You can't prove the non-existence of anything. Prove to me that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. See what I mean?
What we CAN point to is the inaccuracies and mistakes of the bible, which demonstrate that it isn't the "inerrant word of god", but rather the writings of primitive humans who didn't truly understand how the world worked.
Three examples...
Leviticus 11: "These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture...and the bat." BATS AREN'T BIRDS.
"The rabbit, though it chews its cud..." RABBITS DON'T CHEW CUD.
"There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper." THOSE ALL ARE INSECTS AND HAVE SIX LEGS.
So do you still claim the bible to be "the word of god"? Do YOU AND I know more about "god's creatures" than he does?
@DavidS - I am inclined to believe your reasoning;however I do want clarify that you're saying that belief in talking critters is laughable - and the burden of proof still lies with the claimant.
Well, lets go with 3. Jericho was uninhabited during both the early conquest proposed time, and the late conquest. The fall of Jericho told in that book never seems to have happened. Kathleen Kenyon excavated there, and her findings have consistently been re-confirmed. We know this because they didn't have bulldozers in ancient times, so all ruins were buried creating hills called tels. It leaves no question because pottery and the three types of dating used in archeology all work hand in hand. Though pottery alone can date things extrordinary well. The Wikipedia article on the subject is pretty thorough actually.
Not only that, but the book of Joshua and the book of Judges have different accounts of what cities were taken in conquest and what ones remained under Canaanite hands.
Why do I have to disprove your claims? You made the claim, you back it up with evidence derived from repeatable, falseable experimentation that is subject to peer review. Until then stop bugging me with frivolous claims about your particular brand of sky-daddy.
By the way, what is ‘absolute proof’ supposed to be, anyway? First, most, if not all, knowledge is inferential, and second, the truth of every empirically based proposition is related to either the truth of other such empirically based propositions, or to certain kinds of fact (whatever facts may be). The latin verb absolvere, from the past participle of which – absolutus, a, um – the English adjective ‘absolute’ originates, means ‘to free’, for which reason the English adjective actually* means ‘viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things’.** As concerns proof, evidence, and knowledge, this is obviously impossible, however.
* Unfortunately, many people use ‘absolute’ in the sense of ‘total’. Even Oxford Dictionaries Online lists this as the first meaning: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/absolute?q=absolute. Maybe this awkward use originates from the meaning ‘to complete’ which absolvere can take in certain (Latin) contexts.
I'm with Diane....... It's not my place to disprove the Bible. I don't see my atheism as weapon against religion....it's my personal belief system. I would just like it to be recognised and not seen as deviant
Hmm. Well, the word "bible" comes from a Greek word meaning "library," so the The Holy Bible may be bound in a book format, but in fact it is a set of books, so each book in the library would need to be approached separately. There really is no such thing as a "book" that is The Holy Bible. It is a collection of stories. However, judged as a collection, so many of the books within it are so ridiculous that I can't recommend it to anyone with more than a few brain cells, except as a work of speculative fiction.
I thiink they are asking the wrong questions - the questions really are better addressed, in my opinion, as are any of the claims in the bible true and to what extent are they true, embellished, fabricated, etc.
Some critical reviews of the bible that I enjoyed include:
1) Who Wrote the Bible
2) Jesus, Interrupted
3) The Rejection of Pascal's Wager (decent web site as well)
4) The End of Biblical Studies
In my opinion, the chess analogy with the pigeon highlights a significant problem with many fundamentalists- they do not want to question their beliefs or critically evaluate the bible- the fundamental position for many is the bible is the infallible word of their god. Rather than treating it like any other book or any other claims, many begin with the assumption they are true rather than asking the logical questions of what are the claims, what is the evidence, etc.
Of course, if someone wants proof, the first question to ask is, "Okay, so what would you COUNT as proof?" If you can't tell me, your question is rhetorical and not serious.
It's a trap! If you go ahead and try to prove something in the Bible is wrong, then it's either a metaphor, a translation error, or is taken out of context. Don't do it.
It's a trap! If you go ahead and try to prove something in the Bible is wrong, then it's either a metaphor, a translation error, or is taken out of context. Don't do it.
Not if the person asking is a literal interpreter. In that case, there are no metaphors (literalness excludes poetic interpretations), no translation errors (because God inspires translators), and it's all literally true, no context required.
The Bible also refers to whales as fish, but this was all before genetics and modern taxonomy, and so it's understandable. Now, if they referred to dogs as birds or sheep as fish, then I'd say they were crazy, but for their time, it's understandable. UNLESS, of course, The Bible is regarded as the infallible word of God. In that case, bats ARE birds and whales ARE fish, because God says so.
I could ask him the same question, Prove to me without the words of the bible that anything happened. It seems history around that time was very well recorded in and on a multitude of different medias or mediums. Except occurrences of the bible seem only to be recorded in that one book.
It seems likely that the Bible was written as a story book about one mans trials, triumphs and tragedies. Something that was taken by those with power and turned into a means of controlling the illiterate <-- this is proven if you actually study history (specifically art history)..
Also in these history classes you will learn where all the different versions of the bible came from (except the "original"), who changed them and why they changed them and what made this change necessary.
Included in all this history; you can take art history classes and learn about all the original belief systems that also were changed and manipulated by people of power that seem to have very similar stories; all predating the Bible. This will give you an idea of the origins of the Bible story.
Richard Jonson
You can't prove the non-existence of anything. Prove to me that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. See what I mean?
What we CAN point to is the inaccuracies and mistakes of the bible, which demonstrate that it isn't the "inerrant word of god", but rather the writings of primitive humans who didn't truly understand how the world worked.
Three examples...
Leviticus 11: "These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture...and the bat." BATS AREN'T BIRDS.
"The rabbit, though it chews its cud..." RABBITS DON'T CHEW CUD.
"There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper." THOSE ALL ARE INSECTS AND HAVE SIX LEGS.
So do you still claim the bible to be "the word of god"? Do YOU AND I know more about "god's creatures" than he does?
Feb 3, 2012
Rocky Oliver (LotusGeek)
Turn it around on this person:
1) Prove just ONE place in Cat in the Hat didn't exist
2) Prove that just ONE being in Cat in the Hat didn't exist
3) Prove that one event in the Cat in the Hat didn't happen
Can you prove just one, dear simple-minded xian?
Silly xians.
Feb 3, 2012
ichbindaswortistich
Richard Johnson has given the correct reply to the challenge. One can only prove the existence of something, not the non-existence.
Feb 3, 2012
Robert Karp
@Lotus and @Richard...awesome.
Feb 3, 2012
Don Leonard
Haven't they proved that Nazareth never existed in the first century?
Feb 3, 2012
x
It may not be possible to prove a negative, but anyone who believes that a snake or a donkey has talked in a human language is a damn fool.
Feb 3, 2012
Rocky Oliver (LotusGeek)
Good luck with that.
Feb 3, 2012
John Kelly
Well, lets go with 3. Jericho was uninhabited during both the early conquest proposed time, and the late conquest. The fall of Jericho told in that book never seems to have happened. Kathleen Kenyon excavated there, and her findings have consistently been re-confirmed. We know this because they didn't have bulldozers in ancient times, so all ruins were buried creating hills called tels. It leaves no question because pottery and the three types of dating used in archeology all work hand in hand. Though pottery alone can date things extrordinary well. The Wikipedia article on the subject is pretty thorough actually.
Not only that, but the book of Joshua and the book of Judges have different accounts of what cities were taken in conquest and what ones remained under Canaanite hands.
Done, and done.
Feb 3, 2012
Dave
Why do I have to disprove your claims? You made the claim, you back it up with evidence derived from repeatable, falseable experimentation that is subject to peer review. Until then stop bugging me with frivolous claims about your particular brand of sky-daddy.
Feb 4, 2012
ichbindaswortistich
By the way, what is ‘absolute proof’ supposed to be, anyway? First, most, if not all, knowledge is inferential, and second, the truth of every empirically based proposition is related to either the truth of other such empirically based propositions, or to certain kinds of fact (whatever facts may be). The latin verb absolvere, from the past participle of which – absolutus, a, um – the English adjective ‘absolute’ originates, means ‘to free’, for which reason the English adjective actually* means ‘viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things’.** As concerns proof, evidence, and knowledge, this is obviously impossible, however.
* Unfortunately, many people use ‘absolute’ in the sense of ‘total’. Even Oxford Dictionaries Online lists this as the first meaning: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/absolute?q=absolute. Maybe this awkward use originates from the meaning ‘to complete’ which absolvere can take in certain (Latin) contexts.
** Emphases by me.
Feb 4, 2012
Diane
Who cares? I don't feel the need to disprove the Bible. I also don't have to disprove all other religious texts in the world. They don't apply to me.
I love the response to the question, btw.
Feb 4, 2012
Rob Jay
I'm with Diane....... It's not my place to disprove the Bible. I don't see my atheism as weapon against religion....it's my personal belief system. I would just like it to be recognised and not seen as deviant
Feb 4, 2012
Unseen
Hmm. Well, the word "bible" comes from a Greek word meaning "library," so the The Holy Bible may be bound in a book format, but in fact it is a set of books, so each book in the library would need to be approached separately. There really is no such thing as a "book" that is The Holy Bible. It is a collection of stories. However, judged as a collection, so many of the books within it are so ridiculous that I can't recommend it to anyone with more than a few brain cells, except as a work of speculative fiction.
Feb 4, 2012
Ron V
I thiink they are asking the wrong questions - the questions really are better addressed, in my opinion, as are any of the claims in the bible true and to what extent are they true, embellished, fabricated, etc.
Some critical reviews of the bible that I enjoyed include:
1) Who Wrote the Bible
2) Jesus, Interrupted
3) The Rejection of Pascal's Wager (decent web site as well)
4) The End of Biblical Studies
In my opinion, the chess analogy with the pigeon highlights a significant problem with many fundamentalists- they do not want to question their beliefs or critically evaluate the bible- the fundamental position for many is the bible is the infallible word of their god. Rather than treating it like any other book or any other claims, many begin with the assumption they are true rather than asking the logical questions of what are the claims, what is the evidence, etc.
Feb 4, 2012
Dylan Martin
Stupidity at it's finest...
Feb 4, 2012
dragotron
Can you prove that the latest Spider-Man comic is FALSE?
Feb 4, 2012
Unseen
Of course, if someone wants proof, the first question to ask is, "Okay, so what would you COUNT as proof?" If you can't tell me, your question is rhetorical and not serious.
Feb 4, 2012
Skycomet the Fallen Angel
Hmm...
1. Nazareth didn't exist in the first century
2. Moses is a mythical character
3. The sun didn't stop in the sky in the battle of Jericho (assuming that ever took place - probably not)
Feb 4, 2012
Skycomet the Fallen Angel
My response to this idiot:
"If a man begins with certainty he shall end in doubt, but if he begins in doubt, he shall end in certainty."
If you can wrap your mind around that, return and I might consider talking to you.
Feb 4, 2012
Ron V
Skycomet:
How about beginning in doubt and ending in doubt and beginning in certainty and ending in certainty?
Feb 4, 2012
Anthony Sparks
The bible is an epic. I feel as if you guys care way too much about stuff that doesn't really matter.
Feb 4, 2012
dragotron
ummmm I totally meant to answer this post as if I thought it was an actual question :) totally on purpose.
Feb 4, 2012
Alice Browne
It's a trap! If you go ahead and try to prove something in the Bible is wrong, then it's either a metaphor, a translation error, or is taken out of context. Don't do it.
Feb 5, 2012
Unseen
@Alice Browne
It's a trap! If you go ahead and try to prove something in the Bible is wrong, then it's either a metaphor, a translation error, or is taken out of context. Don't do it.
Not if the person asking is a literal interpreter. In that case, there are no metaphors (literalness excludes poetic interpretations), no translation errors (because God inspires translators), and it's all literally true, no context required.
Feb 5, 2012
Dale Headley
Absolutely yes! To my complete satisfaction.
Feb 5, 2012
Not Relevant
While not actually in the categories listed, I seem to recall that the Bible classifies bats as birds.
Feb 10, 2012
Unseen
The Bible also refers to whales as fish, but this was all before genetics and modern taxonomy, and so it's understandable. Now, if they referred to dogs as birds or sheep as fish, then I'd say they were crazy, but for their time, it's understandable. UNLESS, of course, The Bible is regarded as the infallible word of God. In that case, bats ARE birds and whales ARE fish, because God says so.
Feb 10, 2012
Kyle minugh
I could ask him the same question, Prove to me without the words of the bible that anything happened. It seems history around that time was very well recorded in and on a multitude of different medias or mediums. Except occurrences of the bible seem only to be recorded in that one book.
It seems likely that the Bible was written as a story book about one mans trials, triumphs and tragedies. Something that was taken by those with power and turned into a means of controlling the illiterate <-- this is proven if you actually study history (specifically art history)..
Also in these history classes you will learn where all the different versions of the bible came from (except the "original"), who changed them and why they changed them and what made this change necessary.
Included in all this history; you can take art history classes and learn about all the original belief systems that also were changed and manipulated by people of power that seem to have very similar stories; all predating the Bible. This will give you an idea of the origins of the Bible story.
Feb 15, 2012