Atheism is not scientific

[Brian2]

The flood myth is a total failure. The local flood that you are thinking of was not at the end of the ice age. This is probably the flood that you are thinking of:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education Noah%27s Flood May Have Happened%2C But Not,kind of all land animals on the earth.

That was about 2,900 BCE. Yes there have been many local floods since the ice age, but that was about 11,700 years ago. Not just 5,000 years. Over any long period of time large local floods occurred. None of them were close to the Bible story.

I was probably thinking more of this flood.
Evidence for a Flood | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

When one is willing to grossly reinterpret one's own book, but won't reinterpret the works of others, of course one's own work will appear to be more reliable. But if one applies the same standards equally no one work stands out.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here but the Bible story of the flood can legitimately be translated to be indicating a large local flood. But why would people want to do that when they thought a world wide flood covering the high mountains was a possibility and what happened?

 

[Brian2]

It's certainly been shown to have more contradictions, errors, unevidenced reports, editing, deletions, and addenda than most other scriptures. In light of these, what evidence are you referring to?

The more that archaeology finds, the more the Bible is being verified historically.

True, the gospels were written a generation or more after Jesus' time, but they reported that, while he lived, he'd predicted an early return -- or do you discount this story?

I discount the interpreting of the gospels to say Jesus predicted a return in the lifetime of the disciples.
The gospel of Luke seems to have been written 30 or less years after Jesus death. Is that a generation? I'm not sure. Luke at that time said that many had attempted to write reports on Jesus, so earlier literature was available then. Maybe Mark and Matthew were included in that.

You haven't read it carefully, then. See my post above.

Are you not aware of these problems?

I'm not sure which post you are referring to but I have seen many supposed problems with the Bible.

 

[Valjean]

The more that archaeology finds, the more the Bible is being verified historically.

I'm skeptical. Can you expand on this? Do you have links?
How does archæology verify the miracles or the stories of Jesus' life and ministry? It may verify historical events, but these were general knowledge, and had nothing to do with questions of divinity or the everyday activity and ideas of the biblical personæ.

I discount the interpreting of the gospels to say Jesus predicted a return in the lifetime of the disciples.
The gospel of Luke seems to have been written 30 or less years after Jesus death. Is that a generation? I'm not sure. Luke at that time said that many had attempted to write reports on Jesus, so earlier literature was available then. Maybe Mark and Matthew were included in that.

Of course 30 years is a generation. A generation is the time needed for the children born in year "X" to generate new children of their own.
Who wrote Matthew, Mark and Luke is unknown. Whether they ever met Jesus is unknown. The stories about Jesus are unverifiable folklore.

I'm not sure which post you are referring to but I have seen many supposed problems with the Bible.

This one:
"It's certainly been shown to have more contradictions, errors, unevidenced reports, editing, deletions, and addenda than most other scriptures."

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems the mainland part of Tyre was entered by Nebuchadnezzar but all the plunder was by then on the island part.
Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy of Old Testament - Associates for Biblical Research.
Ezekiel did not admit failure. The failure is in those who misread the prophecies and what Ezekiel was saying.
After the failure to gain loot at Tyre, Nebchadnezzar did get loot from Egypt but did not defeat it completely until years later.
Nebuchadnezzar II failure to conquer Egypt

Please. We are discussing history here. Try to find historic sources that support you. If I posted something from Rational Wiki as "proof" you would quickly reject that. Tyre was named for the island, and rightfully so. The island was the base of its economic power.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was probably thinking more of this flood.
Evidence for a Flood | Science | Smithsonian Magazine



I'm not exactly sure what you mean here but the Bible story of the flood can legitimately be translated to be indicating a large local flood. But why would people want to do that when they thought a world wide flood covering the high mountains was a possibility and what happened?

That one is even worse for you. I did the math on it in the past and though the rate of flow appears to be very extreme at first glance the Black Sea was already a sizable body of water. As a result the sea itself grew rather slowly. The rate of advance was so slow that a person could have crawled away to safety. Of course buildings cannot crawl. They were covered by the sea. It was catastrophic for the villages on the sea at that time, but the people themselves would not have died by drowning. Some probably died due to losing their houses. The example that I gave was more likely to be the source of the myth.

Neither of these come close to the biblical myth. There was no need of an "Ark" for the Black Sea inundation and it was permanent. It never went down. The people just walked away. With the Tigris Euphrates flood there may have been quite a few deaths, but again, no threat to mankind. It would not have lasted a year. An Ark would have been of little value. And if Noah knew he and his family had more than enough time to walk away from either one.

Myths are often based on real life events. That does not make them reliable.

 

[ecco]

The flood story has not been discredited. Haven't you heard of the many cultures that have similar stories in their traditions.
There is also the Gilgamesh story, older than the Bible account and imo shows the truth of the flood (if of course you see religions as evolving from other religions that it might show that the Bible account was copied,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it does not account for the other stories all over the world)
Science has found that a very large flood did occur in the area at around the end of the last ice age.
That helps me to understand what the Bible was talking about,,,,,,,a very large flood in the area. And the same has been found to have happened all over the world at the end of the ice age.

A. Bible: A one-time event 4000 years ago that covered the entire eartch and killed all humans except Noah's little group.
B. Science: Numerous instances of local flooding over thousands of years and many multiple locations that disrupt the lives of peoples in many different cultures. Just like we see tody.

It's almost beyond comprehension that you do not understand the difference between A. and B.

That helps me to understand what the Bible was talking about,,,,,,,a very large flood in the area. And the same has been found to have happened all over the world at the end of the ice age.
This could have done what God wanted, destroy the earth of the day.

It obviously helps you understand nothing. The earth was not destroyed. The local floods did not kill almost all humans and almost all animals and all plant life.

Interestingly the Bible can be legitimately translated to read that all the high "hills" were covered and that the flood covered the whole "land".
So I end up even being a literalist and still showing the flood has not been discredited.

With "all the high hills", are you referring to places like Mt. Everest at 29,000 ft or are you one of those who believe that all large mountains "grew big" only after the flood? Both scenarios have been thoroughly debunked.

In recent memory areas of Japan and Indonesia were hit by tsunamis. Thousand of people died. While tragic, the people who died were a small percentage of the populations of Japan and Indonesia and a tiny portion of the earth's population.

If you have convinced yourself that numerous floods over thousands of years is the same as one 40 day all-encompassing flood that killed all but seven humans - there's not much more to say.

 

[ecco]

Why do you think that Matthew could not have been an eye witness? Matthew's gospel was never doubted to have been authentic by the early church and to be apostolic.

When you say "by the early church", do you understand that you are referring to a group of people trying to present a new religion to the masses? Do you really think any of those people would have said:

Uh, maybe we should carefully consider if the gospel writers were actually eyewitnesses. We really don't know who actually wrote those stories. Then there is the problem of when these stories were written. Also, none of the stories are written from the perspective of an eyewitness. None of the authors ever says 'I heard this or that, or I saw this or that.

​

It's written as though they were transcribing stories they heard or- heaven forbid- stuff they were making up.

The gospels are history but not necessarily as we know it today.

The sermon could have happened as he says it did or could be a collection of teachings grouped together into one sermon.

This is odd. You take the stories of the OT literally. You look at the NT, at least in this one example, differently. That's the problem with trying to have a discussion with religious people. Each one has different understands/beliefs regarding just about everything. It's impossible to keep track.

Jesus did promise that the Holy Spirit would remind the disciples what Jesus had said to them and Matthew did not necessarily remember it all anyway, he could have collected it all from others.

Where did Jesus make this promise?


According to modern scholarship, Matthew did indeed take from others, especially Mark.

So, if Jesus promised the writers would be reminded of events, why did Matthew need to refer to Mark's writings? Didn't he trust Jesus' alleged promise?

If you think that Matthew must have been written after the destruction of the temple in 70AD then you have the same assumption that the sceptical modern historians have, the ones that deny the possibility of prophecy and so say the prophecy must have been written after the event. That is where the late dating of gospels has come from.

Skeptical historians, many of whom set out to support ancient views of the Bible, have come to certain conclusions through research and study. I have much more faith in their views than in the views of "the early church".

 

[Ostronomos]

If we dare maintain that certain Biblical passages are correct then modern science is brought into question. The book of Job is one example out of many. The flood, etc.

Hear meh no.

 

[syo]

Atheism, is based on ignorance or a lack of knowledge of reality.

Yup.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism, is based on ignorance or a lack of knowledge of reality.

The same can be said of probability & statistics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism is a world view

Well, to be a d!ck about it, no - not really.

Rather, atheism is a label that tells you what the person's worldview does NOT include: theistic beliefs.

"not believing x" is not a worldview, nor is it a belief.

To know the worldview of an atheist, you need to ask him / her.
Atheism refers to the lack of something. It has no content, so how could it be a worldview?

 

[Brian2]

I'm skeptical. Can you expand on this? Do you have links?
How does archæology verify the miracles or the stories of Jesus' life and ministry? It may verify historical events, but these were general knowledge, and had nothing to do with questions of divinity or the everyday activity and ideas of the biblical personæ.

Archaeology and history can only verify the history and not the miracles.

Of course 30 years is a generation. A generation is the time needed for the children born in year "X" to generate new children of their own.
Who wrote Matthew, Mark and Luke is unknown. Whether they ever met Jesus is unknown. The stories about Jesus are unverifiable folklore.

The gospels are true to me because of my faith. The writers are who the early church said they were because they are the ones who knew. If the writers were too late then it would be stupid to say that Jesus would return before those Jesus was talking to died. But Jesus did not say that anyway, He said something that could be interpreted that way by that is an interpretation that contradicts what Jesus said that He did not know when He was going to return.

This one:
"It's certainly been shown to have more contradictions, errors, unevidenced reports, editing, deletions, and addenda than most other scriptures."

The Bible has been studied more than other scriptures and errors etc have been removed as much as possible. Editing and deletions are no more than guesses by people who do not know.
Redaction, the joining together of a bunch of stories into one coherent story seems to have happened in the OT history sections, and that is fine.

 

[Brian2]

Please. We are discussing history here. Try to find historic sources that support you. If I posted something from Rational Wiki as "proof" you would quickly reject that. Tyre was named for the island, and rightfully so. The island was the base of its economic power.

Why do you think that the site I gave is not historically accurate and not accurate in it's analysis of the prophecy?
Tyre was Tyre and the old Tyre on the mainland was destroyed and never rebuilt and it was thrown into the sea by Alexander the Great and where it stood became the place for fishermen to wash and clean their nets, and all the other things about the prophecy happened. Are you sure you are not just reading the prophecy to suite your ideas about God and prophecy?

 

[Brian2]

That one is even worse for you. I did the math on it in the past and though the rate of flow appears to be very extreme at first glance the Black Sea was already a sizable body of water. As a result the sea itself grew rather slowly. The rate of advance was so slow that a person could have crawled away to safety. Of course buildings cannot crawl. They were covered by the sea. It was catastrophic for the villages on the sea at that time, but the people themselves would not have died by drowning. Some probably died due to losing their houses. The example that I gave was more likely to be the source of the myth.

Neither of these come close to the biblical myth. There was no need of an "Ark" for the Black Sea inundation and it was permanent. It never went down. The people just walked away. With the Tigris Euphrates flood there may have been quite a few deaths, but again, no threat to mankind. It would not have lasted a year. An Ark would have been of little value. And if Noah knew he and his family had more than enough time to walk away from either one.

Myths are often based on real life events. That does not make them reliable.

Historians and archaeologists don't know how fast the water came in and don't know the exact date, just some time at the end of the last ice age.
God was the one to say to build the Ark and save the animals and Noah's family. It does not matter if he could have walked away, but that is just an assumption on your part. Floods were happening in many places at that time and there was 40 days and nights of rain and all the fountains of the great deep were broken open. I have faith that it happened and you want to discredit any possibility even if you don't know.

 

[Brian2]

A. Bible: A one-time event 4000 years ago that covered the entire eartch and killed all humans except Noah's little group.
B. Science: Numerous instances of local flooding over thousands of years and many multiple locations that disrupt the lives of peoples in many different cultures. Just like we see tody.

It's almost beyond comprehension that you do not understand the difference between A. and B.

I see the difference between A and B and I see that science does not know exactly what happened and when.

It obviously helps you understand nothing. The earth was not destroyed. The local floods did not kill almost all humans and almost all animals and all plant life.

The flood story tells us what happened around Noah's area and not what happened in other places imo. The people and civilisation there were destroyed and imo that is what happened in other places also, with some saved in other places also. The floods in other places don't have to have been at exactly the same time, but I don't think science knows that they were not.

With "all the high hills", are you referring to places like Mt. Everest at 29,000 ft or are you one of those who believe that all large mountains "grew big" only after the flood? Both scenarios have been thoroughly debunked.

In recent memory areas of Japan and Indonesia were hit by tsunamis. Thousand of people died. While tragic, the people who died were a small percentage of the populations of Japan and Indonesia and a tiny portion of the earth's population.

If you have convinced yourself that numerous floods over thousands of years is the same as one 40 day all-encompassing flood that killed all but seven humans - there's not much more to say.

I was not talking about Mt Everest, just about all the high hills in the area Noah lived. A flood big enough to drop the Ark somewhere on the mountains of Ararat.
Killed all the people in that land except for Noah and family the animals in the area that probably came to higher ground and found Noah.
The whole thing sounds as if earth quakes and tsunamis could have been involved, and if the sea was lower and the people were generally living in lower areas and in the warmer climates, their destruction would be easier.
One world wide flood that covered the whole earth was not needed and imo is not taught in the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

When you say "by the early church", do you understand that you are referring to a group of people trying to present a new religion to the masses? Do you really think any of those people would have said:

Uh, maybe we should carefully consider if the gospel writers were actually eyewitnesses. We really don't know who actually wrote those stories. Then there is the problem of when these stories were written. Also, none of the stories are written from the perspective of an eyewitness. None of the authors ever says 'I heard this or that, or I saw this or that.

​

It's written as though they were transcribing stories they heard or- heaven forbid- stuff they were making up.

Why couldn't the synoptic writers transcribe earlier gospel attempts and add what they knew as well?
The early church knew the real story and were familiar with the real gospels even if there were those who were making stuff up for their gnostic religions etc. The early church knew which gospels were real and used them and the apostolic fathers quoted from them.

This is odd. You take the stories of the OT literally. You look at the NT, at least in this one example, differently. That's the problem with trying to have a discussion with religious people. Each one has different understands/beliefs regarding just about everything. It's impossible to keep track.

Somebody could have taken the 4 gospels and written one gospel account, joining the 4 but as it is it is the recollections of people written in 4 different accounts. It is plain they were not a collaboration and it is plain from what Luke wrote that many earlier accounts had been written to get information from.
Luke said he got his information from witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning.
Luke seems to have been written before Acts according to the internal information and Acts seems to have been written before 64 AD when Luke probably died with Paul in the Nero persecutions.
There was no secular historian on the side taking notes of all these things so that you could have your evidence. The evidence is the documents in the OT and NT.

Where did Jesus make this promise?

John 14:26

According to modern scholarship, Matthew did indeed take from others, especially Mark.

So, if Jesus promised the writers would be reminded of events, why did Matthew need to refer to Mark's writings? Didn't he trust Jesus' alleged promise?

Some people remembered some bits and other people remembered other bits and there was probably no reason to write something again that had already been written and was accurate. Just take from those gospels and add other bits that they could remember or be given by those people they knew.

Skeptical historians, many of whom set out to support ancient views of the Bible, have come to certain conclusions through research and study. I have much more faith in their views than in the views of "the early church".

No doubt Bart Ehrman lost his faith through his studies and I am sure that others have also gone to study the scriptures and because of the writings of sceptical historians have lost faith. Sceptical historians have been in the study of the Pentateuch for a long time and spread the Documentary Hypothesis around and it has become accepted to an extent. But it is a strange hypothesis initially brought in because of lack of archaeological evidence for Israel in Egypt and the conquest etc. Archaeological evidence for these things is growing and the Documentary hypothesis is seen to be faulty because of other things also and is not so rampant these days. Satan has had his day but of course keeps attacking. The writings of the NT also have been attacked using similar assumptions that were used in the documentary hypothesis.
But you trust some historians and ignore the rest because you see what you want.
I'm no doubt the same.
Sceptical historians bring in assumptions that the accounts are false and written by people much later than the Bible indicates and by people who knew nothing of what went on. Interestingly they find that their assumptions are true. It is circular reasoning to a large degree.

 

[Brian2]

Well, to be a d!ck about it, no - not really.

Rather, atheism is a label that tells you what the person's worldview does NOT include: theistic beliefs.

"not believing x" is not a worldview, nor is it a belief.

To know the worldview of an atheist, you need to ask him / her.
Atheism refers to the lack of something. It has no content, so how could it be a worldview?

The commonality is the lack of something and that also leads to the acceptance/belief of other things with no hesitation. There is diversity between what atheists believe as there is between what theists believe.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I see the difference between A and B and I see that science does not know exactly what happened and when.

Let's see....science doesn't know everything...therefore...The Bible must be completely accurate and/or true word of God...

 

[exchemist]

Well, to be a d!ck about it, no - not really.

Rather, atheism is a label that tells you what the person's worldview does NOT include: theistic beliefs.

"not believing x" is not a worldview, nor is it a belief.

To know the worldview of an atheist, you need to ask him / her.
Atheism refers to the lack of something. It has no content, so how could it be a worldview?

Yes I suppose you are right. I am confusing it with Physicalism.

 

[Valjean]

The gospels are true to me because of my faith. The writers are who the early church said they were because they are the ones who knew. If the writers were too late then it would be stupid to say that Jesus would return before those Jesus was talking to died. But Jesus did not say that anyway, He said something that could be interpreted that way by that is an interpretation that contradicts what Jesus said that He did not know when He was going to return.

"True to me" misuses the word true. You believe it because of your faith, and by admitting it's faith-based you're also admitting it's not evidence-based. Evidence trumps feeling.
We don't know who wrote the gospels. This is the opinion of biblical scholars, not mine alone.
The early church fathers knew what they, personally believed, and that's what they promulgated. Different churches believed different things.

The Bible has been studied more than other scriptures and errors etc have been removed as much as possible. Editing and deletions are no more than guesses by people who do not know.
Redaction, the joining together of a bunch of stories into one coherent story seems to have happened in the OT history sections, and that is fine.

Linguists and biblical scholars have known of mistranslations, alterations, errors, &c for years. Just google.
They're almost never corrected. As far as I know, the King James Bible is unaltered since the 1600s.

Historians and archaeologists don't know how fast the water came in and don't know the exact date, just some time at the end of the last ice age.

The end of the last ice age was ten or twelve thousand years ago. That's long before most Christians place the flood.
There were some massive historical floods, but nothing that would result in an ark floating around for a month out of site of land.

God was the one to say to build the Ark and save the animals and Noah's family. It does not matter if he could have walked away, but that is just an assumption on your part. Floods were happening in many places at that time and there was 40 days and nights of rain and all the fountains of the great deep were broken open. I have faith that it happened and you want to discredit any possibility even if you don't know.

What's a "fountain of the deep?"