If God Asked You For a Dime, How Would You Know It Was Him?

Not sure what the "no anecdotal" means, particularly when anecdotes are the ONLY thing bible believers proffer as "proof", on the rare occasion when they don't reference the bible itself as "proof".

But anyway, it's not up to the secularist to "prove" a bible isn't supernatural, it's the believer who has the burden of proving it is. That's because only the believer is making the unbelievable claim.

I hold up a beat-up paperback Stephen King novel and tell you its authorship was man-made, no further proof is required. The precedents for it being man-made are overwhelming. If I claim it was not written by Stephen King but by some supernatural agent, then I've got to show some evidence for such a claim because it's unbelievable until such evidence is presented.

The same standard applies to a bible. The likelihood that a bible is man-made is so high it's essentially 100%. To prove supernatural authorship the screed must contain supernatural characteristics.

Does the text of a bible reflect knowledge unavailable to its human authors at the time (e.g. detailed knowledge of quantum physics in a text written 1500 years ago)? That wouldn't constitute proof but it would prove the text is extraordinary and warrant deeper investigation, if proved that such text actually was written 1500 years ago and not 15 years ago and incorporated fraudulently.
No text in any bible even remotely reflects significant, unambiguous prescient knowledge, so scratch that one.

Does the text of a bible read with such clarity that everyone reading it will comprehend it exactly the same way? No human text has ever achieved that (it may not be possible, in any language). That would make the text extraordinary and compel deeper investigation into what makes it so. No text in any bible comes anywhere close to that, however; bibles are generally so ancient they're written by childlike intellects and far from being clear, they're muddled and barely comprehensible at all, let alone comprehensible in a way that resolves to a single meaning understood by all.

Does the text of a bible read easily, captivate the reader irresistably, regardless of the temperment or patience of the reader? Many man-made books are more compelling page-turners than bibles; bibles are notorious for being written in a style that repulses the reader, makes the reader struggle to find meaning, makes the reader disgusted and tired. There's absolutely nothing supernatural about the readability of a bible; it's human ineptitude on every page.

Is the full text of a bible wholly without contradiction? No.

Is every word unique and important in its contribution; no needless repetition, no pointless description? No.

Thus, seeking attributes that might indicate a text with supernatural authorship, we come up empty - nay, less than empty. We find instead attributes that overwhelmingly indicate human authorship.

No, it didn't. That so-called "son" didn't die. That "son" was alive a few days after being crucified, so he couldn't possibly have been killed. Then the "son" went "to heaven" to spend eternity with his dad anyway, so this nutcase idea that the god "lost" something is preposterous.

Furthermore, what's an omnipotent god doing whining about some "only" son? The god's omnipotent; able to fabricate infinite "sons". An omnipotent god making it seem that this "son" was irreplaceable is a fraud and a liar.

As to "a way back to him" - the LAST thing I'm interested in is giving my time to the hideous monstrosity any of these gods are. They're all uniformly despicable, unethical, petty, violent morons, as mature as a spoiled three-year old child. I want to get as far away from those horrors as possible.

Mankind is infinitely more humane - and I can deal with a man when our interests conflict. Invoking a ghost is the coward's way to avoid resolving conflicting interests.

 

Show some consideration for your audience, a little courtesy, and put the quote up without making your audience have to go find it.

Here, I'll save you the bother (I'll even make it red):

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

 

He was crucified.

It didn't kill him, though, because a few days later he was out walking around, healthy and talkative. He spent more than a month alive in the world, spending time with the disciples, chatting up a storm, comfortable, not suffering in any incapacitating manner (probably not suffering any pain at all). Then he leaves earth (WITHOUT dying) and goes off to spend his time (eternity?) with grand old dad somewhere east of the asteroid belt.

It's difficult to work up any sorrow or "gratefulness" for some incalculable "sacrifice" here, where no significant sacrifice was made at all, other than a few hours of intense physical pain (that amounted to a hundredth or a thousandth the intense physical pain and suffering borne by any one of millions of tortured human beings across history).

 

The preserved literature of man predates Christ by 3000 years, much of which influenced authors whose works later were anthologized into bibles. A good deal of this literature survives not as mere museum curiosity but as touchstones of significant insight, presenting and explaining ideas that are timeless.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature"]Ancient literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


All literature has the capacity to change lives, that's why we write. That's why we write in Priuschat - to influence each others' thinking.

 

So what. He was up and about and smiling a few days later, decidely NOT dead. Now, either he wasn't killed in the first place, or he was reanimated. But it doesn't matter - what matters is he was ALIVE just a few days later. Being ALIVE totally erases any consequence of any earlier death-like experience. You can say he really died and it took his god to reinvigorate him, but whatever happened, he wound up ALIVE. There was no sacrifice. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Unless what constitutes sacrifice is a few hours of intense physical discomfort. But that ain't much of a sacrifice; compared to what a good deal of mankind has endured and sacrified across history, it was pretty mild stuff that didn't last very long. Some of the witnesses to the crucifixion suffered much more than that, crippled by disease or accident.

So what are to make of that? A god "so loved" mankind he had his pet emissary's skin flayed and then nailed up to dry, made him undergo a few hours of extreme pain (that ceased with loss of consciousness), and three days later hey, no big deal, a few scars but no worse for wear - and THAT is supposed to impress us as some kind of "loss"? The only thing impressive about that is its sadistic barbarity.

 

That's a weird outlook, accepting criticism only if it's "retaliation". There's been no "whacking" of atheists in this thread (well, I've got a six-pack of trolls on ignore who sometimes wander over here and one or more of them may have tried some "whacking" but if they did I didn't read it).

The absurdities of entrenched religion are an affront to sense, and since people in its sway can't help but try to twist the society they live in to conform to its principles (denial of gay rights, denial of abortion rights, denial of medical care to children, rejection of science in public school), then according it "respect" is a moral crime, for it regresses quality of life for everyone. If any in its thrall can find it in their minds to consider the possibility they might change their mind, then these kinds of posts might be valuable.

But I intend none of them as "retaliation", and while not totally perfect I try not to make them attacks against a particular person, but they are very definitely attacks against the corrosive rubbish that constitutes most of formal religion.

If you don't like it, don't read it.