Fine. I claim that everything in the Lord of the Rings is true. We just haven't found Middle Earth yet.
Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
Are we seriuosly arguing about why it is impossible to prove a negative?
Dear Rob M.,
It is impossible to prove a negative.
Sincerely,
DanK
Charles, Ekimospy-
I agree with you guys and I'm not saying that since I believe the Bible is true, you have to prove its false.
You've been saying what I've been saying all long in different words - someone sayin the Bible is fiction is indeed saying its characters are as well especially if they aren't specificitly pointing out a certain scenario.
I call Atheists out who make sweeping assertions about fabrications to either prove it was, or show a little supporting evidence. In my experience, little, if any, evidence is ever put forth OUTSIDE of speculation, which is the mother of all eff-ups.
... someone sayin the Bible is fiction is indeed saying its characters are as well especially if they aren't specificitly pointing out a certain scenario.
This really isn't true -- not in a general sense, and not in a biblical sense. There are millions of people who believe in the idea of a monotheistic God but think that what is written in the bible is nonsense. And certainly, in the specific case of Jesus, many people believe he existed, but don't necessarily trust the stories told about him decades later and codified into scriptures.
This is not the same as saying something isn't true, which is the difference between evidence being required and not being required.
Personally, I am perfectly fine with folks who don't trust the stories, but not with those who assert they're false and made-up.
This is not the same as saying something isn't true, which is the difference between evidence being required and not being required.
Personally, I am perfectly fine with folks who don't trust the stories, but not with those who assert they're false and made-up.
Obviously, this is a continuation from the Bible Movies thread.
I obviously know that if we're saying that God exists, we have to prove it.. this I understand totally.
However, is there every any burden on those who claim the Bible is a work of fiction or God doesn't exist? As far as I know, they unfaily keep the burden on the believer, but they tend to make claims. When asked for evidence (speaking about those I've encountered on this fourm), I hardly see any outside of clams.
I ask because I can't being to recount how many Youtube vids I've watched of Dawkins and other Militant Atheists scream and shout to the top of their voices about we're all delusioned and the Bible is nothing more than a work of fiction. I have also looked to seek out the evidence they have to back this claim. Honestly, for a goup of people who base their whole careers off of whether or not they have something "observable and testable", they surely base all these claims with hardly anything observable and testable.
I don't think the burden is on agnostics because they cleverly, and rightly, hold the default position until they've seen sufficient evidence. However, you have strong Atheists who never really provide any proof for their claims against the Bible, yet it seems ok that they can actually make claims and not prove them.
Any thoughts? I am just curious and if I am wrong, I can take rational correction.
History is rich with man butchering the Word of God. And while I gladly admit that there are TONS of untestible claims in the Bible (did Jesus walk on water, did Jonah live in a fish for 3 days, etc), the fact is that all testible claims pass with flying colors. Now slow down and unclench your panties... What DOESN'T pass the test is man's interpretations (global scale flood, 6 24hr creation 'days', etc).
So for the atheist, the burden only shifts to them when a Christian gives real support for Biblical claims and they refuse to believe it.
Just like politics, all you get are talking points from the other side and the same unwillingness to learn.
For instance, if you still say the Bible is a fable because 'Omg billionz of animals in the ark where did they all poops?!" then you haven't really tried too hard to read it. No, you haven't.
Last point: proof of God doesn't negate faith. To Christians, the faith part is that He is who He says He is, not whether or not He exists.
Just so you notice, you provided no evidence of anything.
Just so you notice, this thread is about where the line is for an atheists' burden of proof.
If you have a particular testable portion of the Bible you would like me to TRY to provide evidence for, by all means say it. Let's try to keep tactics like 'purposely missing the point' to P&N.
Just so you notice, this thread is about where the line is for an atheists' burden of proof.
If you have a particular testable portion of the Bible you would like me to TRY to provide evidence for, by all means say it. Let's try to keep tactics like 'purposely missing the point' to P&N.
I didn't use Noah's ark as 'testable', merely as an example of people refusing to read past an interpretation that proves their point (in this case the Flood doesn't require a global covering, which in turn doesn't require billions of animals to fit.)Perhaps you should clarify then what constitutes a testable portion of the Bible then. You dismissed Noah's ark as testable (I think?)
Agreed. Global flood not necessary OR likely (see above)but I don't understand why. We can test if there is sufficient water on Earth (there isn't).
No one really knows what is meant by 'gopher wood', so this isn't perfectly testable. Also, there was metal work at the time for reinforcement and if economic concerns are removed, a ship that size of wood is viable.We can test if a ship can be built of gopher wood and pitch to the specified parameters (they can't).
Agreed. Again, see above.We can test if all of the animals in the world can fit in that size space (no).
Agreed. Again, this is another assumption that all creationists believe in 24 hour interpretations of 'day' in Genesis. In actuality, the 'long period of time' interpretation of the word 'yom' harmonizes better, not only with modern science, but with other verses in the Bible.We can test if there is a simultaneous genetic bottleneck for all land dwelling species that occurs simultaneously (take a guess).
We can't test this against a more scientifically realistic interpretation that puts the flood back to 50,000 years ago. In order for a flood to wipe out the 'world' of man in the Mesopotamian valley, it would have to date before the migration of modern humans from that area. It would be awesome if we had literature that old, but sadly that's not the case.We can test if there is a linguistic bottleneck that occurs for all cultures which would be indicated by only eight survivors (nope).
No need of this.We can test if the plants of which there is no record of Noah collection could survive on the bottom of the ocean (hell no) or could even all survive in the environmental conditions of the Ark (orchids could not). The list goes on.
As I said before, the Noahs' ark story doesn't fail a single test. Man's interpretation of it (billions of animals) does.Noah's ark contains a lot of testable propositions and a huge number of them fail and so some clarification might be in order for explaining why this isn't one or what exactly you are talking about.
Yes, you're missing the point. I'm trying to be thorough with this so I built my post like this:jackstar7 Was I missing the point? You stated plainly:
"the fact is that all testible claims pass with flying colors."
You even use the word "fact" right there. So while this thread is about the burden of proof when it comes to atheists, you sir, have spawned a tangent with an amazing claim that I think requires at least 10 examples.
snip
To me, that asks a billion more questions than it answers.For the atheist, the burden only shifts to them when a Christian gives real support for Biblical claims and they refuse to believe it.
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh,[c] for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood.[d] Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits,[e] its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. 16 Make a roof[f] for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and set the door of the ark in its side. Make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.