Comment by Richard Jonson on February 3, 2012 at 10:05am

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?

Comment by Rocky Oliver (LotusGeek) on February 3, 2012 at 12:40pm

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.

Comment by ichbindaswortistich on February 3, 2012 at 1:58pm

Richard Johnson has given the correct reply to the challenge. One can only prove the existence of something, not the non-existence.

Comment by Robert Karp on February 3, 2012 at 2:00pm

@Lotus and @Richard...awesome.

Comment by Don Leonard on February 3, 2012 at 8:12pm

Haven't they proved that Nazareth never existed in the first century? 

Comment by Rocky Oliver (LotusGeek) on February 3, 2012 at 8:28pm
@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.

Good luck with that.
Comment by John Kelly on February 3, 2012 at 9:53pm

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.  

Comment by Dave on February 4, 2012 at 5:54am

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.

Comment by ichbindaswortistich on February 4, 2012 at 6:22am

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.

Comment by Diane on February 4, 2012 at 10:06am

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.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service