Can An Atheist Believe in God?

[ImmortalFlame]

That is an obvious perceptional view, born of your personal belief patterns. It is quite clear and very obvious, that this poster didn't shut my argument down with the logic and rationale they provided.

And there's your other tactic. Whenever someone points out how you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting a point of view you just say "well, that's your belief pattern".

No, it is not my belief pattern. When they said that the Bible is is not historical document they did not mean that the Bible is not a document from the past or a document which, itself, has a history. What was meant, quite clearly, is that the Bible's purpose is not historical accuracy and it therefore not reliable as a historical or factual source. What's more, the Bible has already been demonstrated to be historically inconsistent.

Are the pramids historical monuments?

In that they are monuments from history, yes. You're playing with words again.

Is the view presented by the Romans real, or is it a percetual view of themselves? When based in reality, we know the Romans were nothing more than a group of rabid barbarians who murdered and plundered for their own personal gain, this though isn't how their own personal view of history, is portrayed. So don't you consider Roman history, historical documentation either?

Except that their own history can be compared with the historical records left behind from other civilizations that documented them - not to mention the fact that there were thousands of Roman historians with whom we can compare and contrast the records of in order to accurately determine Roman history.

Once again, your mental gymnastics are unimpressive.

Yes Imortal I know you have belief patterns, and that what I write will cut directly across, them. If it isn't based on your logic, it just isn't logical at all. I know this and I get it. Same mulberry tree.

You really don't have a clue about anything, do you?

There's nothing worse than a fool who thinks he's a wise man.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

^^said it all. The Bible is not a historical source for anything except questions about the Bible. It is the last place someone should look for historical facts.

 

[footprints]

And there's your other tactic. Whenever someone points out how you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting a point of view you just say "well, that's your belief pattern".

Is everything a tactic to you Immortal? Is that how your mind works?

It is very hard to misunderstand something when the poster gives their reasoning behind it. The Bible is a historical document, this fact will not change just because your belief pattern doesn't like it.

No, it is not my belief pattern. When they said that the Bible is is not historical document they did not mean that the Bible is not a document from the past or a document which, itself, has a history. What was meant, quite clearly, is that the Bible's purpose is not historical accuracy and it therefore not reliable as a historical or factual source. What's more, the Bible has already been demonstrated to be historically inconsistent.

See section below pertaining to the pyramids.

As for the bible being historically inaccurate. So what is your belief on this, please provide your reasoning;

A) deceit
B) fiction
C) typo's
D) misinterpretation
E) freudian slips
F) unsure of what the event relayed really pertained to

In that they are monuments from history, yes. You're playing with words again.

So then are you saying the reason the pyramids were built, and the huge statement they make, is historically accurate?

Your double standards totally amaze me.

Except that their own history can be compared with the historical records left behind from other civilizations that documented them - not to mention the fact that there were thousands of Roman historians with whom we can compare and contrast the records of in order to accurately determine Roman history.

We accept the history of the Romans on Faith value. We have no real way of saying whether Julius Caesar existed or not, irrespective of what the records say to us. The closer something in the past occured to our current position, the more records there are.

Once again, your mental gymnastics are unimpressive.


You really don't have a clue about anything, do you?

There's nothing worse than a fool who thinks he's a wise man.

Mirrors are funny things aren't they?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

As for the bible being historically inaccurate. So what is your belief on this, please provide your reasoning;

B) fiction; self-explanatory, I don't believe a word of it.

We accept the history of the Romans on Faith value. We have no real way of saying whether Julius Caesar existed or not, irrespective of what the records say to us. The closer something in the past occured to our current position, the more records there are.

The difference between Roman history and the Bible is that the Romans kept more than one record. All of these records can be measured against one another and all come out to pretty much the same story. There are no records to support most of the "historical events" the Bible says occured; even those parts that were written around the same time the Roman civilization was in power. How is it that the Romans could keep so many records yet the only record to support the Bible is the Bible itself?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is everything a tactic to you Immortal? Is that how your mind works?

No.

It is very hard to misunderstand something when the poster gives their reasoning behind it. The Bible is a historical document, this fact will not change just because your belief pattern doesn't like it.

Except your reasoning is wrong because you're intentionally using the wrong definition of "historical". You are using the definition "Important or famous in history", whereas the definition clearly being used by the original poster you were arguing with was "Based on or concerned with events in history".

The Bible's purpose is not to document history - its purpose is to convert people and preach. Therefore, it is not a historical document.

Now, do you understand yet or am I going to have to explain this to you a third or fourth time?

See section below pertaining to the pyramids.

As for the bible being historically inaccurate. So what is your belief on this, please provide your reasoning;

A) deceit
B) fiction
C) typo's
D) misinterpretation
E) freudian slips
F) unsure of what the event relayed really pertained to

Well, firstly there's the issue that the Bible was written and compiled by an unidentified group of individuals and is largely about events that took place twenty to thirty years before it was written. Then there's the fact that practically all of the significant events that take place in it (feeding of the five-thousand, deaths of all the firstborn of Egypt, murder of children in Bethlehem, resurrection of Christ, etc.) have not been documented or verified by any contemporary historians or historical records.

If you're looking for more specific examples of historical inaccuracy, here's a fully annotated online version for skeptics:

Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

Of course, you don't have to read all of it. But feel free to find a couple of supposed examples and bring them to our attention if you'd like.

So then are you saying the reason the pyramids were built, and the huge statement they make, is historically accurate?

Your double standards totally amaze me.

What are you talking about?

We accept the history of the Romans on Faith value. We have no real way of saying whether Julius Caesar existed or not, irrespective of what the records say to us. The closer something in the past occured to our current position, the more records there are.

You know what, if you you're not even going to read or take on board the words of people you're debating with, why the hell do you bother? I just explained to you, precisely, why and how we can suggest the historical validity of something, and your response is "yeah, well, there's no real way to know anything about the past".

If you truly believed that, then you would not be debating with me about the historical accuracy of the Bible. In fact, if that's what you genuinely believe - that there is no reliable means by which we can determine the historical voracity of anything - then you have no basis on which to make any kind of claim whatsoever on the Bible, the pyramids or the Romans, and you effectively render every single one of your arguments meaningless.

footprints, please, for once in your life just sit, read, listen and learn. Don't just instantly scoff at any suggestion that there may be such a thing as a reliable way of determining something. Just, for once, take on board the words of another human being.

Seriously, you need to grow out of this.

Mirrors are funny things aren't they?

I've never denied that I'm a fool. It's you, on the other hand, who claims to have the best and most informed views, and it is you who scoffs at the mere suggestion of someone having a different, let alone more informed, opinion than you and are quick to call them names, degrade them or make bald assertions about them.

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.

 

[footprints]

B) fiction; self-explanatory, I don't believe a word of it.

Sorry it isn't self-explanatory.

Are you saying everybody in the world should just accept what your imagination is telling you?

The difference between Roman history and the Bible is that the Romans kept more than one record. All of these records can be measured against one another and all come out to pretty much the same story. There are no records to support most of the "historical events" the Bible says occured; even those parts that were written around the same time the Roman civilization was in power. How is it that the Romans could keep so many records yet the only record to support the Bible is the Bible itself?

Yes the Romans did keep more than one record, many of the records do not align with each other. I can pull two or more reference books from the library and each will give a different version to the same event, sometimes including dates and times. Some references sources mention one event, but it isn't found in other reference sources. History of course is recorded, by the perception of the original author.

The Romans thought they were Gods, written texts, were just one of their monuments, to themselves. The Romans were also barbarians, they spread their might wherever they could, including their own land, where the manipulation for might and power seen no bounds. Palestine on the other hand was a simple land, except for a few border skirmishes, kept mainly to themselves. Commonsense alone should tell a person why one group had many records and another group had few.

 

[footprints]

No.

Then I would suggest you stop trying to project that gabage.

Except your reasoning is wrong because you're intentionally using the wrong definition of "historical". You are using the definition "Important or famous in history", whereas the definition clearly being used by the original poster you were arguing with was "Based on or concerned with events in history".

Immortal, as it was initially me who made the statement, the bible is a historical document, I would suggest you keep it in line with my reference, and not what your imagination is telling you. And stop trying to play with words to twist it to your meaning and understanding.

As for the ridiculous reasoning given to why it cannot be a historical document, this has already been outlined. Pure double standards of reasoning.

The Bible's purpose is not to document history - its purpose is to convert people and preach. Therefore, it is not a historical document.

The bible is the perceptual history of the Hebrew people, starting from the word of mouth teachings of Adam and Eve to the time of Jesus. Nothing more and nothing less.

The bible's purpose is not to convert and preach, but to pass the stories on to anybody who has ears and who will listen. You are just letting your own belief patterns get in the road of logic and reason and your prejudice is showing.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Sorry it isn't self-explanatory.

Are you saying everybody in the world should just accept what your imagination is telling you?

Now my imagination's telling me the Bible isn't historically accurate and is mostly ficitional? This is priceless...

 

[footprints]

Now my imagination's telling me the Bible isn't historically accurate and is mostly ficitional? This is priceless...

This will be priceless......

So tell me, which parts of the Bible are inaccurate...

And which parts are mostly fictional......

And where you derive your evidence from...........

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Immortal, as it was initially me who made the statement, the bible is a historical document, I would suggest you keep it in line with my reference, and not what your imagination is telling you. And stop trying to play with words to twist it to your meaning and understanding.

Big, juicy, fat lie.

The original mention of the Bible as a "historical document" came from logician in post 84:

"Except the bible is fiction and hearsay, not a historical document."

This post was in response to a post by you in which you suggested that the Bible should be considered "evidence" of a deity. You did not mention anything about it being a historical document until post 89 when you asserted: "the bible is indeed a grouping of historical documents, at least, reproduced versions thereof."

Don't insult my intelligence, footprints. I'm much better at keeping track of a debate than you are.

As for the ridiculous reasoning given to why it cannot be a historical document, this has already been outlined. Pure double standards of reasoning.

No it isn't. I have explained in detail why we cannot take the Bible as historical document. Your inability to make the distinction between the writings of thousands of historians from an extended period of human history from an assortment of cultures all forming a historical consensus and the words of a single book of unknown authorship that has no known contemporary verification does not mean that such a distinction does not exist.

It does. That's why we learn about the fall of the Roman empire in history classes, and why we don't learn about Noah's arc.

The bible is the perceptual history of the Hebrew people, starting from the word of mouth teachings of Adam and Eve to the time of Jesus. Nothing more and nothing less.

The bible's purpose is not to convert and preach, but to pass the stories on to anybody who has ears and who will listen. You are just letting your own belief patterns get in the road of logic and reason and your prejudice is showing.

That is utter and complete nonsense and you know it. The Bible's entire purpose is to spread the supposed "word of God" and convert readers as well as offer religious guidance to those already converted. That's the entire point of religious texts.

Obviously, it's your prejudice that is getting in the way of reality.


Also, just thought I'd re-post the largest section of my previous post because I genuinely feel that you should read and understand it:

You know what, if you you're not even going to read or take on board the words of people you're debating with, why the hell do you bother? I just explained to you, precisely, why and how we can suggest the historical validity of something, and your response is "yeah, well, there's no real way to know anything about the past".

If you truly believed that, then you would not be debating with me about the historical accuracy of the Bible. In fact, if that's what you genuinely believe - that there is no reliable means by which we can determine the historical voracity of anything - then you have no basis on which to make any kind of claim whatsoever on the Bible, the pyramids or the Romans, and you effectively render every single one of your arguments meaningless.

footprints, please, for once in your life just sit, read, listen and learn. Don't just instantly scoff at any suggestion that there may be such a thing as a reliable way of determining something. Just, for once, take on board the words of another human being.

Seriously, you need to grow out of this.

 

[Peacewise]

What are the sources that do not provide contemporary verification of the bible, ie
what are the contemporary sources that refute the historicity of the bible.

And how can we ascertain the accuracy of those sources.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Hmmm, so being an old document doesn't make it a historical document?

Wow, thank you for that great insight. So therefore the pyramids stop being historical monuments, due to the same reasoning? After all, the pyramids were theoligical monuments.

Thank you for sharing your logic and reason, but at this stage, I can find better logic and reason to align with.

You're confusing the words historic (famous thing from history)and historical (meant to teach history). The Bible is a historic document definitely, everybody has heard about it and it's really old, just like the pyramids. The Bible does little in the actual teaching of history though, it is more of a moral guide. Most of the "history" the Bible teaches is fictional. Examples being the entire book of Genesis (it is ridiculous to expect a mentally stable adult to accept it as truth), the story of Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt, and the life of Jesus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are the sources that do not provide contemporary verification of the bible, ie
what are the contemporary sources that refute the historicity of the bible.

I don't think you can refute the entire Bible, because much of the material in it wouldn't be the sort of thing we'd expect to see in other contemporary sources, but two come to mind:

- Egyptians kept records of their number of slaves, what nations they came from, etc. These contradict the idea that there was a sudden, massive drop in the numbers of slaves as described in Exodus.

- in Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus describes the reign of Herod the Great, but makes no mention of Herod's slaughter of the male children as described in the Gospels. This is despite the fact that Josephus was meticulous about his details (so it would be out of keeping with him to simply omit such a major event), lived at the same time as people who would've been eyewitnesses (so he would've known about the event if it had happened), and wasn't a fan of Herod anyhow (so he wouldn't have had motive to hide an event like this).

And how can we ascertain the accuracy of those sources.

I think you could spend an entire post-graduate career in history trying to answer that question.

 

[Peacewise]

I don't think you can refute the entire Bible, because much of the material in it wouldn't be the sort of thing we'd expect to see in other contemporary sources, but two come to mind:

- Egyptians kept records of their number of slaves, what nations they came from, etc. These contradict the idea that there was a sudden, massive drop in the numbers of slaves as described in Exodus.

- in Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus describes the reign of Herod the Great, but makes no mention of Herod's slaughter of the male children as described in the Gospels. This is despite the fact that Josephus was meticulous about his details (so it would be out of keeping with him to simply omit such a major event), lived at the same time as people who would've been eyewitnesses (so he would've known about the event if it had happened), and wasn't a fan of Herod anyhow (so he wouldn't have had motive to hide an event like this).


I think you could spend an entire post-graduate career in history trying to answer that question.

thank you kindly for the response however I remain unconvinced of your refutation of the bible as an accurate historical source.

Please provide your source for your first point regarding the Egyptian records or lack thereof of Exodus.

For you second point...
A discussion with my uncle, an amateur but enthusiastic and meticulous bible historian and some googling by myself has produced...

Whilst Flavius Josephus was born about 37 AD, and the event of the slaughter of the male infants by Herod's command occurred about 6 bc, a full 43 years earlier and hence Flavius was not a witness to it, but two generations removed from the event.

Though R.T France describes Bethlahem as a "small village" and the 'massacre' as a "few deaths", and France also states that the few numbers of deaths would also be a reason for the lack of it's recording within Flavius records because Flavius recorded death of a more spectacular nature.

Massacre of the Innocents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whilst the following archaeology link supports the indication that Bethlehem was so small because there is not even archaeological evidence of it's existence in that time period, and hence likely Bethlehem was a small place.
Where was Jesus Born?

In ancient history the validity of ALL of the documents are difficult to ascertain, and hence one must begin by looking at all the sources with equal weighting, including the Bible.

 

[sniper762]

yes, an athiest CAN believe in god, he has just chozen not to.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

yes, an athiest CAN believe in god, he has just chozen not to.

Do you think one can choose to believe in god or not?

 

[footprints]

Big, juicy, fat lie.

The original mention of the Bible as a "historical document" came from logician in post 84:

"Except the bible is fiction and hearsay, not a historical document."

.

Which of course was in response to my saying the bible is evidence just that some atheist will not accept it. LOL historic evidence went without saying, the bible isn't built of modern texts, I think most people understand that and why, it would have tweaked logicians associations and reply. Logician knew what I was saying, why didn't you? LOL because I specifically didn't use the word historic, and didn't use the word document? LOL the evidence I was referring to was the document, logician knew that too, why didn't you?

The debate then went on as some atheist type belief patterns tried to change and alter the definition of historic.

 

[footprints]

That is utter and complete nonsense and you know it. The Bible's entire purpose is to spread the supposed "word of God" and convert readers as well as offer religious guidance to those already converted. That's the entire point of religious texts.

Obviously, it's your prejudice that is getting in the way of reality.

No I do not know that, well I do know that, but I dismiss it for the prejudiced garbage it is. The Bible does not have magical powers, it cannot convert anybody, unless the person wants to be converted. A hard lined atheist could read the bible a million times and still not be converted, their own belief patterns would be continually telling them what they were reading was garbage, and they would twist and distort everything in it to give them a negative value of it. In fact to the hard lined atheist, reading the bible a million times would further harden their atheist position.

Also, just thought I'd re-post the largest section of my previous post because I genuinely feel that you should read and understand it:

You know what, if you you're not even going to read or take on board the words of people you're debating with, why the hell do you bother? I just explained to you, precisely, why and how we can suggest the historical validity of something, and your response is "yeah, well, there's no real way to know anything about the past".

If you truly believed that, then you would not be debating with me about the historical accuracy of the Bible. In fact, if that's what you genuinely believe - that there is no reliable means by which we can determine the historical voracity of anything - then you have no basis on which to make any kind of claim whatsoever on the Bible, the pyramids or the Romans, and you effectively render every single one of your arguments meaningless.

I read and take on board everthing a poster writes. Just because I don't change my belief, doesn't mean I haven't taken their conversation on board. I will not change my knowledge for lesser knowledge, that would be a ridiculous position to take.

If you are going to take that stance, why don't you take on board everything I write? I already know the answer to this, you believe your knowledge is greater than mine. I understand that.

As for pertaining to us debating the historical accuracy of the bible, we have never been debating this perspective, well you may have been, I haven't. My perspective on this was put up in my first post, accruacy or inaccuracy, has absolutely nothing to do with something being historic, age does this and how it affects history, not accuracy. It is the whole meaning of the word historic.

 

[footprints]

footprints, please, for once in your life just sit, read, listen and learn. Don't just instantly scoff at any suggestion that there may be such a thing as a reliable way of determining something. Just, for once, take on board the words of another human being.

Seriously, you need to grow out of this.

Immortal, please for once in your life just sit, read, listen and learn. Don't just instantly scoff at any suggestion that there may be such a thing as a reliable way of dertermining something. Just,for once,take on board the words of another human being.

Seriously, you need to grow out of this.

You see Immortal, two can play that silly superior game. And from my perspective it is true and correct, just as from your perspective to me, it is true and correct.

If I had your belief patterns Immortal, I wouldn't be me, I would be you. Your knowledge means something to you, it doesn't mean that much to me, because I have already held your knowledge, I got rid of it, you haven't, that is because you are you, and you are not me.

I dertermine things through logic and reason, what evidence tells me is. I do not want to twist and distort evidence which tells me something isn't historic unless it is accurate. The specific definition of historic is; "something significant in history, important in or affecting the course of history." The Bible has certainly proven all of these points, irrespective of what your belief patterns tell you.

The bible itself, isn't completely inaccurate. Albeit an atheist can make it all inaccurate in the blink of an eye due to the own beliefs, their bias and their prejudice. People who work on logic, reason and evidence, go through and sort out the difference. Many things are written in the bible which we cannot really evaluate, a persons own personal beliefs will give them the answer they need for these things. The atheist no different to the theist in this respect.

A little tip for you immortal, it doesn't matter how many atheists or atheist supporters you have in the debate, supporting your view, doesn't make your belief right, especially not when evidence goes against you. Birds of a feather will flock together, atheists believe things a certain way, simply because they are atheists. Other atheist type thinkers supporting your view, only supports your own belief patterns, and leaves you with the illusion that you are right. It is a primary reason why a persons own intelligence will stop them from learning, other people support their misbelief. We note this in both children and adults, children most often, a parent will check their child for doing something wrong, the child will talk to another child and they will both agree the parent was wrong, all in all the child doesn't learn, albeit sometimes they learn the lesson to be more sneaky and not get caught.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which of course was in response to my saying the bible is evidence just that some atheist will not accept it. LOL historic evidence went without saying, the bible isn't built of modern texts, I think most people understand that and why, it would have tweaked logicians associations and reply. Logician knew what I was saying, why didn't you? LOL because I specifically didn't use the word historic, and didn't use the word document? LOL the evidence I was referring to was the document, logician knew that too, why didn't you?

The debate then went on as some atheist type belief patterns tried to change and alter the definition of historic.

Nice to see you tactfully dodged the rest of my post. It's almost as if you were trying to avoid it.

What's more, this is your that I was refuting:

Immortal, as it was initially me who made the statement, the bible is a historical document, I would suggest you keep it in line with my reference, and not what your imagination is telling you. And stop trying to play with words to twist it to your meaning and understanding.


Anyway, here was my response:


Big, juicy, fat lie.

The original mention of the Bible as a "historical document" came from logician in post 84:

"Except the bible is fiction and hearsay, not a historical document."

This post was in response to a post by you in which you suggested that the Bible should be considered "evidence" of a deity. You did not mention anything about it being a historical document until post 89 when you asserted: "the bible is indeed a grouping of historical documents, at least, reproduced versions thereof."

Don't insult my intelligence, footprints. I'm much better at keeping track of a debate than you are.


So, you LIED about your claim that you were the first to mention that the Bible was historical document, and now you're LYING about what I've said in response to that claim. You're not doing yourself any favors.

And, by the way, "LOL" isn't the best way to begin a sentence if you want to look remotely intelligent.