as being so hard to believe, since i believe that eventually humans will be able to create artificial life eventually with computers or whatever the develop to become in the future, whether it will be a simulation of a world or something else. It's the versions of creation i see in various belief systems i find hard to swallow.

[Stewart]

The devil has blinded me!!1!1

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

I think this stooge is the funniest person who was ever born, don't you agree kids?

[kasavien]

It's things like this that make me incredulous, it basically amounts to propaganda to make people afraid enough to believe in something. How can the christians believe they have free will if they are prepared to give tracts like the above out to people. What is a child supposed to think if they see something like that (i presume the tract is aimed at children). Children should be enjoying life playing games or whatever kids do these days. They certainly shouldn't scared or made to feel afraid!

[TeePee]

This kind of behaviour is why all religion should be banned from schools. It's about indoctrinating children into a belief system. This, as far as I'm concerned, constitutes child abuse. Sadly this is only a mild example.

Have a read about the 'Hell Houses' operated by churches every year on halloween. There's a documentary film about them as well. Given that this kind of thing is not only deemed suitable for, but targeted at preteens, this is severe abuse, and not only should it be stopped, but the operators arrested. Sadly in America, it will never happen.