Does atheism have a rational basis?

[ncb1397]

Why do you say the universe is vast and unknowable, when we're learning so much about it right now?

Yeah, this is the universe...



Atleast, that is how we think about the universe. Of course, such visualizations are absurdly elementary. The universe isn't a bunch of spheres playing marbles. For one, there is atleast wave-particle duality. And that doesn't even mark the beginning of quantum strangeness.

Anyways, people think that God is a fantastical bizarre concept. I argue it is no more bizarre than our own existance. The mere fact of psychological sentience defies the concept of the universe equating to a great game of billards. Obviously, there is a psychic/sentient element beyond the mere matter and math itself. The game isn't simply running its route alone. The game is being observed. These two universes are vastly different conceptually. The spheres above represent inanimate objects. If this were to be that all that there was, no tree falling the forest would make a sound. Although, of course, trees would fall in the forest.

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: ncb1397 Yeah, this is the universe... Atleast, that is how we think about the universe. Of course, such visualizations are absurdly elementary. The universe isn't a bunch of spheres playing marbles. For one, there is atleast wave-particle duality. And that doesn't even mark the beginning of quantum strangeness. Anyways, people think that God is a fantastical bizarre concept. I argue it is no more bizarre than our own existance. The mere fact of psychological sentience defies the concept of the universe equating to a great game of billards. Obviously, there is a psychic/sentient element beyond the mere matter and math itself. The game isn't simply running its route alone. The game is being observed. These two universes are vastly different conceptually. The spheres above represent inanimate objects. If this were to be that all that there was, no tree falling the forest would make a sound. Although, of course, trees would fall in the forest.

Dear ncb1397

Can I call you "97" for short? I agree that the "wave-particle duality" of quantum physics is weird, as are other things like "quantum entanglement" (Wikipedia is wonderful.) Also, that psychological sentience defies determinism by present scientific methods. But my point is that even if science were to one day explain the whole physical universe, (which it may well do) the fact of reason itself is supernatural, so far as a deterministic explanation of it undoes even the very conclusion that "reason itself is deterministic".

In addition to having heard of deterministic explanations of quantum mechanics (such as the Bohmian approach - ah, the joys of Wikipedia), which purport to eliminate the indeterminancy of the established indeterminant (or "Copenhagen interpretation"?), reliance on psychic phenomena (aka Aldous Huxley, e.g.) seems to involve lots of expensive and odd drugs, and I'd rather not go there.

I like your "game" theory. A friend once explained transcendence by reference to chess pieces - if you asked a queen whether she was free, and she could speak, she might say "yes, I can move up and down and to the side like my rooks, or at an angle like my bishops, or one move at a time, like my dear husband, the king". The concept of a higher-level force moving her might be quite beyond her comprehension - a game on a higher level?

What are the spheres you refer to? Planetary intelligences a.k.a. CS Lewis' "Cosmic Trilogy"?

Thanks for the detailed response,

o

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: ovnoclov Hey YM Darn. But can we at least be 100% certain that reason is valid?

This would depend on the particular definition of reason you are trying to equate. I feel your OP is equivocating the word "Reason in general" with the way atheism approaches "Reason specifically". Atheism sees "No Reason" to hold the conviction that gods exist.

Reason;

1.)The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.

2.)A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction

3.)An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

4.)The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

5.)Good judgment; sound sense.

6.)A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.

7.)Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

I see your OP using definitions 1, 2, 3, possibly 5 as your basis for the word Reason where I feel atheism definitions 4 and 7. Our reasoning is based on logic, where theistic reason is based on conviction. Can logic be wrong? I can't answer that, but I think we do know that convictions can be wrong. We can see this especially in religions, where each religion reasons that other religions are wrong. but if atheism is defined as "a lack of belief in theism (personal creator gods)" then our conclusions are typically based on logic. For instance, we have no evidence (other than anecdotal) that "supernatural" exists. We can't test "Supernatural", and although there are claims of "supernatural" I don't believe it has ever been verified scientifically. There have been many gods throughout history, yet we have no evidence for any of them that can be tested, none of them have been observed, nothing can be predicted with the hypothesis of god. Therefore, atheism has no reason to accept unsupported claims.

[yukonmuffin]

Quote by: ovnoclov Hey YM Darn. But can we at least be 100% certain that reason is valid?

In our environment alone. Rules change on a bigger or smaller scale, and that's where the uncertainty comes in.

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: ItsDarts ...Our reasoning is based on logic, where theistic reason is based on conviction. Can logic be wrong? I can't answer that, but I think we do know that convictions can be wrong. We can see this especially in religions, where each religion reasons that other religions are wrong. but

Dear "Its Darts

Hi. If I may address the above comment, rather than your definition of reason. I'm actually a lapsed atheist, so my premises are, as far as possible, based on logic rather than conviction, because I found my convictions to be wanting.

As to each religion reasoning that other religions are wrong, again, I have to disagree. For example, as a Christian, I can acknowledge that Buddhism and Hinduism are correct in denying self to serve the common good, yet I understand that certain other religions are into celebrating "the flesh" through eating it and drinking blood, which I do in some sense through Communion. The truest and therefore best belief system is the one, I think, that encompasses the best features of all the other systems. Those who would recommend their belief system simply on the basis that it's "different" are probably worshipping a nutter.

However, if I may use your definitions 4 and 7 of "Reason" or rationality or logic, I am arguing that atheism doesn't offer an independent basis for rationality or logic, because it is deterministic; whether one accepts biological determinism or Marxian or other forms of determinism.

Alternatively, if one insists that scientific fact (such as the speed of light) is utterly independent of any determinism, then I would ask how it is that we can relate to that utterly independent fact, at all, so as to observe it, and thereby incorporate it within our reason? The only solution that I can see (assuming the foregoing is correct), is that reason must claim to (and in reality) transcend fact; incorporate it within a broader system. Thus, reason must transcend the whole physical universe, if we are to incorporate with reason the fact of the independence of the whole physical universe from us (i.e. - if we all dropped dead today, the universe would continue on, pretty much as it did while we were here, as I believe is the case).

Reason is thus supernatural. Atheism has "no reason" to accept the supernatural, such as the existence of any god, because it has "no reason" to accept any independent fact at all, so far as atheism is deterministic in the sense described above.

Or perhaps you disagree?

o

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: yukonmuffin In our environment alone. Rules change on a bigger or smaller scale, and that's where the uncertainty comes in.

Hey YM

Accepting quantum uncertainty (although quantum physicists who follow the deterministic "de Broglie- Bohm theory" of quantum mechanics might differ - I can't say that I quite understand it), how do rules change on a bigger scale, and what can we rely upon if not reason, if trying to understand 'em?

o

[yukonmuffin]

It's fun to think about isn't it? Try organizing your thoughts and write them down like a novel: edit them a few times until they make clear sense and if you can simplify the bigger words and concepts. This may help us communicate a little better.

[Katalsik]

Just as some may have doubts about atheism some have doubts about the bible. now before i get much futher into this i just want to say yes i am atheist and no i do not have any issues with religion. but going through the bible iv noticed some things the biggest being jesus. (please before getting upset just read) as far as i knew there was only one god. at this time most of you are saying duh, but knowing that isnt worshiping or praying to jesus a sin? Some believe him to be the son of god...and yet they worship him. Even with him being the son of god that still would be worshiping a false idol becouse he is not god. and with thos who believe him to be god, the bible does not say this so they do not know for sure again this would be worshiping a false idol. I know a lot of people who dont believe in the bible but do in god. Me personaly if anything the bible is stories. yes stories. Stories that are not true but stories guiding us to live by not telling us how to live but kinda like a helping hand to help people choose the right choices and possibly earn their right in paradise.

[yukonmuffin]

Quote by: ovnoclov Hey YM Accepting quantum uncertainty (although quantum physicists who follow the deterministic "de Broglie- Bohm theory" of quantum mechanics might differ - I can't say that I quite understand it), how do rules change on a bigger scale, and what can we rely upon if not reason, if trying to understand 'em? o

the scale got me too, why should small things not have to fallow the same laws as big things? I don't know the why but you must know that bouncy balls and atoms don't fallow the same physical rules.

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: yukonmuffin It's fun to think about isn't it? Try organizing your thoughts and write them down like a novel: edit them a few times until they make clear sense and if you can simplify the bigger words and concepts. This may help us communicate a little better.

Thanks; I'll try.

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: Katalsik Just as some may have doubts about atheism some have doubts about the bible. now before i get much futher into this i just want to say yes i am atheist and no i do not have any issues with religion. but going through the bible iv noticed some things the biggest being jesus. (please before getting upset just read) as far as i knew there was only one god. at this time most of you are saying duh, but knowing that isnt worshiping or praying to jesus a sin? Some believe him to be the son of god...and yet they worship him. Even with him being the son of god that still would be worshiping a false idol becouse he is not god. and with thos who believe him to be god, the bible does not say this so they do not know for sure again this would be worshiping a false idol. I know a lot of people who dont believe in the bible but do in god. Me personaly if anything the bible is stories. yes stories. Stories that are not true but stories guiding us to live by not telling us how to live but kinda like a helping hand to help people choose the right choices and possibly earn their right in paradise.

Dear Katalsik

Thanks for the detailed response. If I may address your point about Jesus first. Just as it's possible for you to have an avatar in Second Life (or be "Katalsik" here), so too it seems possible for God (if such a being exists) to insert Himself (another presumption) in the world, if He has in fact created it. It's conceivable that your Second Life character would have all of your characteristics, so far as it is possible for Second Life to embody them. Agreed?

As to the Bible, I agree that some of the stories are myths, like Australian Aboriginal or Native American creation myths. I recall Australian Aboriginal Christians saying that they find hints of Christianity in their traditional theology, and can mix parts of it in with Christianity.

However, I understand that there is as much historical evidence for the Jesus of the Christian scriptures, as there is for other, less controversial figures of the time such as Julius Caesar. Yair, I agree that although not all of the Bible stories are scientific accounts (Creation Scientists please start up a new topic), they have truths to live by.

Of course, this is all a bit removed from the topic of whether atheism has a rational basis!

[Angry Citizen]

Quote by: ovnoclov Dear AC The mere idea of proof itself, may be a proof of the existence of God, or at least the supernatural, for the following reason. To assert that anything at all can be proven, is to assert that something exists independently of our circumstances, such that one cannot truly say, in response to that proof, "oh, that proof is just the result of your biological, chemical, physical, social or other circumstances". To that extent, I think that proof, itself, be said to exist independently of the whole physical universe. Thus, proof, itself, is evidence of something being above the universe, or Nature; or (you saw this coming) "supernatural". Or perhaps you disagree?

I am flabbergasted. It took this long just to respond to your post, simply because it was so mind-numbing. I hate to sound disrespectful, but I think you have some serious misconceptions about the nature of logic -- and reality, for that matter. The idea of proof being intrinsically related to the idea of God, who is himself the very embodiment of total lack of proof?

Basic epistemological arguments stipulate an inability to prove anything. 'Proof' is synonymous with 'educated guess', while stressing 'educated'. Proof in the physical world is simply the observation of repeatable phenomenon. God cannot be seen, cannot be spoken with, cannot be touched, cannot be 'met' until after we're suitably unable to tell anyone, and all 'historical' records -- stressing the dubious nature of 'historical records' here, given the Bible's immense inadequacies as a document possessing a shred of veracity -- lie comfortably distant in the past, and for all intents and purposes can be said to be non-existent -- even if he's real.

But that's the thing. God is obviously false. God is explained in terms of the physical universe. Noone claims that God lies outside the universe, or is unable to be proven. Atheists have proven God long before you came along. The universe is not subservient to God; God is within the universe. In fact, I can point him out to you. You know that very large mound of bone and flesh that sits atop your shoulders? Inside that mound is something called a 'brain'. This brain is the origin for all of human creativity: from the roof of the Sistine Chapel, to the LSD-fuelled writings of Philip K. Dick, to the God in your absurd fairy tale, all of it stems from the brain, the noggin, the melon, the wrinkly thing within your skull. The fact that you seriously believe the often-incongruent claims of people who lived over two millennia ago shows an underlying inability to reconcile with and identify fiction with reality.

[ovnoclov]

Dear Angry Citizen

Hi. First, your statements about logic, matter and reality; particularly that "God is the very embodiment of total lack of proof"; they're assertions rather than arguments, so if I may I'll skip 'em and jump to your arguments instead.

"Basic epistemological arguments stipulate an inability to prove anything". [So, they PROVE that, or is that just an assertion? I will, of course, assume your arguments to be proofs, unless I can prove them otherwise.]

Next, I disagree with your statement that the Bible lacks a shred of veracity - Non-Christian writers such as Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus tell us that Jesus was a historical figure who was executed between 26CE (or "26AD") and 36CE in Judaea, that he was later worshipped as a deity and that the Christian movement spread to Rome and many other places by 50CE or earlier. Do they lack a shred of veracity too? Tacitus wrote about the assault by Nero (did he exist?) on Christians after the fire in Rome in 64CE: "Christus ...the Christian ... founder had undergone the death penalty ... by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus ... in Judaea ... " (Annals of Imperial Rome, xv, 44). How's the veracity in that neck of the woods?

But then we come to the guts of it. "God is obviously false." [That's not obvious to me. Or that bloke who a couple of houses down. Or my friends across the street. Or ...] "God is explained in terms of the physical universe. No-one claims that God lies outside the universe" [I do, as do most Christians, Jews and Muslims - I would suggest that God is like an author or playwright or "Second Life" creator who builds a world and yet is distinct from that world, although also able to appear as a character in it.] "and , or is unable to be proven." [a moot point, but let it go through to the keeper/catcher]. "Atheists have proven God long before you came along." [hmm...]

"The universe is not subservient to God; God is within the universe. In fact, I can point him out to you. You know that very large mound of bone and flesh that sits atop your shoulders? Inside that mound is something called a 'brain'. This brain is the origin for all of human creativity: from the roof of the Sistine Chapel, to the LSD-fuelled writings of Philip K. Dick, to the God in your absurd fairy tale, [Hey, I LIKE absurd fairy tales!!! LSD-fuelled writings? Maybe less so.] all of it stems from the brain, the noggin, the melon, the wrinkly thing within your skull."

[Just to clarify, is the whole of my brain, "God"? Or just the cerebral cortex? Or just the bit that enjoys fairy-tales, pizza and soccer? Or is it that funky little bit that likes Stevie Wonder? Or perhaps that part that keeps forgetting where my keys are? Or is my ignorance of neuroscience beyond comment? Just askin'.]

"The fact that you seriously believe the often-incongruent claims of people who lived over two millennia ago shows an underlying inability to reconcile with and identify fiction with reality."
[Again, this criticising people just 'cos they're dead seems a bit harsh. How about Shakespeare? Dead 400 years. What did he know? The Bhagavad Gita? Written between 5 BCE and 2 BCE. Umm, criticising others just because they live far away from them in space, is sometimes called "provincial". Now if Einstein found that space and time are parts of the same thing ...

... While my topic gently weeps...

[mbc85]

Hey ovclon (hope I got the name right phone posting here): about the avatar part of god, why wouldn't god just show himself up? Instead of creating an avatar? So are we a game to god?

The jesus part was a good example of what the bible is, an account of history through the eyes of men. Unfortunatelly men seem to exaggerate a lot. Jesus story should be "jesus: the biggest liar in history". He sold good morals through illusions and lies. Should we take from jesus because he lied to everyone about who he was and who his father was? No, because even tho it's a bunch of lies his motive behind them was "pure". Because of jesus a lot of people changed for good. It was organized religion that completely destroyed what jesus, not god, started.

I do not know if I am fully an atheist because I believe in a god, that god is, as angry citizen said, inside my head. I talk with it and reason with it because the religious god has not done that in 2000 plus years to any one. So why wait for something that might happen or not at the end of my life? Meet my "maker". I relate more to jesus because at least he was a man that walked this earth and did his "thang".

Atheism might be irrational. And that's okay, I rather be irrational than utterly believe that one being created everything even tho nothing created him.

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: mbc85 Hey ovclon (hope I got the name right phone posting here): about the avatar part of god, why wouldn't god just show himself up? Instead of creating an avatar? So are we a game to god? The jesus part was a good example of what the bible is, an account of history through the eyes of men. Unfortunatelly men seem to exaggerate a lot. Jesus story should be "jesus: the biggest liar in history". He sold good morals through illusions and lies. Should we take from jesus because he lied to everyone about who he was and who his father was? No, because even tho it's a bunch of lies his motive behind them was "pure". Because of jesus a lot of people changed for good. It was organized religion that completely destroyed what jesus, not god, started. I do not know if I am fully an atheist because I believe in a god, that god is, as angry citizen said, inside my head. I talk with it and reason with it because the religious god has not done that in 2000 plus years to any one. So why wait for something that might happen or not at the end of my life? Meet my "maker". I relate more to jesus because at least he was a man that walked this earth and did his "thang". Atheism might be irrational. And that's okay, I rather be irrational than utterly believe that one being created everything even tho nothing created him.

Hey MA (Don't stress about my name - I used "Volconvo" backwards only because I'm lazy like that. But if you could tell me how to change "Sedimentary Rock" to "lapsed atheist" I'd be grateful!)

I'd suggest that if there is a God, and He (?) were to show up as Himself in his book/play/computer game, an avatar (not to be confused with the movie!) might be as full an expression of Himself as is possible in that world. That world would not be able to express Himself fully, just as a Jane Austen book can't fully express her fully, or an Arthur Miller can't fully express him, even though their presence is in it everywhere.

To say that we're a game to such a God seems to trivialise it, and yet compared to the fuller reality outside, I guess it would be a lesser reality, and hence a game, and yet the Christian story is that God was prepared to suffer utterly in such a reality, and feel completely abandoned there, and through that, transcend it.

In what way did Jesus lie to everyone about who he was and who his father was?

But as to the idea that organised religion completely destroyed what Jesus started, yeah, I'd have to agree with you there about the established church; (Garry Wills is brilliant on this stuff in "Papal Sin" and "Why I'm a Catholic" - he hangs crap on the papacy and then shows how ordinary people keep bringing the Pope back to reality. But the apostle Paul often seems less strict on people than Jesus' absolute demands, about marriage for example, so I'm not sure the church was wrong there.

I agree that God in our head as Reason is more accessible (to me at least) than the God who gives visions and miracles. I've never seen either, and with my modern background and upbringing, I'd be willing to accept a scientific explanation that was going, instead. Yet miracles seem to have been a regular feature of Jesus' life, if you accept the four Gospel accounts as, well, "Gospel". Yet Christian friends who come back from Papua New Guinea and Vietnam say that miracles happen all the time over there, so maybe we've just shut ourselves off to it? But I'd hate to think I had to turn off my brain, though, which is why I, too, find the idea of an "uncreated Creator" pretty odd. But what if the universe is like a book, or ... Facebook! It's a bit more possible to conceive of someone (not Mark Zuckerberg!) creating it from beyond.

Thanks for taking the time to make a detailed response,

o

[Angry Citizen]

Next, I disagree with your statement that the Bible lacks a shred of veracity - Non-Christian writers such as Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus tell us that Jesus was a historical figure who was executed between 26CE (or "26AD") and 36CE in Judaea, that he was later worshipped as a deity and that the Christian movement spread to Rome and many other places by 50CE or earlier. Do they lack a shred of veracity too? Tacitus wrote about the assault by Nero (did he exist?) on Christians after the fire in Rome in 64CE: "Christus ...the Christian ... founder had undergone the death penalty ... by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus ... in Judaea ... " (Annals of Imperial Rome, xv, 44). How's the veracity in that neck of the woods?

Homer wrote of the fall of Troy, which turned out to be a real city. Does that validate his accounts of the Cyclops and Hades? Of course not. We both know what kind of veracity I am discussing. Jesus almost certainly existed. That doesn't mean he was the son of God, able to perform miracles. Furthermore, a few historical writings don't validate the extraordinary claims that a God exists at all.

But then we come to the guts of it. "God is obviously false." [That's not obvious to me. Or that bloke who a couple of houses down. Or my friends across the street. Or ...] "God is explained in terms of the physical universe. No-one claims that God lies outside the universe" [I do, as do most Christians, Jews and Muslims - I would suggest that God is like an author or playwright or "Second Life" creator who builds a world and yet is distinct from that world, although also able to appear as a character in it.] "and , or is unable to be proven." [a moot point, but let it go through to the keeper/catcher]. "Atheists have proven God long before you came along." [hmm...]

It's false to the approximately one billion Buddhists living in southeast Asia. Probably false to the approximately one billion Hindus. You're a product of your own culture. You've been brainwashed, as has your friend next door and across the street. Strength in numbers does not apply to logic.

You can apply standards from computer games all you want, but frankly... you've yet to show that we're a computer game at all.

[Just to clarify, is the whole of my brain, "God"? Or just the cerebral cortex? Or just the bit that enjoys fairy-tales, pizza and soccer? Or is it that funky little bit that likes Stevie Wonder? Or perhaps that part that keeps forgetting where my keys are? Or is my ignorance of neuroscience beyond comment? Just askin'.]

It's called the 'God Spot'. When people pray or engage in worship, that little area in your brain lights up. It transcends religions, from pagan to Judeo-Christian.

[Again, this criticising people just 'cos they're dead seems a bit harsh. How about Shakespeare? Dead 400 years. What did he know? The Bhagavad Gita? Written between 5 BCE and 2 BCE. Umm, criticising others just because they live far away from them in space, is sometimes called "provincial". Now if Einstein found that space and time are parts of the same thing ...

Shakespeare didn't claim to possess esoteric knowledge of some fantastic entity. Einstein proved his claim with mathematics, not shoddy anecdotes from two millennia ago. When you figure out why you dismiss Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, you'll know why I dismiss your fairy tale.

[gcomeau]

Quote by: ovnoclov I wish to argue that atheism does not have a rational basis. Atheism assumes that reason is valid, and I, a Christian agree.

All philosophies assume that reason is valid because it's a necessary pre-condition for engaging in rational thought. If you didn't agree you would very likely be posting this from a mental institution and I would be expressing surprise that they gave you internet access.

Whether you are an atheist or a theist is irrelevent to this point.

However, atheism does not seem to offer an independent standard for reason, and so for escaping claims of biological determinism, or Marxist determinism, or any determinism that says "your thoughts are just the product of your circumstances, rather than having an independent basis".

I'm not even going to bother arguing that point and instead ask the more obvious question.

So?

What's irrational about biological determinism? If you're going to make the argument that atheism is lacking a rational basis you're going to need to make an argument that it's, well, irrational in some way. So if you're correct and atheism actually can't "escape claims of biological determinism"... then what? Take us from there to "therefore atheism lacks a rational basis" if you don't mind.

To be clear, I personally think engaging in determinism vs. free will discussions is one of the most incredibly pointless philosophical discussions anyone can involve themselves in since the answer to the question is (a)apparently indeterminable and (b)absolutely and completely irrelevent to how you live your life even if you COULD answer the question... but maybe you'll come with some reason it's worth bothering to obsess about I haven't thought of.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: ovnoclov I wish to argue that atheism does not have a rational basis. Atheism assumes that reason is valid, and I, a Christian agree. However, atheism does not seem to offer an independent standard for reason, and so for escaping claims of biological determinism, or Marxist determinism, or any determinism that says "your thoughts are just the product of your circumstances, rather than having an independent basis". If the physical universe is that independent standard, and is utterly independent, then how can we interact with it? It must relate to us in some causal sense, in order for us to interact with it by validating it through reason. Only an independent thing ("Reason") seems available, and we participate in Reason by reasoning. Otherwise Reason or reasoning is just something that happens in our heads, with no relation to the outside world. But perhaps you disagree ...

Something that you touched on in your post, but were not spectific is: Is existance rational? In my view, it is not. When one considers the Big Bang, the event was irrational. It didn't and doesn't make sense. How could the universe be squeezed into a "singularity" (Hawking's word) that's smaller than an electron? It is impossible and certainly irrational, but as far as we know; it's real.

So if the event that kicked off the universe was/is irrational, then doesn't it follow that everything else, at least on some level, is too?

[Questatement]

Quote by: Angry Citizen Shakespeare didn't claim to possess esoteric knowledge of some fantastic entity. Einstein proved his claim with mathematics, not shoddy anecdotes from two millennia ago. When you figure out why you dismiss Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, you'll know why I dismiss your fairy tale.

So Troy existed. The Protestant bible has thousands of cities listed in their correct locations and, in fact, hundreds of those were unearthed with nothing other than the bible as a guide. Add to this the tens-of-thousands of details in the way of names and events (again, many verified) and you have a single strand of hair (Iliad’s Troy) you are trying to compare to a full head of hair (66 books of the bible). Not to mention a single, non-miraculous detail from the bible that has actually been proven as false.

Really dude, give this Troy-thing up, it only makes you look desperate.

[gcomeau]

Quote by: Questatement So Troy existed. The Protestant bible has thousands of cities listed in their correct locations and, in fact, hundreds of those were unearthed with nothing other than the bible as a guide. Add to this the tens-of-thousands of details in the way of names and events (again, many verified) and you have a single strand of hair (Iliad’s Troy) you are trying to compare to a full head of hair (66 books of the bible). Not to mention a single, non-miraculous detail from the bible that has actually been proven as false. Really dude, give this Troy-thing up, it only makes you look desperate.

Sigh...

Please don't try to equate getting mundane details about the world the person writing the accounts lived in correct to evidence that any fantastic accompanying claims of events that supposedly occured there actually happened.

Every single city they talk about in the movie "Independence Day "is *actually real*! That does not mean that if some future civilization digs up a copy of the dvd they should conclude it's an accurate historical account of an alien invasion in their distant history just because by following the hints they pick up from it they manage to go dig up the ruins of New York.