Joel, there’s nothing fundamentally impossible about the holocaust - it requires no violations of the laws of nature.  Also, while the events of the bible are documented only within itself the holocaust is documented with thousands of photographs, experimental data (’dem nazzis were thorough when they did experiments) trial evidence, blueprints, administrative correspondence, and the writings of hundreds of people on opposing sides of the event.

Every time someone digs up an old pot, bible-thumpers yell, “Look!  It proves the bible!” All I can say is that it would be very odd indeed if the bible did not contain any truth at all.  The question (that bears on whether it should be taught as fact) is if there is any evidence outside itself, for its more fantastic claims.  There is not.

The two things (holocaust and bible) are not comparable.  A better example would be, why would anyone believe your holy book over someone else’s holy book?  From outside the magnetic field of faith, they look exactly the same.

decrepitoldfool, your point is duly noted.

However, as far as an illustration into how most Christians view the issue (thus answering the question posed in this thread), I believe my analogy still holds.  Most believers hold the events of the bible to be fact, as much as the events of the holocaust.  I believe this analogy illustrates the reason many believers feel outrage at discovering a website such as this.  (Whether outrage is a proper response is a different topic.)

That said, I disagree with your statement that all holy books “...look exactly the same.” Even when examined as literature, the Bible stands out from all other books.  For example, the Bible is not 1 source but writings of about 40 authors over a period of >1000 years, and is remarkably consistent.  It also doesn’t read like other religious books or ancient myths.  The Hebrew “heroes” are not protrayed as perfect, god-like men, but as imperfect people who sometimes did terrible things.

decrepitoldfool, your point is duly noted.

I’m skeptical that you got my point. 

Sure, some Christians think the bible is all that, but the bible makes extraordinary claims for which faith is the only evidence.  The bible itself says so.  (You can look that up yourself, can’t you?  You should know it by heart: “...evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen, blah-blah-blah") The bible looks dandy within the influence of faith, like I said.  Otherwise it isn’t so special.

The holocaust is surrounded by external evidence. You don’t need faith to believe in it and it is not contrary to reason because it violates no physical laws.  Also, it is not unprecedented.  (The list of “holocausts” in human history is depressingly long.  Hitler’s chapter in that book is not unique.  Larger than most, not as large as some.)

It’s a bad comparison.  Here’s a better one: can you prove to me that Allah is not the one true God, and Mohammed his prophet?  Wait, there’s a catch: you have to insert Christian corrolaries into your statements and apply them to your own religion when you’re done.  That is likely to be a painful exercise.

For example, the Bible is not 1 source but writings of about 40 authors over a period of >1000 years, and is remarkably consistent.

Umm better have a quick look at that “consistancy” you speak of.  There is a total Paradigm shift between the New and Old testaments. 
Old : death to all that aren’t gods chosen people. 
New : Love thy neighbor as thyself.

I could go on a lot longer but i discarded my bible, along with my koran and book of Mormon.
seemed pointless to keep such trash around the house where a naive child could find it.

Joel writes:

However, as far as an illustration into how most Christians view the issue (thus answering the question posed in this thread), I believe my analogy still holds. Most believers hold the events of the bible to be fact, as much as the events of the holocaust.

Therein lies the problem: Too many Christians equate beliefs with facts. Simply believing something to be true doesn’t make it so. Or, as James Randi has said, “No amount of belief makes something a fact.” You’re trying to compare apples to oranges here and calling them equal when they are not, which DOF already pointed out. Your analogy fails as a result.

That said, I disagree with your statement that all holy books “...look exactly the same.�

You obviously missed the first part of DOF’s sentence where he said, “From outside the magnetic field of faith, they look exactly the same.”

Even when examined as literature, the Bible stands out from all other books. For example, the Bible is not 1 source but writings of about 40 authors over a period of >1000 years, and is remarkably consistent.

As a “work of literature” the Bible stands out from all other such works in terms of being pretty poorly written.

Yes, it had multiple authors. No, it’s not remarkably consistent. Two differing accounts of Creation, four differing accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection, the flood myth is two different stories sewn together despite contradictions between them, the Gospel of John disagrees quite a bit with the other three Gospels on the events in Jesus’ life, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke conflict on Jesus’ genealogy, and, well, you get the picture.

It’s pretty much what you would expect from a book written by so many authors—few of whom, if any, were first-hand witnesses to the events they chronicled and most of whom remain unknown—over such a long period of time. The only thing that’s remarkable about it is the number of people who think it’s factual to any great degree.

It also doesn’t read like other religious books or ancient myths.

Actually, it reads like a lot of other religious books and ancient myths. Your assertion otherwise implies to me that you’ve not read many other religious texts. For starters try doing a little reading on Mithraism which got it’s start around the 6th century BCE in Persia and India and you’ll find some remarkable similarities between Jesus and Mithra.

For that matter, just take some time to read up on the Egyptian God Horus—who predates Jesus by at least 3,100 years—and you’ll find that his life sounds an awful lot like Jesus’ in quite a few details:

Both born of virgin mothers with similar names (Meri vs Miriam a.k.a Mary), both foster fathers had similar names (Seb (Jo-Seph) vs Joseph) who were both of royal descent, both births announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds (who seemed to spend a lot of time witnessing holy births back then, see Mithras for another example) and heralded by stars, both had later witnesses to the birth (Three solar deities vs. three wise men), both had murder plots against them during their infancy, both mothers warned by Heavenly agents to flee the danger (with Jesus being brought, ironically, to Egypt), both came of age at 12 years and both lack any information on what they did between the ages of 12 and 30, both baptized in rivers at the age of 30 with the poor fellow who performed the baptism being beheaded later, both taken from the desert to a high mountain where they’re tempted by their arch rivals which both manage to resist, both had 12 disciples, both walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, stilled the sea, and raised the dead as proof of their divinity, both held a Sermon on the Mount, both were transfigured on a mountain, died by crucifixion along with two thieves and were buried in tombs where they paid a quick visit to Hell and then rose from the dead after 3 days time, both resurrections were witness by women, and both will supposedly reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.

Yeah, nothing at all similar between those two chaps at all.

The Hebrew “heroes� are not protrayed as perfect, god-like men, but as imperfect people who sometimes did terrible things.

There’s more out there than just the Hebrew heroes in the way of other myths. You need to study up a bit more.

decrepitoldfool, Fine, even supposing that the Bible is a load of rubbish, I still stand by my analogy as a correct illustration of the point of view of the average believer in their reaction to this and similar websites.

Mr.Death, that is a common misconception--that the Old Testament portrays a God of judgement, while the New Testament portrays a God of love.  In fact, the Old Testament portrays a God of both love and judgement, as does the New Testament.  There is no paradigm shift.  (For your specific example, the Old does not deal out “death to all that aren’t god’s chosen people"--yes, many who rejected God were killed, but those non-hebrews who accepted God were blessed, which is ultimately the basic message of the New Testament.  The point here is our personal ambition--when the hebrews attacked foreigners when God hadn’t told them to, the Hebrews failed.  When they didn’t attack foreigners that God told them to attack, the Hebrews suffered consequences.  Remember, the command “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is found first in the Old Testament.  But that command is subordinate to Loving (and obeying) God.) The Old Testament larglely consists of forshadowing and illustrating the New.

IMO, the first paragraph of the analogy is good, and I think it does show how theists view this site.  They know the Truth, and are ready to “correct” the others.  Then Joel proceeds to do so in the second paragraph.  Your mind tricks will not work on us. 

From this end, a better analogy would be a visitor to a holocaust site claiming it did not happen, Hitler never existed, Spielberg made it up for a movie, and if they didn’t shut the site down they’d call Al Gore and have their internet turned off.

What were you googling?  Maybe Les’s got another top ten scoring phrase we don’t know about.

yes, many who rejected God were killed, but those non-hebrews who accepted God were blessed, which is ultimately the basic message of the New Testament.  The point here is our personal ambition--when the hebrews attacked foreigners when God hadn’t told them to, the Hebrews failed.

Joel, this is the crux of the problem most of us have with believers.  It’s (sometimes) entertaining to discuss the nature of truth and the historicity of the Bible, or the Koran or whatever, and we have all spent a lot of time thinking and talking about this stuff.  But when it comes down to it, we don’t really give a fig if you believe in God, Santa Claus, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, if it makes you happy.  More power to you.

The problem is when believers start pushing their belief on others.  Of course, there are fora where this is appropriate- here, for instance, where people voluntarily show up (or not) to chew the fat.  Not appropriate are, for instance, science classes.  And especially inappropriate, IMHO, is believing that your God has told you to kill unbelievers.  One might even argue that religion has, in a small way, been responsible for a lot of the misery we humans have inflicted upon ourselves through history.

Believe that the world is 6000 years old, or is flat, or that snakes talk, if you like, but keep it out of public schools.  And if God tells you to kill, just say No.

zilch,

Believe that the world is 6000 years old, or is flat, or that snakes talk, if you like, but keep it out of public schools.  And if God tells you to kill, just say No.

I nearly choked I laughed so hard at that....

Hey, Pig, I was serious…

Joel hasn’t addressed my reply as of yet. I’ll try to be optimistic and assume that he’s taken heed of my suggestion that he study up a bit more as the reason why he’s not commented further.

Sorry for not replying sooner, I was busy with other things.

Simply believing something to be true doesn’t make it so.

I agree.  Also disbelieving something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

As a “work of literature� the Bible stands out from all other such works in terms of being pretty poorly written.

Most experts on literature would disagree with you (even the athiest ones).  The Bible is a remarkable piece of literature, regardless what you or I think of its veracity.

No, it’s not remarkably consistent. Two differing accounts of Creation, four differing accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection, the flood myth is two different stories sewn together despite contradictions between them, the Gospel of John disagrees quite a bit with the other three Gospels on the events in Jesus’ life, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke conflict on Jesus’ genealogy, and, well, you get the picture.

First decrepitoldfool denounces the Bible as being only one source (i.e., one account).  Now you criticize it for containing multiple accounts.  If anything, the multiple accounts in the Bible provide additional support for their claims.  And small discrepancies are expected.  If two witnesses to a crime agree too much, then they are suspected of collaborating on their stories.  The multiple accounts you suggested contain no serious contradictions, including between the gospels.  The flood myth being two different stories?  I have no idea how you’re getting that.  As for multiple genealogies, there’s a few things to consider 1) hebrew genealogies don’t necessarily include every generation (e.g. “father of” means “decendent of") 2) if you consider one of your ancestors far enough back, there will be multiple genealogies for that decendancy (e.g. considering 30 generations includes over 2 billion of your ancestors.  eventually some of those are going to have to be duplicates (i.e., your family tree is not a strict tree)).

As for the Mithra and Horus, you’ve got me intrigued.  I’d be interested in reading more about them.  If you could give me some sources, that would be great.  So far, I’ve just done some google searches.  I haven’t yet found verification of your date for Mithraism.  Everywhere says that it and Christianity emerged at the same time, thus it could have borrowed from Christianity, just as well as Christianity from it.  As for Horus, the only places I’ve been able to find that say what you said are websites and books whose goal is to disprove Christianity.  I’m having trouble identifying the original source.  Is the Horus story in an ancient book, written 3100 B.C.? if so how can I obtain a translation?  or was it pieced together from multiple sources?  if so, where can I read about these original sources and how the story was pieced together?

zilch,

Hey, Pig, I was serious…

It was a good point.  It was more the way you said it than what you said.  The way you put it had just the right amount of smart-assedness to be particularly funny.

First decrepitoldfool denounces the Bible as being only one source (i.e., one account).  Now you criticize it for containing multiple accounts.

You misunderstood my coment, Joel.  I said nothing about the number of authors in the bible, only that there is no verification of its claims outside itself.  It doesn’t matter if it has a thousand authors - none of the more fantastic claims are substantiated outside the covers.

If you were a newspaper reporter and I called to say, “I met a talking snake” you might ask several questions along the lines of, “Is there any independent corroboration of your claim?”

Sorry for the double-post, but I just remembered this question:

As for Horus, the only places I’ve been able to find that say what you said are websites and books whose goal is to disprove Christianity.

How hard did you look, Joel?  Here it is on an Egyptian tourism site.  Took me about 15 seconds to find.
Gods of ancient Egypt: Legend of Osirus

Or if you prefer, go to the library and ask for any book on ancient Egyptian mythology.

It doesn’t matter if it has a thousand authors

You’re asking for evidence outside of the set of all evidence?  If sufficent independent corroboration of the previous existence of the talking snake existed, but all the evidence was brought together in one room (no matter how large a room or quantity of evidence) you would say, “but there is no verification of this room’s claims outside itself; the claim is not substantiated outside the walls of this room”?

Since the claim violates natural law (snakes have small brains, no verbal apparatus, etc) I’m asking for evidence from sources other than those with an interest in promoting the claim. 

The claim is not about the existence of the room, but about the event the evidence supposedly supports.  Even a lot of eyewitness accounts do not add up to evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You’re not being deliberately dense, are you?

DoF,

I think you’re letting this guy get under your skin.  I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen you even show a hint of getting frustrated.  Just remember that different people view empirical adequacy differently.  As Bas Van Fraasen points out, empirical adequacy is determined by interest.  If your interest is to support a particular view, you’re going to have lower standards than someone who is agnostic and is looking for conclusive proof one way or another.  Joel fits in the first category and you fit in the second, it’s unsurprising that he seems kind of dense to you.  Don’t let it get to you, also you have the advantage of being right in this case, so feel comfort in that.

Why can’t we ever keep all the evidence in one thread?  So now as I work on a reply to all of Nunyabiz’s sources do you want me to post that reply here or in the Theocracy thread?

decrepitoldfool, the website you gave for the Egyptian tourism site provided none of the claims presented by Les.  I will go to the library.

I don’t really want to get drawn into this argument, but the exchange between joel and DOF is almost prototypical.

While I can understand the sentiment that joel expressed in his(?) original post, he got off to a very bad start by stretching an analogy farther than it goes. It’s possible to read it in a charitable way, but there’s no denying the presuppositions.

It is as the hoglet says - different standards of proof apply and there isn’t even agreement about the status of the presented evidence. One way to characterize the exchange is that DOF launches an external critique and joel’s answer is to point out internal coherence. Never the twain shall meet, eh.

I actually second Theocrat’s motion that there should be a single thread discussing the issues covered in this thread.  It seems that many of the themes come up over and over again in numerous different discussions.

More annoying than Joel’s differing standards of empirical adequacy is his apparent refusal to try (as in being “unable” to find something that is very easy to find.) This is very common - the theist drops in, makes claims, wants to be spoon-fed.

the website you gave for the Egyptian tourism site provided none of the claims presented by Les. - Joel

See, here’s a case in point - one example, Joel - where you seem not to have tried.  Les referred to Horus’ divine conception.  You said the link didn’t support it.  Yet even in the simplified-for-tourism version I linked, it says:

She carried the box back to Egypt and placed it in the house of the gods. She changed herself into a bird and flew about his body, singing a song of mourning. Then she perched upon him and cast a spell. The spirit of dead Osiris entered her and she did conceive and bear a son whose destiny it would be to avenge his father. She called the child Horus, and hid him on an island far away from the gaze of his uncle Set.

It isn’t an exact match with Les’ putative source document.  This is how it is with ancient legends - you will find different pronounciations and versions.  Unless ... the legend has been through a process of canon filtering as the bible has been (official selection of the “true” version, which is the equivalent of two guys in lockup getting their story straight before questioning.)

In the case of the bible, the canon-filtering took place centuries after the legends first appeared. Since the official committees had no first-hand knowledge of the “events” they were selecting, they chose the ones that sounded good.  But if you search back farther, you find there were multiple versions of just about every legend in the bible. (And the bible even contains some conflicting versions of some of its legends.)

Yes, Joel, by all means go to the library.  One characteristic of books about mythology that are not “written to disprove Christianity” is that they won’t make your point-by-point comparisons for you. 

Here’s a pretty good discussion (open wide… here comes the choo-choo) of the variations in the legend of Horus on a different page of the site I linked for you earlier.

On the first linked page, the author makes the interesting comment that “there is a version of this legend in almost every culture.”

Elwed is right about the nature of the argument, and Socialist Swine, you’re very perceptive about me being grouchy.  I shouldn’t comment when I’m exhausted.  Joel, I apologize for being grouchy.  Your example, while a bad one, probably does represent the kind of reasoning that goes through a fuzzy-thinking Christian’s mind when he finds this site.

Canonization - the equivalent of two guys in lockup getting their story straight before questioning.

Ha! That’s the best definition I’ve seen!

Les:

[the Bible is] pretty poorly written

Actually, it’s funny how many different college literature professors have praised the written structure of many Psalms, Ecclesiastes, & the characterization & plot twists.  It actually contains all 17 of the base plots w/ archetypal characters.

As for staying out of public schools, funny or not, you want the fundies to get MORE closed-minded???

Isn’t the single thread “proselytize to us heathens?”