NationStates Jolt Archive

A call to all Atheists.

Why do we not believe that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc. is true, yet blindly believe in history books? This is hypocritical. If you cannot bring empircal proof to convince me that this happened, I will not believe it. That is what Atheists say of God.

Prove to me that there was a General George Washington, who later became president. Prove to me that there was a Spanish Inquisition. Prove to me that the English were not always in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Now, I urge all of NSG to keep an open mind, and question everything.

A call to all Atheists.

Why do we not believe that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc. is true, yet blindly believe in history books? This is hypocritical. If you cannot bring empircal proof to convince me that this happened, I will not believe it. That is what Atheists say of God.

Prove to me that there was a General George Washington, who later became president. Prove to me that there was a Spanish Inquisition. Prove to me that the English were not always in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Now, I urge all of NSG to keep an open mind, and question everything.

Em, no, I think you'll find you're talking about two completely different things.

A call to all Atheists.

Why do we not believe that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc. is true, yet blindly believe in history books? This is hypocritical. If you cannot bring empircal proof to convince me that this happened, I will not believe it. That is what Atheists say of God.

Prove to me that there was a General George Washington, who later became president. Prove to me that there was a Spanish Inquisition. Prove to me that the English were not always in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Now, I urge all of NSG to keep an open mind, and question everything.

I've seen politicians, cops, and if theres a constituional monarchy theres always the possibility of one existing in another form.

Never seen an invisible man, the dead rise, burning bushes speak, waters part, boats filled with hordes of species etc and so on.

Em, no, I think you'll find you're talking about two completely different things.

Care to tell me why you think so?

lame

a word of advice: your going to get allot of flak from this I suggest you run...fast

also nobody blindly believes history books because there is so much that go against each other thus people form there own views and opinions based on the evidence there is also a hard slap of your own views added in

Thus no they do not blindly believe books they form there own opinions and have there own little idea of how history happened it doesn’t take a GCSE to realise that (but it helps)

A call to all Atheists.

Why do we not believe that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc. is true, yet blindly believe in history books?

We do?

What's blind about it? Do you really want me to explain the difference between mythology and using primary and secondary historical sources?

If you cannot bring empircal proof to convince me that this happened, I will not believe it. That is what Atheists say of God.

Here's a call to Theists. Why do you believe the Bible, but not in Greek Mythology? You have faith in God, but not in Zeus? Well, why not? Clearly, you're hypocrites.

Prove to me that there was a General George Washington, who later became president. Prove to me that there was a Spanish Inquisition. Prove to me that the English were not always in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Oh, you just have to have faith. That's what you want to hear, yes? You just have to have faith, therefore history is just as valid as mythology.

Prove to me that there was a General George Washington, who later became president. Prove to me that there was a Spanish Inquisition. Prove to me that the English were not always in a Constitutional Monarchy.
You should refer your questions to the Ministry of Truth.

Here's a call to Theists. Why do you believe the Bible, but not in Greek Mythology? You have faith in God, but not in Zeus? Well, why not? Clearly, you're hypocrites.

They believe in the Bible because they believe it was given to prophets by God, and the New Testament is the words of the Son of God and the Apostles as written down by various disciples of Jesus.

I've seen politicians, cops, and if theres a constituional monarchy theres always the possibility of one existing in another form.

Never seen an invisible man, the dead rise, burning bushes speak, waters part, boats filled with hordes of species etc and so on.

Yes, I agree, but can you actually prove that there was a Spanish Inquisition, President George Washington, or non-Constitutional Monarchy in England?

They believe in the Bible because they believe it was given to prophets by God, and the New Testament is the words of the Son of God and the Apostles as written down by various disciples of Jesus.
Oh, c'mon, Vet! You're way too smart to side with this twit!

A call to all Atheists.

Why do we not believe that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc. is true, yet blindly believe in history books? This is hypocritical. If you cannot bring empircal proof to convince me that this happened, I will not believe it. That is what Atheists say of God.

Prove to me that there was a General George Washington, who later became president. Prove to me that there was a Spanish Inquisition. Prove to me that the English were not always in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Now, I urge all of NSG to keep an open mind, and question everything.

Your logic is flawed.

Care to tell me why you think so?

Alright then.

Most of us believe the history books because there is genuine evidence that the History Books base their information on. We view this evidence, and decided whether or not it is true (usually with everyone drawing more or less the same conclusions).

On the other hand, there needs to be a leap of faith to believe that the "Insert Holy Scripture Title Here" is true, you know? For instance, I read a book on the English Parliament, I can go to London and see Big Ben, but if I read the Bible, I can't go see the Cross Jesus died on.

But really, I'm pretty sure you do understand what I mean, and you're just playing devil's advocat....

Troll....

Your logic is flawed.

How so? Prove it.

A call to all Atheists.

Why do we not believe that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc. is true, yet blindly believe in history books? This is hypocritical. If you cannot bring empircal proof to convince me that this happened, I will not believe it. That is what Atheists say of God.

Prove to me that there was a General George Washington, who later became president. Prove to me that there was a Spanish Inquisition. Prove to me that the English were not always in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Now, I urge all of NSG to keep an open mind, and question everything.

I don't 'believe' any historical fact.

Anything I haven't personally witnessed is questionable... and even things I have witnessed are judged as being only as reliable as my own perceptions/recollections.

However - there are different types of sources by which historical data should be judged - independence from bias (as much as is ever possible), and relative contemporaryness being very important.

There is a lot of independent, contemporary evidence to support that, for example, George Washington really lived - but little or none to support any of the main faith arguments - like the existence of a god or gods, or the literal existence of the man the Christian scripture calls 'Jesus'.

Yes, I agree, but can you actually prove that there was a Spanish Inquisition, President George Washington, or non-Constitutional Monarchy in England?

can you prove that you're not a giant chipmunk?

Nothing can be, with absolute 100% CERTAINTY ever absolutly proven. We can't prove that this is not all an elaborate illusion, dream, or matrix.

We can, however, state that something is proven, beyond all reasonable doubt. Can I say for absolute 100% certainty that there was a washington? No, I can't say for absolute 100% certainty there's every been ANYTHING, and that the whole world is not in fact electronic impulses into my brain.

I can say however that as far as the burden of proof has been, washington's existance has met every test we can conceive of. We have his writings. We have the writings of those who have known him. We have artifacts that once belonged to him.

Is that absolute, undeniable proof? no. Is it proof beyond a reasonable level of doubt? Yes. And that's more than any god's got.

They believe in the Bible because they believe

So, circular reasoning.

Well, if that's good enough for theists, why not good enough for atheism? Why are we held to higher standards regarding belief or lack thereof?

Is it because it's only been a relatively recent trend that we don't get fucking burned at the stake and there needs to be something to fill that gap?

Alright then.

Most of us believe the history books because there is genuine evidence that the History Books base their information on. We view this evidence, and decided whether or not it is true (usually with everyone drawing more or less the same conclusions).

On the other hand, there needs to be a leap of faith to believe that the "Insert Holy Scripture Title Here" is true, you know? For instance, I read a book on the English Parliament, I can go to London and see Big Ben, but if I read the Bible, I can't go see the Cross Jesus died on.

But really, I'm pretty sure you do understand what I mean, and you're just playing devil's advocat....

Troll....

What Evidence? Ruins? They could be built by the government. Artifacts? They could also be built by the government. So seeing English Parliament is proof that there once was not a parliament? Also, I am no troll.

Oh, you just have to have faith. That's what you want to hear, yes? You just have to have faith, therefore history is just as valid as mythology.

Actually, mythology is valid.

It contains moral and spiritual truths in the context of a set of stories that are taken as true in a usually metaphorical or semi-historical sense. The everyday meaning of myth is just as far from the academic definition as the common definition of theory is from the scientific meaning of the term. It's not a pejorative by any stretch.

Yes, I agree, but can you actually prove that there was a Spanish Inquisition, President George Washington, or non-Constitutional Monarchy in England?

1) look at bodies and various un-biased sources from the time
2) look at the arbitraries of his death from around the world, count the votes from the election
3) look at the culture (stories especially), again varied sources and also you can look at the various battlefield evidence where the supposed constitutional monarchy was made

Actually, mythology is valid.

Not as fact. Sorry.

It's not a pejorative by any stretch.

Nor is it history.

What Evidence? Ruins? They could be built by the government. Artifacts? They could also be built by the government. So seeing English Parliament is proof that there once was not a parliament? Also, I am no troll.

Can you prove that?

So, circular reasoning.

Well, if that's good enough for theists, why not good enough for atheism? Why are we held to higher standards regarding belief or lack thereof?

Well, atheists tend to see their position as more logical and rational than that of theists. Therefore, they're going to be held to a higher logical standard because they consider their position to be more logical than the theistic position. I mean, if you claim that belief in God is irrational or illogical, you're going to have to demonstrate that your beliefs are rational and logical.

Is it because it's only been a relatively recent trend that we don't get fucking burned at the stake and there needs to be something to fill that gap?

Beats me.

ok george washington

we have papers signed by george washington, portraits of george washington that he posed for, letters to and from him, independant contemporary reports about him, legal documents, decendants of the washington family. it goes on and on, it hasnt been that long since he was alive.

however, we do know that certain common stories that were told about george washington over the years are false. things that were written in biographies about him. unlike a religious figure, when an historian reveals new facts (or refutes old facts) about george washington everyone checks it out and if it can be proven, the new fact becomes accepted as the truth about george washington.

there are no contemporary supporting documents about, for example, the life of jesus. when you get into the realm of the supernatural beliefs about jesus there is no possible proof.

thats a big difference.

What Evidence? Ruins? They could be built by the government. Artifacts? They could also be built by the government.

thats why there is carbon dating

How so? Prove it.

Because by your logic, WWII might not have happened because you weren't there. You're simply discounting thousands upon thousands of witness accounts for no reason whatsoever. How do you know the world even existed before you were born? Or became cognizant?

You may as well just say the only thing you can absolutely prove is that you're where you are right now, and that the rest of the world doesn't even necessarily exist.

Pretty bleak, but if that's what you'd like, go for it.

Not as fact. Sorry.

Nor is it history.

No, of course not. It contains historical events, but it's not history in and of itself; even so, that's not even the point of mythology to begin with.

It happened because Ken Burns says so. Praise Ken Burns! :D

Not as fact. Sorry.

Nor is it history.

No - mythology can be a very useful tool for the historian, it just has to be viewed correctly.

Example: If one reads about the Tuatha de Daanan, Fir Bolg, Fomori, Daoine Sidhe - etc - one can read it as unrealistic fairy tales (literally 'fairy' tales) - or one can compare it to other sources and see it as one mythologised way of describing the settlement of the 'Celts', from one perspective.

Well, atheists tend to see their position as more logical and rational than that of theists. Therefore, they're going to be held to a higher logical standard because they consider their position to be more logical than the theistic position. I mean, if you claim that belief in God is irrational or illogical, you're going to have to demonstrate that your beliefs are rational and logical.

No, whether my beliefs are rational has nothing to do with whether yours are not. They may be opposites, they may not, but proving/disproving one does not disprove/prove the other.

And atheism isn't a claim. It's the answer "no" to the question, "Do you believe in [my] God?"

The burden of proof has always been on those who believe in this or that, not in those who don't.

What Evidence? Ruins? They could be built by the government. Artifacts? They could also be built by the government. So seeing English Parliament is proof that there once was not a parliament? Also, I am no troll.

Can you prove there's a government? And you forgot to deny being a troll in really big letters, to make it true ;)

1) look at bodies and various un-biased sources from the time
2) look at the arbitraries of his death from around the world, count the votes from the election
3) look at the culture (stories especially), again varied sources and also you can look at the various battlefield evidence where the supposed constitutional monarchy was made

1) Look at the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran/other holy book
2) And we know that these were not fabricated?
3) Once again, stories like the Gospels stories, battles like the take over of Israel by Babylon

1) Look at the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran/other holy book

Do you have any other sources that substantiate it?

you seem to think all other sources of history are based on a single text. If there was only one source in all the world that talked about Washington, we'd consider him speculative too.

And considering that many holy books actively contradict one another, the fact they are in fact less useful as historical value than nothing at all.

No, of course not. It contains historical events, but it's not history in and of itself; even so, that's not even the point of mythology to begin with.

Unfortunately, some people still insist on treating mythology as the "True Word of God." It would be a better world if we could end the confusion.

1) Look at the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran/other holy book
2) And we know that these were not fabricated?
3) Once again, stories like the Gospels stories, battles like the take over of Israel by Babylon

1) hardly credible sources especially considering the bias involved with selling a religion

2) carbon dating/observing the level of degrading in the paper

3) the Jews coming under Babylon’s control is well documented though thus there a plenty of sources in Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian to name a few

Well let's keep this short and sweet.

The differance in History and religion is that one is science and the other isn't.
Obvious yes, but one of the main things that make science well...science is the fact that one is able to disprouve certain claims or theories based on fact. Religion doesn't allow this. The consequence being that I cannot either prouve or disprouve religion. With science and therefor history you can.

Was the world ever ruled by a 17 feet tall rabbit that ate chocolate? Not likely because no findings seem to suggest this event. Was there ever the second world war? Highly likely seeing the amount of evidence not only 2nd but also first hand.

Yes ofcourse there is always the possibilty this all just a major scam put up by the zionist lobbby that is supported by the Illuminati, but it is just very unlikely. Yes for crying out loud maybe there is a 0.00000000000000000001 percent chance (and thats being genereous) that all facts upon this planet is a lie, but why not go for the winning team and choose the other 99.999999999999999%?

So do stop mixing religion with science and science with religion. It makes both sides look silly.

Do you have any other sources that substantiate it?

you seem to think all other sources of history are based on a single text. If there was only one source in all the world that talked about Washington, we'd consider him speculative too.

And considering that many holy books actively contradict one another, the fact they are in fact less useful as historical value than nothing at all.

Yet, there is no one book on Washington, as there is no one book on Christianity (supposedly a collection of many books, as well as the books that didn't make the cut). All I'm saying, people should question things that would otherwise go unquestioned. I'm not saying that there was no Holocaust, or Spanish Inquisition, or non-Constitutional Monarchy in England, I'm saying there is no complete proof on it.

Yet, there is no one book on Washington, as there is no one book on Christianity (supposedly a collection of many books, as well as the books that didn't make the cut). All I'm saying, people should question things that would otherwise go unquestioned. I'm not saying that there was no Holocaust, or Spanish Inquisition, or non-Constitutional Monarchy in England, I'm saying there is no complete proof on it.

there's no complete proof that you are not, in fact, a chipmunk. There is proof far more likely than not, however.

I'm not saying that there was no Holocaust, or Spanish Inquisition, or non-Constitutional Monarchy in England, I'm saying there is no complete proof on it.

I think we all gathered that in our lives especially when history disagrees with itself and changes entirely why did you think this point needed to be made?

1) Look at the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran/other holy book
2) And we know that these were not fabricated?
3) Once again, stories like the Gospels stories, battles like the take over of Israel by Babylon

it depends on what you mean by fabricated? there are historically accurate references in the bible.

there was a babylon, egypt, rome. there was a king herod, a pontius pilate, a ceasar augustus.

there was no census of the whole earth (not even of the roman empire, not even of israel at the right time), there was no star, no wise men, no slaughter of the innocents.

some things in the bible reflect history, some reflect the tendency of the ancients to attribute certain kinds of stories to whatever religious figure they were promoting at the time. some was meant to be literally true, some mythically true.

Yet, there is no one book on Washington, as there is no one book on Christianity (supposedly a collection of many books, as well as the books that didn't make the cut). All I'm saying, people should question things that would otherwise go unquestioned. I'm not saying that there was no Holocaust, or Spanish Inquisition, or non-Constitutional Monarchy in England, I'm saying there is no complete proof on it.

You still haven't denied being a troll in really big letters . . .

Yet, there is no one book on Washington, as there is no one book on Christianity (supposedly a collection of many books, as well as the books that didn't make the cut). All I'm saying, people should question things that would otherwise go unquestioned. I'm not saying that there was no Holocaust, or Spanish Inquisition, or non-Constitutional Monarchy in England, I'm saying there is no complete proof on it.

What about dead bodies and that we are able to determine time and cause of death by examining them.

Also history is not a science.
Also it is through Acheaology that we learn a lot of history. Archeaology is a mix of science and history.

Also history is not a science.


Allas I fear you are wrong. Science does not mean men wearing white lab coats mixing obscure ingredients. In this case history is widely considered a social science.

What about dead bodies and that we are able to determine time and cause of death by examining them.

Also history is not a science.
Also it is through Acheaology that we learn a lot of history. Archeaology is a mix of science and history.

So, have you ever done carbon dating on the things we are discussing?

So, have you ever done carbon dating on the things we are discussing?

by all means he can but considering the scientists did not have a bias and that there experiments are always well documented he may as well take there word for it however there is a difference between looking at the evidence and saying “that’s likely to be true” and looking at the bible and saying “ that is true”

Allas I fear you are wrong. Science does not mean men wearing white lab coats mixing obscure ingredients. In this case history is widely considered a social science.

Hard science has, well, a hard time sometimes, with the soft sciences claiming to be "science."

Hard science has, well, a hard time sometimes, with the soft sciences claiming to be "science."

Not needed, seeing the generally accepted description for science is a system that follows the rules of scientific method. The confusion is the difference between applied science which would be your "hard" science and pure science. Pure science containing both social and natural scienes while applied sciences would be purely natural.

Allas I fear you are wrong. Science does not mean men wearing white lab coats mixing obscure ingredients. In this case history is widely considered a social science.

Yes its a Social Science. I am one of those people in lab coats mixing obscure ingrediants.

So, have you ever done carbon dating on the things we are discussing?

Anyone can become an archaeologist with enough work. You don't have to be one of the people who are "in on the government secret"

Is this a serious thread? Or has someone watched the Colbert Report too often and now can not believe in "facts" that come out of "books"?

Yes its a Social Science. I am one of those people in lab coats mixing obscure ingrediants.

Wow! This is a great new tactic in thread-winning! Get involved in a related-but-OT side topic, the OP gets bored, and goes back to his hole! (And it's always a "his." I've yet to see a female troll ;) )

Is this a serious thread? Or has someone watched the Colbert Report too often and now can not believe in "facts" that come out of "books"?

I believe the upthrust of the OP's argument is if you believe in history, it is inconsistant to not believe in religion. I am putting words in his mouth, though, so I could be wrong.

Is this a serious thread? Or has someone watched the Colbert Report too often and now can not believe in "facts" that come out of "books"?

This is in fact, a serious thread, and do you believe that anyone believes that Stephen says what he means? Please, it's a comedy show.

I believe the upthrust of the OP's argument is if you believe in history, it is inconsistant to not believe in religion. I am putting words in his mouth, though, so I could be wrong.

What I'm saying is that people should question everything. Do not believe blindly, whether it's religion or history.

Yes its a Social Science. I am one of those people in lab coats mixing obscure ingrediants.

Good, then I hope you can find peace in my reasoning that for something to be considered science it must follow the scientific method.

Wikipedia does a good job explaining it:

Wiki me!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)

And ill refrain from further attempts at hijacking the thread. My most humble of apolagies...

What I'm saying is that people should question everything. Do not believe blindly, whether it's religion or history.

The problem being that questioning religion is practically useless.

I can question for example if people truelly have X number of teeth. By mere observation we can accomplish if a certain theory is true or not.

But how are we to question religion? We cannot even question one of the most basic questions athiests throw at them: Does God/Gods or a higher power exist. How can we prouve it? Religion defies any attempts at obtaining facts. If we cannot prouve something how can we even begin to question it?

This is in fact, a serious thread, and do you believe that anyone believes that Stephen says what he means? Please, it's a comedy show.

I suppose you missed the sarcasm in my post?

What I'm saying is that people should question everything. Do not believe blindly, whether it's religion or history.

I find the idea that we should question all history to be crazy. Given all
the primary documents we have of historical events, questioning them sounds incredibly silly. There are some areas that can be questioned I know, but the majority can not. And I really don't like the timing of this thread with all the Jewish, Holocaust threads. In case this has anything to do with THIS thread, the Holocaust is a historical fact and can not be denied. Period.

I really can not stand any revisionist history.

Unfortunately, some people still insist on treating mythology as the "True Word of God." It would be a better world if we could end the confusion.

I have no idea if it's the word of God or not. It might be, but I know for damn sure it was never supposed to be taken literally.

This is in fact, a serious thread, and do you believe that anyone believes that Stephen says what he means? Please, it's a comedy show.

Well, I don't know.

Yesterday it was a comedy show, but today it could be dead serious. Since I can't prove it was a comedy show yesterday, I'd better take it seriously today just to be safe.

Nothing can be, with absolute 100% CERTAINTY ever absolutly proven.

Ahem.

'There is thinking.'

A call to all Atheists.

Why do we not believe that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc. is true, yet blindly believe in history books? This is hypocritical. If you cannot bring empircal proof to convince me that this happened, I will not believe it. That is what Atheists say of God.

Prove to me that there was a General George Washington, who later became president. Prove to me that there was a Spanish Inquisition. Prove to me that the English were not always in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Now, I urge all of NSG to keep an open mind, and question everything.If you can bring forth concise evidence that history did not pass as it was recorded, then maybe we will rewrite the history books. They have been rewritten. Have any religious books been rewritten when they were proven false?

Also: History books have been rewritten. I remember my books used to say that it was predominately slave labor that built the pyramids. Nowadays, evidence supports that it was an off-season job offer the Pharao made to farmers.

I suppose you missed the sarcasm in my post?



I find the idea that we should question all history to be crazy. Given all
the primary documents we have of historical events, questioning them sounds incredibly silly. There are some areas that can be questioned I know, but the majority can not. And I really don't like the timing of this thread with all the Jewish, Holocaust threads. In case this has anything to do with THIS thread, the Holocaust is a historical fact and can not be denied. Period.

I really can not stand any revisionist history.

Dangerous precedent. There are no historical facts that can 'not be denied'... in a purely empirical sense.

I wasn't alive for the Holocaust, so I have no way of knowing how true any of the claims made by either side are. I tend to follow the evidence, though - and the weight of evidence suggests a very grim picture.

There are no historical events that cannot be questioned, in some universally applicable fashion. The only time we can ever be sure about the accuracy of history, is when we have witnessed it - and we should still question our own versions, even then.