Memory And The Bible

"Did this psych student from the University of Wilmington prove Frank Turek to be 'patently false' about impact events? Watch me watch Frank to unpack the heart of Frank's argument and the importance of identifying the distinction between major and minor details."

Click on the link below to understand that our memories of "Impact Events" are flawed:

Psych Student Tells Christian Apologist He's Wrong

Why Humanists Reject The Bible

"Humanists reject the claim that the Bible is the word of God. They are convinced the book was written solely by humans in an ignorant, superstitious, and cruel age. They believe that because the writers of the Bible lived in an unenlightened era, the book contains many errors and harmful teachings.

"Humanists receive much criticism due to their position on the Bible. Some critics even accuse them of being evil. This article attempts to clarify the reasons why Humanists hold negative views about the Bible."

Click on this link for the main reasons that the Bible cannot be accepted as a guide for belief and action:

Christian Theology Does Not Support A Non-Material Soul

To hear conservative Christians, and even most liberal Christians, speak of the Soul or Spirit, one would assume that the Bible supports an immaterial quality to such. In fact, the Old Testament is clear that the Soul or Spirit is associated with the material "Breath." In addition, Jesus preached this same concept of the Soul. Click on the link below for a video on the matter, which, once again, debunks apologist William Lane Craig:

Why We Shouldn't Believe in a Soul

Whataboutism and Christianity

"Some of the terms we use to describe political rhetoric are as old as politics itself (see ad hominem attacks, or such devices as synecdoche, metonymy, or zeugma). Others are more recent additions, driven by the evolution of the news cycle (like fake news and dog whistles).

"But hey, aren’t we ignoring a bigger subject here? How can we talk about rhetorical devices and not mention whataboutism?

" - - - it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

" - - - Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation." (link)

- - - - - - -

Why am I discussing this term? Christian apologists throw it at skeptics when discussing the reliability of the Bible as a historical source. Here is a link comparing the evidence of the Jesus in the Bible and other ancient historical individuals. Please remember that there are no primary sources in support of the Bible as history. When you add in the supernatural claims, the bar is high indeed for acceptance of the Bible as history.

Jesus Infancy Narratives Not Trustworthy

"What this means is that the birth narratives were added in as an afterthought or in reaction to some perceived need or desire brought about by some external conflict or issue. This leads to confirmation that the birth narratives are not historically reliable."

The Bible has no primary sources, thus, it is not historically trustworthy. Add in the probability that the Jesus infancy narratives were added late in the story and one has even less reason to accept the Bible as anything other than historical fiction. In any event, please enjoy Christmas if you celebrate it in any way.

Luke 1 & 2 Infancy Narratives as a Later Interpolation

Do Atheists Misinterpret The Bible?

"Well this is a common criticism – the idea that the atheist is guilty of a literalist reading of Scripture no better than the reading of fundamentalist. And that it’s a very naïve way of approaching religion, and that there’s a lot more sophisticated and nuanced view of religion ______ and the atheist is disregarding that. A few problems with this. Anyone making that argument is failing to acknowledge just how many people really do approach these texts literally or functionally – whether they’re selective literalists, or literal all the way down the line. There is a . . . there are certain passages in Scripture that just cannot be read figuratively."  

Click on the link below for a 7-minute video by Sam Harris that helps to clarify this literal vs figurative disagreement regarding how to interpret the Bible.

On Interpreting Scripture | Big Think

Is The Bible Non-Fiction Or Fantasy Fiction?

Picture yourself trying to publish a non-fiction story.

The publisher is told the following:

• This is a story told to me about events decades age.
• The people talking didn't claim to be eyewitnesses.
• There are several versions of the story.
• Altogether, the story is implausible, incoherent, and inconsistent.
• It includes miracles, angels, and demons.
• The story is similar to other stories of the time.

The publisher wants to publish it. What's more likely:

• It will be published as the requested non-fiction?
• It will be published as Fantasy Fiction?

The Bible And The Telephone Game

Most of us played the Telephone Game as children. It caused laughter, for sure. However, this article goes into the psychology of it and how it exposes the flaws in our emotional intelligence. Understanding this phenomenon is important in understanding why secular historians and others using science-based thinking cast serious doubt on the reliability of the Bible. Why? It is the consensus of Biblical scholars, religious and secular, that the writings found in the New Testament were created decades after the supposed events. The video below goes into detail on the matter:

Were the Stories of Jesus Corrupted Before they were Written Down? (Click on the link)

Faith Exposed

Discussions with theists always center on the topic of Faith. It has been my universal experience that theists get defensive when science-based thinkers state that Faith is belief without evidence. The following links from dictionaries and the Bible itself are clear: the word EVIDENCE is never used to describe it.

- - - - - -

Faith | Definition of Faith by Merriam-Webster
FAITH | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Faith | Definition of Faith at Dictionary.com
Faith definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

- - - - - - -

What does the Bible Say About Faith?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0ZUnAXiaNU