You think the bible is a conspiracy? lol..first of all most of the people who started the church were martryed for their beliefs. If they knew it was a lie, they wouldn't have died for it. The romans persecuted and martyred Christians for hundreds of years. There simply was no advantage to being a Christian in those days. It was very likely to get you killed.

And for being made up it sure is historically accurate:

"Now of course, archaeology could never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can help build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible. And it certainly has. For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations.

In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.]

These are the words of a man who has who has been credited with uncovering more than fifteen hundred ancient sites in the Middle East. [ “Archaeology: The Shards of History,” Time, December 13, 1963, accessed November 18, 2010.]

There have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible."

And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:

According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.

Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”

Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..





>> ^Mazex:
I don't think he hates God, because that would mean a God exists for him to hate, maybe he hates the idea of God. I think he like most sane people hate the idea that people brainwash their kids with dribble from a book that a load of people conspired to write and revise so that they could influence the world, control/enslave uneducated people and get rich off them for 2000 years.
There's a very simple reason for having the view of atheism, God has not been proven to exist, there is no empirical evidence, and there is a lot of logical reasoning behind why it is a lie and why religion only prospers from indoctrinating children and weak minded people, and can not prosper from trying to convert educated people into it.
Religion has only come so far because of human fear. Soon once our lifespans will increase much more and we will hopefully advance medicine far enough that people won't be as afraid of death any more and there'll be a massive shift away from religion, in the same way education shifted people away from it in the industrial era.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You do know atheism is a world view, don't you? Hitchens couldn't provide any reasons for his view..yes he definitely hates the judeo-christian god, that's clear..but this is a philosophical argument..and Hitchens failed on every point to provide any compelling reasons for his views. I've always been of the mind that two reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement based on the facts. And I think William Craig was reasonable here..he gave hitchens every opportunity to refute his arguments, which he failed to do

It logically follows from the premise hpqp..but as I just stated to xxovercastxx, I've clarified it to state..Was the Universe created by a supreme being? Again, a philosophical question and not a religious one.

Yes, I know who the gnostics were. That's why I gave you that link, because obviously you didn't. The term agnostic was invented in 1863, and as you saw, the gnostics have been around practically since Christ came into the world. So in no sense is the word gnostic the opposite of agnostic, historical or otherwise.

Btw, I'm not wrong. As I said before, do your research, especially before you correct someone. Deism is a type of theism. As far as quoting the bible for evidence..obviously a historical record of Jesus Christs life and times is evidence. It's also an extremely accurate historical document:

"Now of course, archaeology could never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can help build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible. And it certainly has. For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations.

In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.]

These are the words of a man who has who has been credited with uncovering more than fifteen hundred ancient sites in the Middle East. [ “Archaeology: The Shards of History,” Time, December 13, 1963, accessed November 18, 2010.]

There have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible."

It is exceedingly rare that you find an atheist who actually understands the bible well enough to create a coherent theological argument, for or against, let alone understands the meaning and could apply it. I've never met one, personally. I'm willing to concede that its possible one may exist. I wouldn't say more than one though.

Most of the atheists I've met don't know anything about it, are just ignorantly and arrogantly railing against something they've never read and don't understand, accusing theists of being brainwashed when they themselves are merely getting all their information from the atheist group mind. I've found that the law of ironic hypocripsy is universal in all cases.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible..


I chose just one to attack, not because I don't have something to say about everything, but I'm on a time budget here. So what you're saying, is that the bible has a good source of knowledge about good archeological dig sites? Let me rephrase that, as this is a question that, when asked correctly, reveals how stupid the idea contained within really is:

So what you are saying is, a book written a long time ago—by people who lived a long time ago—about the world they lived in, has a lot of information about where to find things that existed during the time that they lived? No shit?

That archeologist was simply stating that the bible has good information about where cities used to be and where he can find artifacts...I like the optimistic spin on it though.

Also, don't get archeology confused with geology, because TONS of geological findings have "controverted" biblical things.

Love,
your neighborhood atheist

Well written, but still factually biased. I don't dispute it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in something, but saying it takes more faith to believe in science over a religion is laughable, seeing as how most scientific processes can be duplicated in a lab, and the only time people see the immaculately concepted Jesus is in stale bread.

Calling them "errors" is an error, if you cant prove it so...

I don't even want to get started with your "#2" ...but I will touch on it:

"It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round."
You mean to tell me that it wasn't the sun he probably was referring to? It is a very vague statement, loosely translated. I mean, wasn't the voyage of Christopher Columbus nearly defunded by the Queen of Spain due to the fact most of the Catholics believed the earth was flat? How could they possibly misinterpret such a factual document as the Bible then but not now, or at any other time?

#3 is also a gross interpretation of the bibles factuality, the closest thing people had to a science was alchemy if I'm mistaken, and there is a reason we don't teach Alchemy 101 these days. It was full of holes where we as a species didn't have an understanding of our own surroundings. Take beer brewing for example, even the German purity laws had to be amended to allow yeast as a viable and lawful ingredient to beer because the humans of the past flat out didn't understand or fathom its use/need in the brewing process because it had been introduced naturally to the unaware brewers since beer has been around. <-Thank you science, not the all knowing bible. External sources are just as unreliable then as they are now, if not more so, smart people expect some credibility, and aren't the type to blindly accept.
#4 "The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology"
Most people don't dispute the correlation of events in the bible to that of actual history, its just obvious that either initially or over the years, the truth was embellished to that of an Aesop fable. The bible was meant to instill fear into the hearts of what are supposed to be "god fearing" people, what better way then writing about a hellish environment and 30 ft tall giants? (wait, was that part real, or no?) Oh and Nelson Glueck wrote that quote? Impressive... unless you consider the thousands of other scientists that have a slightly different opinion on the matter...

But I guess you can laugh at me while I burn in hell (decompose) and you are in heaven (decomposing) It would make much more sense if people would accept the fact that "God" no matter how you look at it, is just a manifestation of our own self righteousness as a species? That being said, please think "peace" and I to wish all of us a hearty blessing from "God."



>> ^shinyblurry:

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.
Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said
The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.

Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification
The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.
Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific
The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:
Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.
This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.
Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.
Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”
Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.
Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.
So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.


*Edited punctuation at 23:40 5/2/2011

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.

Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said

The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.


Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification

The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.

Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific

The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:

Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.

This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.

Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.

Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”

Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.

Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology

The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.

So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.

I do believe that there is now evidence that the pyramids were in fact NOT built by slaves, but by an actual working class.

"The Greeks believed that slave labour was used, but modern Egyptologists accept that it was built by many tens of thousands of skilled workers. They camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of paying taxes until the construction was completed.[citation needed] Their cemeteries were discovered in 1990 by archaeologists Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner. Verner posited that the labor was organized into a hierarchy, consisting of two gangs of 100,000 men, divided into five zaa or phyle of 20,000 men each, which may have been further divided according to the skills of the workers.[23]" From the wiki article.

He's referring to The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Finkelstein and Silberman as well as Masada by Yigael Yadin.

References can be found in Hitchens' God Is Not Great, chapter 7: Revelation: The Nightmare of the "Old" Testament.

>> ^therealblankman:
I'm interested if a fellow Sifter could find and cite the study regarding the Israeli archaeologists and the Exodus mythe that Hitchens is talking about.

I'm interested if a fellow Sifter could find and cite the study regarding the Israeli archaeologists and the Exodus mythe that Hitchens is talking about.

>> ^deputydog:
we need a big train channel

this is true.

Aeons ago, galactic archaeologists came upon a planet known by its indigenous sentient creatures as "Earth". They found remnants of a once thriving civilization buried in primitive magnetic recording devices. These devices were nothing more than static (and horribly imperfect) storage containers for the thoughts of the indigenous sentients. Note that these devices were nothing like our mental storage containers which can recreate a mind on demand. Rather, they contained only the outward expression of the local creatures' mental states, namely their "words". The Choggians, as they called themselves, were apparently limited to communicating with each other strictly through these outward thought recording devices. Naturally, this often led to conflict, as each individual would be free to interpret the meaning of another's mental state. While such a concept is as alien to us as the fanatical individualism of the Sisterhood, nevertheless, these Choggians still managed to completely dominate and ultimately destroy their planet (also not unlike the Sisterhood).

It is important to understand the exceptionally primitive nature of communication in which these Choggians engaged. While we enjoy instantaneous communion with any of our brethren, the Choggians apparently had no other means of communicating with each other except through these external thought recording devices, locally known as "hard drives", superimposed upon a tortuous network they reverently named "The InterTubes". The InterTubes was a mechanism of linking all of the species' individual hard drives with each other, however, it's pathetically limited bandwidth even further reduced coherency in the Choggians' communication. While globally pervasive, it allowed for little more than the most basic of concepts to be transferred from one mind to another. And while it is clear than many Choggians engaged in exceptional effort to completely encode their mental state into this substandard medium, it is also just as clear that the species never developed any technology for true communication.

to be continued

http://www.videosift.com/video/Colin-Powell-Endorses-Barack-Obama-on-Meet-The-Press#comment-549810

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Republicans are left, not right. Foreign interventionism, nation-building, and larger government are leftist ideals. We have two left parties in the majority.


According to whose dictionary? Certainly the Republicans do not claim the term.

Somehow, bf, our disagreements seem to always stem from the definition of words. I think generally we have a schism on the definition of definition: I think words mean what we decide them to mean, and you're more of an etymological archaeologist.

Let me out-dictionary you. The French Parliament defined "The Right" as supporting aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests (because that's the side of the room the aristocrats, nobels, and priests sat in), while "The Left" implied opposition to the same (because that's where rubes like me would be permitted to park their keyster).

The Democratic platform opposes aristocratic, royal, and clerical interests.
The Republican platform supports aristocratic, royal, and clerical interests.

The Republicans continue to move further and further right.

It's funny, the "old" definition of left and right actually fits better than the colloquial one. It's not about the size of government at all, that's just a distraction, it's about whose interests government serves, and that definition is alive and well.

>> ^blankfist:
Republicans are left, not right. Foreign interventionism, nation-building, and larger government are leftist ideals. We have two left parties in the majority.


According to whose dictionary? Certainly the Republicans do not claim the term.

Somehow, bf, our disagreements seem to always stem from the definition of words. I think generally we have a schism on the definition of definition: I think words mean what we decide them to mean, and you're more of an etymological archaeologist.

Let me out-dictionary you. The French Parliament defined "The Right" as supporting aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests (because that's the side of the room the aristocrats, nobels, and priests sat in), while "The Left" implied opposition to the same (because that's where rubes like me would be permitted to park their keyster).

The Democratic platform opposes aristocratic, royal, and clerical interests.
The Republican platform supports aristocratic, royal, and clerical interests.

The Republicans continue to move further and further right.

It's funny, the "old" definition of left and right actually fits better than the colloquial one. It's not about the size of government at all, that's just a distraction, it's about whose interests government serves, and that definition is alive and well.

Well, as of right now I'm too busy with books for classes, predominantly about the conflict in the Middle East and Human Evolutionary Anatomy (soooo fucking boring btw, primate osteology is not my bag, but after this class, am all good with my science requirements)... but anyway, this summer, when I had time to myself, I was digging on the following:

Collapse, by Jared Diamond, the follow up to his more famous Guns, Germs, & Steel but arguably the more important of the two.

Desert Queen by Janet Wallach, which is a biography of Gertrude Bell, a surprisingly important historical figure, she was the first woman intelligence officer in British history, serving them during WW1 and afterwards she had a hand in determining the borders of modern day Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, and Syria... prior to that she had been an archaeologist of some note and an intrepid explorer, very much a female Lawrence of Arabia (and actually was a pretty good friend of his, one of the few women in his life he would deign to refer to on a first name basis), as she was also fluent in several languages of the Levant and Arabic and befriended many of the desert tribes on her far-ranging journeys prior to the war. During the war these friendships enabled the British to overturn the Ottomans and maintain relative peace in the region in the aftermath.

But until I picked up this book, I HAD NEVER HEARD PEEP ABOUT HER! But then again, how surprising is that? She was, after all, a chick, and we get no cred. She also founded the Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad that got looted when we Yanks rolled in four years ago... somewhere on her family estate in Britain she's probably chain-smoking and spinning in her grave as we speak.

So that's my book report... gotta say though, y'all seem to be reading otherwise similar books, Bruce Campbell's If Chins Could Kill is excellent, as is anything by Doug Adams and Robert Heinlein... still two of my very favorite authors.

Tags changed from "boris,karloff,pwns,archaeologists" to "boris, karloff, pwns,archaeologists,30's" by gold star member swampgirl.

One of my all-time favorite movie lines comes from this movie.... delivered by none other than the insanely pompous John Agar:

"Archaeologists are underpaid publicity agents for deceased royalty"