Richard Dawkins and The Ignorance of The New Atheism

[Blues Man]

The bible is the true word of god or not?

Live it, then decide.

I asked you what YOU decided why won;t you just answer the question?

 

[Meriweather]

I asked you what YOU decided why won;t you just answer the question?

If you don't already know, I am doing something wrong. I'm off to fix it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fables teach a moral lesson, in other words, they teach a truth. Those truths are not fictional.

But the fables are. You will find the works of Aesop in the fiction section. You are dodging.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The talking snake and the donkey who spoke might qualify

Uh...might? Are you suggesting there was truly a taking snake? No? Then it is fiction.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I seldom, if ever, use the word 'myth' in relation to Bible stories

Your error...

just as I never refer to a fable as a myth.

...right, because they do not purport to be nonfiction. Unlike the bible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So is the bible a book of fables?

I think it is

Technically, no, as it is presented as truth. So it is a book of myths.

 

[Blues Man]

I asked you what YOU decided why won;t you just answer the question?

If you don't already know, I am doing something wrong. I'm off to fix it.

So again you refuse to answer a simple question.

 

[Meriweather]

But the fables are. You will find the works of Aesop in the fiction section. You are dodging.

You didn't ask me where I found them in the library. You asked my view on fables. I teach youngsters how to write fables. First step: Select a moral. Are morals fiction or non-fiction? Other than a science textbook, it isn't hard to figure out that most of what is written is a combination. Simply because a squirrel is used to present a moral, does not mean that the moral is untrue. What some of you seem to be arguing is that if you can find even a single word in a Bible story that is anything other than fact, the whole account is fiction or in the wrong. If I don't read a fable with that mindset, anyone can safely bet I don't read anything else with that mindset either.

Doesn't bother me in the least that you consider the Bible fiction.

 

[Meriweather]

Uh...might? Are you suggesting there was truly a taking snake? No? Then it is fiction.

I understand that conclusion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doesn't bother me in the least that you consider the Bible fiction.

Fables are also fiction. Anyone who thinks the bible is not fiction is being irrational. It doesn't bother me that you believe in iron aged myths.

 

[Meriweather]

So again you refuse to answer a simple question.

I never answer yes or no questions. I don't find things that simple. Drove my mom crazy. Is that you, Mom? (She can always answer yes or no. For her, everything was either black or white. For me, all are shades of grey.)

 

[Meriweather]

Anyone who thinks the bible is not fiction is being irrational. It doesn't bother me that you believe in iron aged myths.

Grin. One thing I am certain of....You haven't a clue as to what I believe.

 

[Blues Man]

So again you refuse to answer a simple question.

I never answer yes or no questions. I don't find things that simple. Drove my mom crazy. Is that you, Mom? (She can always answer yes or no. For her, everything was either black or white. For me, all are shades of grey.)

So then the bible may or may not be the true word of god.

Or maybe only some of the bible is the true word of god and it's up to every person to decide which parts those are.

 

[Meriweather]

So then the bible may or may not be the true word of god.

Or maybe only some of the bible is the true word of god and it's up to every person to decide which parts those are.

My own Rules for the Bible: Not everything (or even much) in it is about me. Next, I am likely, at first, to misunderstand what is meant or intended, so testing and experimenting are essential.

I recommend first seek God; find Him; then read the Bible, having lots of research on history, cultures, languages (with commentary) handy.

 

[Blues Man]

So then the bible may or may not be the true word of god.

Or maybe only some of the bible is the true word of god and it's up to every person to decide which parts those are.

My own Rules for the Bible: Not everything (or even much) in it is about me. Next, I am likely, at first, to misunderstand what is meant or intended, so testing and experimenting are essential.

I recommend first seek God; find Him; then read the Bible, having lots of research on history, cultures, languages (with commentary) handy.

the bible is supposed to about for you isn't it? After all it's an instruction book on how to live in a way that god deems acceptable.

This is where religion and I part ways.

I shouldn't need someone to tell me what the word of god means.

hence no third party commentary or fluency in ancient languages should be necessary since those are just what some mere mortal man thinks the actual word of god is.

 

[Viktor]

None of the Bible was ever written in Hebrew.

Yet multiple sources on the web say most of the old testament was written in Hebrew. Strange.

Yes, ancient Hebrew. That is slightly different from Modern Hebrew, which is spoken in Israel.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One thing I am certain of....You haven't a clue as to what I believe.

Well sure, you are the artful dodger. One thing i am certain of... You will remain obtuse enough to give yourself room to wiggle out of anything anyone thinks you believe.

 

[Viktor]

LOL

I always find it amusing when Christians can't answer my simple questions about large errors in the bible.

Carry on with the bogus attack on Richard Dawkins if that will make you feel better.

The bible is not a science book. Only fools act as if it is.

The Bible is fiction. Only fools act as if it isn’t

Archaeology Confirms 53 people mentioned in the Bible
53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically



Reliability of the Old Testament

Amazon product ASIN 0802803962

This probably doesn't prove as much as you think it does.

None of the 53 people mentioned in the bible wrote the bible.

So what?????

So what a bunch of Pharaoh's and kings were mentioned?

How many people in the Book of Mormons and Koran can be confirmed archaeologically?

I'm a Jew and don't care. Why are you trying to change the subject? What are you afraid of?


There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

That's a lie. You are a liar.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Rule Against Hearsay is a Legal rule. It does not apply to Historians. They don't use it.

 

[Meriweather]

the bible is supposed to about for you isn't it? After all it's an instruction book on how to live in a way that god deems acceptable.

This is where religion and I part ways.

I shouldn't need someone to tell me what the word of god means.

hence no third party commentary or fluency in ancient languages should be necessary.

That was the Protestant philosophy during the Reformation. Everyone, with the help of the Holy Spirit, can read the Bible for themselves with perfect understanding. That wasn't the Catholic position because language, cultures, and times change. One Protestant read the Bible, didn't understand the Hebrew (not that the King James translation was any help with that) and presto! He decides according to the Bible the earth is six thousand years old. Anyone who could read the Hebrew knew Ussher had it all wrong. Still, to this day (more than 200 years later) some still believe the earth is about six thousand years old.

My other favorites, of course, is that people believe the events written about in Revelation are yet to happen, when each one happened two thousand years ago. Some Protestants believe there will be a day when some will be "Raptured" off the planet. And speaking of the planet, some think there had to be zebras, polar bears, and penguins on Noah's ark. Read the Hebrew. It didn't say the flood covered the planet, but the earth (meaning the ground) as far as the eye could see.

It is my opinion that Protestants and their insistence that everyone can read and understand the Bible on their own may be responsible for the number of atheists today. Don't tell me that understanding the history and cultures (commentary) and fluency in the original language(s) isn't necessary. Early Jews and Christians would be laughing hysterically at the ideas of Rapture, penguins on the ark, etc. Bet you anything they would be saying, "Don't know what you're reading, but it's not the Bible!"

Perhaps you can understand why limiting answers about the Bible to "Yes" or "No" isn't at all practical.

 

[Blues Man]

the bible is supposed to about for you isn't it? After all it's an instruction book on how to live in a way that god deems acceptable.

This is where religion and I part ways.

I shouldn't need someone to tell me what the word of god means.

hence no third party commentary or fluency in ancient languages should be necessary.

That was the Protestant philosophy during the Reformation. Everyone, with the help of the Holy Spirit, can read the Bible for themselves with perfect understanding. That wasn't the Catholic position because language, cultures, and times change. One Protestant read the Bible, didn't understand the Hebrew (not that the King James translation was any help with that) and presto! He decides according to the Bible the earth is six thousand years old. Anyone who could read the Hebrew knew Ussher had it all wrong. Still, to this day (more than 200 years later) some still believe the earth is about six thousand years old.

My other favorites, of course, is that people believe the events written about in Revelation are yet to happen, when each one happened two thousand years ago. Some Protestants believe there will be a day when some will be "Raptured" off the planet. And speaking of the planet, some think there had to be zebras, polar bears, and penguins on Noah's ark. Read the Hebrew. It didn't say the flood covered the planet, but the earth (meaning the ground) as far as the eye could see.

It is my opinion that Protestants and their insistence that everyone can read and understand the Bible on their own may be responsible for the number of atheists today. Don't tell me that understanding the history and cultures (commentary) and fluency in the original language(s) isn't necessary. Early Jews and Christians would be laughing hysterically at the ideas of Rapture, penguins on the ark, etc. Bet you anything they would be saying, "Don't know what you're reading, but it's not the Bible!"

Perhaps you can understand why limiting answers about the Bible to "Yes" or "No" isn't at all practical.

I haven't yet met a Catholic priest that was fluent in ancient languages so they are just being told what to say by someone else.

And if god is the perfect unassailable all powerful being you'd think that he would understand that languages would evolve wouldn't you?