Non- believers, why does it seem that you all answer the same to the question- Why don't you...?

Question

believe in what the Bible says? All I seem to hear is "because it was written 2000 yrs ago". What does that matter? Do you really think that 2000 years from now people will refuse to believe in the events that are taking place today? In 4007 are people going to not believe that in 2007 the Colts won the Superbowl, that George Bush was president, and there was a war against terrorism taking place just because those things happened so long ago? Taking aspects of faith out, at least come up with a logical reason not to believe in the historical events of the Bible. You put "faith" that events really happened in other history books that you read, right?

Many people who answered still want indisputable proof- Can you show me indisputable proof that, say, Socrates lived and spoke to thousands about his beliefs? Have you met him? Have you met someone who has? No, you must rely on the writings and translations of many people who saw him and the things around him and recorded what he said. The Bible is really no different.
Thanks to all who are answering, also I didn't know that the term "non-believers" was not PC. I aplologize.

Answer 1

I don't think that the Illiad is a very good history book, no. Some historical facts are part of that legend, but not that many. Ancient historiography is a disaster, written materials are scarce and usually just from one perspective. But yeah, some parts of the bible make sense and are reasonably good source materials for the times they describe. But one source does not make a strong case for a historical point of view...
The new testament in particular is extremely shaky not because it is so old but because it is so new. No eyewitness accounts of Jesus are available, two gospels are based on one other (Luke and Matthew are based on Mark) and yet they contradict each other. In the first three centuries of christianity there was much discussion which writings were essential and which were not, and the lists were very much varying. So why are these writings more reliable than all those thrown out eventually?
Sure it seems plausible that there is a historical basis for most of the events described in the bible. But they have been embellished, politicized, confused etc. just like all the other information in historical sources. No historian would ever trust one source point blank.

edit: you're exactly right B. Socrates is an excellent example. There are two eyewitness accounts of him, Plato's an Xenophon's, but yeah, Plato does put a lot of words in Socrates's mouth to the extent that it is not such a strange idea to doubt if Socrates ever existed. And to find out what Socrates, if he existed, actually said is practically impossible. Jesus and Socrates are very comparable in this sense.

Answer 2

I do not put much "faith" into other historical books that I read. Books are complicated sources, because the writer might have alterior motives, or they may be misinformed, or any number of things. When a historian writes a book, I look at the evidence he uses in coming to his conclusions. Good historians can cite lots and lots of evidence, and if they can't, then they don't claim their theories as fact, but instead as theories and point to what evidence they can. Good historians also address evidence that might be contrary to their theories in order to provide a complete picture.

I personally believe that the people who authored the Bible believed in what they wrote. That does not mean, however, that they are correct. The story of Jesus's birth, for example, is written about multiple times by authors who weren't present at the birth. Where did they get their information? We don't know. That certainly doesn't prove the story is wrong, but it doesn't prove the story is right. It's left at just being a story.

Furthermore, while there is a fair bit of evidence that Jesus really existed and really was executed, there's no evidence at all that he rose from the dead. Again, doesn't mean he didn't, but it means from a historical perspective there's no evidence that he did either. That's faith.

Historical documents give us bad information ALL THE TIME. As a historian, I do not believe ANYTHING simply because someone wrote it down. There must be corroborating evidence for me.

Answer 3

Oh, that thing about Socrates? Since when does any group of people go around trying to badger any other group to believe, or not believe in Socrates, and whatever he may or may not have done at the time he is supposed to have lived?

As to any of your other analogies, the same pretty much applies. Nobody goes around preaching that if you do not believe a certain way about certain things or a certain somebody, you are going to suffer the hideous and painful consequences of spending an eternity screeching in pain and gnashing your teeth in anguish.

Young man and I'll bet my bottom dollar that is what you are - you haven't lived anywhere near long enough, or travelled far enough around this planet to have been able to know the opinions of "ALL" non-believers, or to know how they "ALL" answer the question you refer to.

Let's just cut through all the Bovine Excreta and say simply this: If there ever was such a thing as an Inalienable Right, certainly the one at the very top of the totem pole is the inalienable right of every single human being to be the owner of his own mind, and the master of his own thinking and believing. That's it, end of discussion. YOU have that exact same right to embrace whatever particular religious belief system you feel is right for you. Have at it. I don't give a tinker's toenail if you want to worship an Old English Upright Rosewood Piano with Brass Candleholders. (with or without the candles) Why the heck should YOU bother your fat with how I choose to think and believe, or any of the other thousands..... no, millions.... of people who do NOT share your particular religious philosophy? Not your business. But if you choose to try and make it your business, then don't get all bent out of shape if a few of those people tell you to put it where the sun don't shine.

Answer 4

it doesn't really matter when it was written, because it is nonsense today. Some people try to make you feel better by blaming the errors on its age, but in truth, it was nonsense back then and remains so. I suppose some people are acknowledging that there may be a few things that DID make sense 2000 years ago, but if so, practically none of it makes any sense today. Personally, I don't think it made any sense 2000 years ago when the writers thought the world was flat. If it came out as a new book today, you know nobody would fall for it.

Answer 5

Ok the bible is one book! That has been changed written by people who say god spoke to them. When people are standing on the street talking to them self do you not say omg crazy person alert or if someone would introduce you to an imaginary friend wouldn't you think the same thing if the person was older then 12? The bible was written by several people who claim that exact thing in my eyes anyway. These people spoke to someone who wasn't visible. How can I have faith in something that people could have created just to make me fearful of wrath when I die if I'm not a good person? I don't need to be fearful to be a good person I can do that on my own I have morals and values that I didn't get from religion. Why should I subject myself to feeling guilty if I have sex out of wed lock or something along them lines just because someone I never met or spoke to says that it's wrong and I'm damned for it? History books are written by many people and told by people who experienced the events. They are passed down through time. There are newspapers with these events in them. Seriously just because you can't look past what you have been taught to see don't try and tell us we are wrong because we can.

Answer 6

This question is so ignorant I can hardly type.

Ask yourself: How much evidence, beyond any POSSIBILITY of doubt, is there that the Colts won the Superbowl? How much that the WTC was reduced to 100m tons of rubble by ten guys with boxcutters? Then ask what evidence there is that anything in the Bible actually happened at all?

The Bible is NOT a history book. If you think otherwise, you've never read a real history book.

Answer 7

I believe in some books that were written over 2000 years ago. For example De bello Gallico by Julius Caesar. Amazingly there is evidence of a Roman conquest of Gaul and that a person named Julius Caesar commanded it. We can dig up evidence, we can read other books that reference the invasion. See it isn't just the book. It's all the evidence that makes something believable or not.

But in 2000 years hopefully people won't be speaking about how Harry Potter is going to return soon.

Answer 8

The fact that it was written 2000 years ago by people with no refrigeration certainly doesn't help it's possiblity of being true. But, then throw in all the hallucenogenic fairy tales they try to pass off as reality and any person with half a brain would reject it. What a freaky trip they were having! A virgin gives birth, a guy walks on water, comes back from the dead...I mean COME ON!!!!

Answer 9

My answer is not "because it was written 2000 years ago." My answer is, "because the actual words were put down by fallible human beings who have changed it numerous times so who knows what was originally said and by who?"

I don't believe in a lot of "what the bible says" because my heart tells me it's simply wrong. Original sin is, I believe, the biggest lie ever fostered upon humanity, one that paved the way for a host of other destructive lies.

The bible IS NOT a historical text. It is a spiritual work, and though we can glean a lot of indirect knowledge from it, it should not be taken as literal history. No spiritual work should be taken literally, not the Bible, not the Qu'ran, none of it.

Answer 10

Hmmm...Why do Christians denounce anything that does not conform to their beliefs or doctrine? If it ain't in your bible, it is up for criticism.
It is an individual's choice and right to believe what they wish. Christianity, contradictory to what you might think, does not hold all the rights to religion and government as it, as a whole, might think it does.

You say to take faith out of it. The same could be said to you. Take "faith" out of the question...why do you believe the bible? What makes you think it is real? What and where is your hard-core proof? Show me something indisputable.