What is it with you?...someone disagrees and states their reason...and you turn little bitch calling them "butthurt"?

This I totally agree with. I know the answer to "what is faith?" is always going to be a thing that "only truly religious individuals will know". But part of being a christian is to try and spread the word. How can you spread the word to everyone if some people require a bit more proof than "I say so" or "this book says so". I suppose you do the best you can, but at the same time you can't be bothered by the people who do require more "proof". I hope this makes sense.

Better than average batch of steel from the mill, Workers did an extra-good job on the welds, Engineers for the various suppliers speced out higher factors of safety.... Many possible explainations. None supernatural.

Meh, let him be...I think he is afeared that if he actually does apply historical accuracy tests to Scripture it will validate Scripture, then he will actually be accountable to Jesus as more than a liar or lunatic.... and the kicker would be that is would be logic and historical facts that brought him to the Throne.

He wouldn't even read it... he basically said

"That's a major claim-prove it historically!!"

me-"Ok, but a major claim requires a major history discussion"

him " Woahhh there that is way to much to read...so Im just gonna call Bullshit because there is no way it can be fact....even if it is historically documented"

Actually I finished the article in it's entirety  shortly after I commented, before that I read everything but skimmed the last 4 paragraphs which accounted for maybe <10% of the article. I'm not disputing the historical accuracy of the test in relation to scripture, I'm disputing the tests reliability to prove the supernatural events that are in the scripture. Let's make sure were not twisting words here.

gwitness has a problem with me asking serious questions. He doesn't enjoy debate even when it gets tough as I've had my moments of harsh comments. He generally just doesn't like that his answers aren't enough for people ( particular, me) hence the butthurt comment.

So historical cross validation tests are accurate only to the extent that it involved nothing supernatural? So who gets to determine what is beyond the realm of belief?

What about Alexander and the Sogdian Rock?  That is pretty far fetched... so It must not have happened- That is preposterous.  Historical Text/accuracy standards are there to separate fact from BS.  

I feel your position is asking me to accept that historical tests are not objectively true, therefore nothing can be known other that what one's personal experience dictates... And I am  supposed to accept that on faith.

My point is that your position claims basically to hold enough of all knowledge in the universe to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing supernatural possible- and I should accept that on faith...I would inquire what percentage of all knowledge do you possesses?

I like pie.

Personally, blueberry cobbler is my favorite.  Is cobbler pie?  What even constitutes a pie?  Hmm.  Tough questions.

Also, some serious A-/theism being slung up in here...

Oh baloney...any answer you are given are never "good enough"  You seem to think you have some sort of lock of logic and knowledge...that, is in a word...arrogant. We tell you what it is we believe and why...and you return with strawmen and attacks.  We get it...you hate God....makes one wonder what happened in your life that makes you blame [what you call non-existent] God....after all you...like most of arfcoms anti-theists seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to disprove that which you claim does  not exist.  Or are you just another self appointed "hall monitor" that thinks it is his job to relieve others of their "antiquated bronze age beliefs of an invisible sky fairy"?

The supposed divinity of a Jewish carpenter is not proven or dis proven by whether or not places mentioned in the bible actually existed.

It is a false premise that the existence of these places (or persons) proves all that other mystical stuff.

No, you really don't

At this point, I've learned not to engage with anyone whose motivation for rejecting a particular ontology is "because science and logic," for the simple reason that they have no grasp of what these words actually mean.

Carry on.

Which persons or places are we discussing today?


I really hope you say John the Baptist and His home in Judah....evidence thereof was found last week....but of course until last week Godless history knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was basically a hobbit who lived in the shire


Of course it was burned from the fall of Jerusalem.... which that crazy carpenter  prophesied 40 years beforehand

Seriously, what is the difference between cobbler and pie?  Surely someone knows...

which side the crust is on....bro do you even GD?

My view is highly personal.  I separate "religion," "the church," and the Bible.

From a scientific point of view, I look at the Bible as a collection of stories and wisdoms of history.  Started as oral traditions, it was advice handed down from generation to generation as mankind strove to understand themselves and the world around them.  These stories range from describing origins and the world around them, to giving a code of how to form and maintain a bronze-age society.  

Many of us know, but not everyone will acknowledge, that rules handed down from "a higher power" will be more adhered to that rules "made by men." After all, who says the guy making the rules is any smarter or better than me? Why do I have to listen to them?   But is a law is handed down by God? What gives you the right to break one of God's Commandments?  In modern society, atheists are rapidly trying to replace "God" with "The Government" as the higher power to provide weight to their laws.

And then there is the Church.  Which can be a gathering of noble people focused on spending their lives in the service to others, or people ruling through their interpretation of "God's Will," or seeking to enrich themselves by living off the tithes of the faithful.  A church is only as good as the people leading and the people manning them, and have gone through cycles of noble piety and degenerate depravity, and everything in between.

You see, it all comes down to Faith.  Faith is a reliance that an idea or doctrine is true, even with no evidence or fat to support it.  Here is what I know. We do not understand everything about the Universe.  We know things today that were thought to be either magic or impossible in years past. Nothing we have seen can disprove the existence of a Higher Being.

Now, is that Higher Being the "God" we worship?  Is any one religion "right?" I do not think so.  All religions on Earth come from mortal, fallible, humanity trying to make sense of these things.  Can they all be wrong?  Yes.  And so what?

I go to church every Sunday with my wife and daughter.  Because at the heart of it, the teachings of the church are what is important.  It tells us how to live in a society peaceably. It does provide a comfort in a sense of justice, it provides comfort.  Even if the message is based on a lie, does that make the message a bad one?

I believe there is a God.  But I also believe that all of the various religious texts around the world are not "sent from God," but created by man. I also believe it does not matter what the origin of those texts are, if the wisdom in the book is sound.

When was the "prophesy" written down, at the time it was made, or after Jerusalem fell?

Your "rebuttals" would be more effective if you left out shit about hobbits, and adjectives like "crazy".

I agree with you in every single detail but one.  Funny how that works.

Forgive me...I have been lumped in with Ravioli monsters and unicorns for quite  a while...I assumed I believed in hobbits as well

Before... And then I assume you ask me how I know...and then I point you to the Bible's validity as a historical document-submitting to the same standards as other historical documents...as outlined in the link I posted above.

I ended up googling it- apparently a cobbler is a type of pie, but is topless instead of the second crust.

I feel we all learned something today.

Thanks Preacherman, I genuinely was interested in that answer

You still haven't explained to me how the "historical accuracy" proves the truth of the magical parts.

It is funny how that works.  I don't think my viewpoint is any more or less valid than anyone else's.  If I may ask, what is the single point of difference?  It would be interesting to see how our views differ.

WHY DOESN'T THE BIBLE MENTION THE DINOSAURS

By the way, if you want to "Science" up God, how about viewing "God" as a force directing quantum-level determinations?  If everything in science and physics boils down to some form of "quantum" chance, maybe all God does is bang the table to come up with the chance he wants.

a scientist came up with a string theory, that at the core, all particles break down to a series of strings vibrating. these vibrations and interactions determine how particles react to one another.  These strings are supposed to be so small that if the nucleus of an atom were the size of the solar system, that one of these strings would be the size of a tree on Earth.  That is pretty hard to conceptualize.  Many in the scientific community reject this theory as science, because it is currently unable to be tested or proven.  They instead call it a religion.
String Theory

Are you sure it does not?

The last part.  We both seem to agree there is no evidence of God (any of them).  I do not rule out the possibility since I'm an agnostic atheist, but you chose to believe that there is, I guess that makes you a deist?

The challenge comes in making the Leap Toward Faith.  To have faith is to believe in something with no "rational" evidence in to enforce that belief.  If there was proof, then faith would not be need.  Or, as a parable, "If the road was well marked and everyone had a map, then no one would be lost."
The challenge, the difficulty of blind faith is The Point.  Look to the Book of Job for inspiration. If you could point to a light in the sky and say "That is God," if you had evidence of that sort, then there is no personal challenge to believe.  There is no faith involved.

Drive on a deserted highway in the middle of nowhere, late at night (I am in Texas, so I think of I-10 between San Antonio and El Paso). There are speed limit signs out there.  It is a perfectly flat, straight highway.  Do you drive the speed limit? You believe in the law, and know that speeding could get to pulled over even though you can not see a single police officer.  So, do you go the speed limit, or do you speed?
Now, imagine that same road, with a cop and radar gun posted every mile.  You can obviously see the cops; a physical manifestation of the law, as a reminder of what you are allowed, and the punishments should you speed.  So, do you speed?

Now, picture that the driver of that car on the deserted road is the person you are trying to bring faith to.  They are asking that if the speed limit is really enforced, where are all the cops?  In that analogy, you are simply a man with one of those radar warning signs that posts how fast they are going.

Because feelings. Kind of like liberals.

I suppose it does.  I have at times described myself as a "Skeptical Agnostic," but the truth is that I would rather there be something there. I do not think that it is "God" in any sense that any of our religions think, and I doubt we are anything big to it as a few bacteria are to us.  

If we are in It's focus, then perhaps it is as an experiment.  I often get a giggle thinking of "God" as a high-school student, and our Universe is simply His Science Fair project.

If it is historically accurate, it is true.. Otherwise it is historically inaccurate

Job 40 and 41

Sarcasm, right?

I don't want "In God we trust" removed from the currency.

I really couldn't care less if the Ten Commandments are displayed in every courtroom.

I don't care if Nativity scenes are put up on every town square.

I would like to have someone logically explain the religion of the Bible to me. Who could think a loving god would kill his son because generations before someone broke a rule he made. Some here have said they know God exists because he answered their prayers or he spoke to them. Did he speak to you in English or was it some emotion that you felt when you perceived he spoke to you? He has never spoken to me in English. Again I ask if he answered your prayer why do you think he helped you? Can you explain why he would give your prayer consideration and ignored the prayers of millions murdered in the holocaust or the prayers of the people killed by isis. If God is all knowing he must have programmed the actions of all men as he knows every thing that will happen in the future negating the idea of free will. So what would be the point of his creation of man?

He did NOT kill his son

You really need to READ the bible and not listen to it all second hand

A hermit's home in Judah proves that Jonah was eaten by a whale and survived?  That it can be shown by other history that certain people did in fact live does not prove the validity of supernatural claims.  

That George Washington lived does not prove he through a dollar across the Rappahannock, or chopped or didn't chop down a cherry tree.

Walt Disney made a series about the Swamp Fox.  There was a Swamp Fox.   Therefore, Swamp Fox is true and accurate.  The Navy even named a ship after him. Therefore, everything Walt Disney did was true and accurate.

Walt Disney made a series about Zorro.  Therefore Zorro is true and accurate.

why some of my fellow atheists  care so much and try so hard to change believers minds or out argue them in some way. I have no idea

what does it matter these types?   what does it hurt you? leave them alone. let it go, gone on with your own life  recognize that at the very least the religion keeps civilization is some what decent shape  Xmas is fun.  why does it matter?
 

who the shit cares.

I simply cannot logically reconcile a lack of a creator.

I am a Jew by choice. I find christianity, buddhism and many other faiths absolutely whacky.

Your train of thought derailed....twice

The idea that logic and reason must be abandoned completely in the exercise of faith and that religious belief is incompatible with a respect or practice of scientific exploration stem, in my opinion, from an inadequate understanding, on either side, of the basic natures of those concepts.

Firstly, logic and reason are simply tools for pursuing lines of thought in a rigorous fashion so that a conclusion can be reliably arrived at as true given that its underlying premises are true. Logic and reason apply to the process and the intermediate premises that may lie therein, but the very base premises must very often be assumed. Apart from those logical pursuits with initial premises that are based on the limited set of what might be considered a priori knowledge (i.e. mathematics), almost all processes of logic require a basic set of assumptions in order to proceed further. Matters of either theology or science both fall into this latter category. Adherents of both theology and science are largely guilty of illogical thinking, and one tends to find the best application of reason and logic in the learned of either field rather than the laypeople, so criticisms leveled from either side against the thinking of the latter are, at best, assaults against straw men. We really should be concerned with looking at the best either side has to offer in the debate.

With that caveat out of the way, let us look at the logical and reasonable validity of theology and science. As mentioned earlier, both must make one or more initial assumptions before progressing with their respective trains of thought. The base assumption of theological thought is that there either is or may be a supernatural or metaphysical nature to existence beyond the material. I will grant that many religious pursuits beyond this point often abandon logic. But there are also those that do not, and these often apply logical principles in as rigorous a way as any other philosophical pursuit. The fundamental assumption of scientific thought, which should be covered in just about any introductory science course, is that the universe is materialistic in nature and adheres to immutable natural laws that govern its characteristics and processes. All scientific pursuit flows from this basic assumption. Without the assumption, the scientific method falls apart and ceases to offer any meaningful conclusions. All the logic and reason of scientific pursuit rests upon this assumption.  It is in this assumption that the great strength of science to explain our world lies.

However, we must be careful to address that even if a logical thought pattern is followed rigorously, any reached conclusions cannot comment on the truth condition of the initial assumption. That is, rational theological/metaphysical thought can never prove the truthfulness of the supernatural/metaphysical assumption, and scientific pursuit can never prove the validity of the materialist/natural law assumption. To claim that either could do so is more illogical than either pursuit in and of itself. Further, it is even more absurd to suggest that conclusions or premises within either system have any valid claims against the truth conditions of conclusions or premises in the other system, since they operate according to entirely different base assumptions. The best either logical progression can do is to say that it has not discovered within itself any contradictory observation to its own base assumption. Typically, however, base assumptions are so abstract as to be nearly impervious to even this. Intermediate premises may be contradicted and subsequently altered to better fit the observational mold, but the base assumptions so influence all the thought proceeding from them as to make themselves nearly unassailable.

Is there, then, any reconciliation possible between the two? Of the two assumptions, the theological one is the more flexible, and I am inclined toward it. The materialistic assumption excludes, without question the possibility of any further fact about existence beyond the material. The supernatural/metaphysical assumption offers further fact up as a possibility—that there are perhaps non-material, non-natural characteristics to concepts like beauty, truth, value, ethics, liberty, and God. The assumption does not even require us, as some might believe, to reject the findings of scientific thought, as there is room within for the additional assumption that alongside further-fact metaphysical natures, the universe’s material properties probably do act, for the most part, in accordance with consistent natural laws. This slight difference does alter the conclusions of science slightly, turning them into a descriptive and predictive set of rules that apply given that supernatural/metaphysical properties are not also at contradictory work in the same place and time. It is worth noting, of course, that this doesn’t bring us to theism yet, but perhaps it is of value for us to realize that theists can operate completely logically and reasonably with the framework of their assumptions as well as the scientists can in theirs. There are compelling logical arguments toward theistic views if one is willing to step into the supernatural/metaphysical assumption for a moment. And for those of a religious bent, there is a beauty and an order to science that has great power to explain the material portion of our universe if one is willing to set aside dogma and poorly founded tradition for a moment and consider the conclusions of science—rationally understanding the framework from which they derive and considering how they might fit into one’s own assumptive structure, even if it requires modification of some of the intermediate premises.

TL;DR: Theology and science both operate logically (despite the illogical railings of many of their adherents) within their respective base assumptions, which themselves may not be proven or disproven by their own conclusions. Truly illogical thought assumes that either camp can either prove its own assumption or disprove the other’s by virtue of its conclusions. There may be room for a hybrid position, but even if not, we can learn from one another and respect each other’s thought processes.

And you can't disprove that I'm a super hero either....

I read your link.  There are more original copies of Cinderella in the United States than original copies of biblical source documents, therefore by your links definition Cinderella is more historically accurate than the Bible.

Great question. I wonder the same thing as the OP a good bit myself.

I often wonder that if aliens happened upon the earth if they wouldn't be astounded at all of the BS that people believe and what they do to defend and how they twist logic to support thousands of years old texts.

I mean just consider Ocam's razor. Maybe instead of talkkng in circles about this and that and faith and twisting logic, it might just be that your religion is an old story from the bronze age that is full of contradictions and BS that isn't true.

It seems to me that religion is one of most narsasistic things humans believe. Everyone is so special and unique that a master of the universe (who has human traits) created them in his image .  Talk about believing in the superiority of man.....

If proof could be attained, ones faith could never be measured.

I have read it. He didn't kill him but someone was going to have to. He knows all including the future, and so it must have been predestined by God. Even Jesus knew that. Would you care to try and answer the rest of the questions?

Being partly accurate doesn't automatically make it 100% accurate.

Try to imagine that you weren't raised as a Christian but everything else about your life is the same. Now along come some people and they start telling you all about a great flood and an ark and someone listening to a talking burning bush and a god that has to have his son crucified so he can forgive you for something that someone else did thousands of years earlier or you couldn't get into this paradise after you're dead to live forever. Now he hasn't spoken again for thousands of years since. Would you really swallow all that

You absolutely fail to understand one or more of those religions,then.