Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins in shock ‘archaeological evidence’ claim over Messiah

[rambo919]

Rambo doesnt like science, i believe he wants it to fall.

Does seem like that at times

Science is fine, scientism however is a stupid religion.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Well the earth has been calculated to be 6000 years old by Christian theologians.

So an impact dating back 12800 years does not support the global flood theory from the bible either.

Some Christian theologians, but nowhere near enough for you to claim that there is a consensus on the issue, and the Bible doesn't make that claim.

 

[noxibox]

What is rather amusing is how much evidence has been found for events in the bible

I've never seen the relevance of proving the events happened. The existence of the events doesn't prove the magical claims. That's why whether the person called Jesus in the Bible actually existed is of academic historical interest, but is not proof he was a deity.

 

[Spizz]

I tried the book and thought him ignorant of why people believe. He defines what he thinks are the reasons people believe and then goes about demolition those reasons which is a bit straw manny imo. I read parts of the book and the condescension put me off.

I can understand that, he does tend to wind people up. Even the ones that agree with him. Maybe I’m just a bigger arsehole than he is, but I think he’s spot on with his insights. The chapter on John Frum for example should be enough for any single person to at least question themselves and their beliefs. And even if you take that and that alone away from the book, it’s worthwhile sticking in and working through it.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Or we can go to Psalm 93:1, 96:10, Samuel 2:8 or Job 9:6, where the Earth is flat and rests on large pillars, with Sea Monsters guarding the edges.

How does that work out logically, scientifically or even just practically?

Humans have a facility for interpreting information symbolically, therefore not everything should be taken literally as you insist. The protestant reformation and its insistence on literalism happened around 1500 AD, your ahistorical and anachronistic take is widely off the mark.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

How dare you! That equally means both are wrong, right?

It goes well with the arguments.


How dare you come into this rather binary argument with logic, sneaky you!

What is rather amusing is how much evidence has been found for events in the bible, how the disciples of atheism try to deny using modern understanding to show people who lived thousands of years ago what idiots they were.

So many dogs in this fight.

Even so, the bible gives clues to archeologists who go seek and find ... like Solomon's mines, his kingdom.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Even funnier, I consider myself an agnostic. Let's say I have an allergic response to dumb atheism.

 

[buka001]

Humans have a facility for interpreting information symbolically, therefore not everything should be taken literally as you insist. The protestant reformation and its insistence on literalism happened around 1500 AD, your ahistorical and anachronistic take is widely off the mark.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So is the bible not really Gods word, or is it sort of, but only when it suits some descriptions and interpretations?

So how are we suppose to know which part to take literal and which parts not too?

Is there a users guide to help?

Why is God's word so open to interpretation and abuse?

 

[MEIOT]

Your insults are that of a drunkard.... no one in his right mind takes a drunkard seriously it only leads to stupid fights.

Sure thing buddy. Sure thing. You are quite the village idiot if I do say so myself. Thanks for the humor though.


Are you self aware at all? Are you actually reading back your posts? The things you post are just pure idiocy on a level I've not seen. It's hilarious.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

John 1:1

So is the bible not really Gods word, or is it sort of, but only when it suits some descriptions and interpretations?

In Greek the word is Logos, and Logos refers to what God used to create the world, and in fact is a reference to Jesus as the Logos, not the words in the Bible itself. Try again.

 

[Tokolotshe]

I've never seen the relevance of proving the events happened. The existence of the events doesn't prove the magical claims. That's why whether the person called Jesus in the Bible actually existed is of academic historical interest, but is not proof he was a deity.

My response would be my original post.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[rietrot]

Humans have a facility for interpreting information symbolically, therefore not everything should be taken literally as you insist. The protestant reformation and its insistence on literalism happened around 1500 AD, your ahistorical and anachronistic take is widely off the mark.

The protestant reformation doesn't insist on literalism. Especially for obvious metaphors, but I agree with your post overall.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

The protestant reformation doesn't insist on literalism. Especially for obvious metaphors, but I agree with your post overall.

Part of the problem is historical. The deification of the Bible is a result of the Protestant reformation. Before then, the final authority, the ultimate arbiter and source of information in religious matters was the church, with its ancient traditions and living experts. When Luther and friends opposed the teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, they needed a superior authority to appeal to, which was provided by the Bible.

How biblical literalism took root | Stephen Tomkins

Stephen Tomkins: The Bible doesn't state that it should be read literally – yet an all-or-nothing approach is the core of many Christians' faith

www.theguardian.com

Without the church and its traditions informing the words in the Bible, the only plausible outcome is literalism.

But ok, to be more specific, the transformation to a more literalistic way of using words started before Luther's time, however it was still a full millenium after Jesus was crucified and so trying to read back that way of looking at the Bible into the past is still an ahistorical anachronism.

 

[daveza]

So the Creation was not literal, the flood wasn't literal, .... how do we know what is literal and what isn't ?

The fundamentalists claim every word is literal - to me that's more acceptable than saying yeah well this is not literal but all those parts we like are definitely literal.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

So the Creation was not literal, the flood wasn't literal, .... how do we know what is literal and what isn't ?

It has to be puzzled out.

The fundamentalists claim every word is literal - to me that's more acceptable than saying yeah well this is not literal but all those parts we like are definitely literal.

So you are a product of your times, indoctrinated into thinking like a product of your times, garbling messages written by people who were not living in your time.

Aside from your preferred religious proclivities, can you give a good reason why symbolic interpretations have to be excluded?

 

[MEIOT]

Aside from your preferred religious proclivities, can you give a good reason why symbolic interpretations have to be excluded?

The answer is in your question.
Symbolic interpretation or just plain old interpretation is very subjective. And it's subjectiveness is very apparent too.
People following the same faith reading the same garbage interpret the same shite in so many different ways. Anything that is open to interpretation can never be based on fact.
Yes, I know that doesn't matter in a world where facts and evidence-based truths sadly mean very little, but there's still a place for evidence-based truth in the world I think.
We can't all follow blindly in an ignorant haze of existence. And ignorance that is perpetuated to each new generation.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Ponderer]

The answer is in your question.
Symbolic interpretation or just plain old interpretation is very subjective. And it's subjectiveness is very apparent too.
People following the same faith reading the same garbage interpret the same shite in so many different ways. Anything that is open to interpretation can never be based on fact.
Yes, I know that doesn't matter in a world where facts and evidence-based truths sadly mean very little, but there's still a place for evidence-based truth in the world I think.
We can't all follow blindly in an ignorant haze of existence. And ignorance that is perpetuated to each new generation.

Just my opinion though.

"Anything that is open to interpretation can never be based on fact."
Huh?

 

[rietrot]

So the Creation was not literal, the flood wasn't literal, .... how do we know what is literal and what isn't ?

The fundamentalists claim every word is literal - to me that's more acceptable than saying yeah well this is not literal but all those parts we like are definitely literal.

There's layers to it. It's literal and symbolic at the same time on many levels.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

The answer is in your question.
Symbolic interpretation or just plain old interpretation is very subjective. And it's subjectiveness is very apparent too.

So? You can't just throw away subjectivity and think that you have a complete account of the world.

People following the same faith reading the same garbage interpret the same shite in so many different ways. Anything that is open to interpretation can never be based on fact.

Because people don't have disagreements regarding the interpretation, of say, quantum mechanics, right?

Yes, I know that doesn't matter in a world where facts and evidence-based truths sadly mean very little, but there's still a place for evidence-based truth in the world I think.

Where's your evidence for the position that you can simply dismiss non-objective information? I don't think you're going to be able to find any...

We can't all follow blindly in an ignorant haze of existence. And ignorance that is perpetuated to each new generation.

Just my opinion though.

I can't help but feel that this is a very ironic point to make given what your definition of knowledge appears to be.

 

[scudsucker]

It has to be puzzled out.

It comes as no suprise that Xarog, (aka Gingerbeardman) falls for the biggest conspiracy theory of them all. After all, critical thinking is not exactly his strong point.

 

[MEIOT]

"Anything that is open to interpretation can never be based on fact."
Huh?

I should have been more specific - anything that's written in any of the holy books that's open to interpretation, which is pretty much everything is not and can not be based on fact

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters"

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

How would you interpret this?