47 3

Tough question here! Why are so many people absolutely certain the bible has NO truth in it if they never even read it? I studied it and dug deep into history before concluding that religion is false but there is so much truth about the history of the people and tracing it back was how I concluded that religion is designed to control people but that IS NOT the message of the Christ. I do not believe we were ever told the truth about anything but that it can be found and ignoring the bible because of religion seems to be closed minded to me and not much different than simply believing without evidence. I guess what I am asking is how can anyone be so certain of things they admit they did not research?

Dida 7 Mar 8

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I've studied the buybull as an individual, in several religious institutions and in detail (on cherry picked sections, of course) in a southern baptist college. I came away with the conclusion I would not "buy bull" with just a few of the inconsitencies, absurdities and formost the "holy attrocities" of which there is a more complete listing in the Skeptics Annotated Bible. (link)

The OT represents a very rare "history" written by the losers to unify wandering, usually landless, nomadic tribes vilified by their "neighbors". The NT is a complete work of fiction that's actually a compilation of various then popular religions, created to unify a dying empire which was very effective at creating the world power we know today as the catholic church.

Though the buybull is replete with some universal truths it is more so filled with hateful, devisive rhetoric in that any group who wants to choose a few absurd verses to declare universal truth while disregarding any which may conflict with those so chosen, they then have license to destroy any who would disagree. They are themselves at that point "gawd's chosen", after all.

The very existence of Jesus is questionable but the vast majority of "biblical history" is not: it just didn't happen and the very phrase "biblical history" is a contradiction in terms.



Who says there's no truth in it? There's truth that was relevant at the time to the control freaks who wrote it. Religion is ALWAYS about control. And how do YOU know what "the message of the christ" is? If he even ever existed.
Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Sounds like a message to me.

Thank you SeaStar. very eloquently stated.

Wow Dida, you sound a lot like a Xian posing as a person with a mind of her own. If that's the case, just remember, you have met your match on this site, several times over.

@SeaStar & ReadyforaChange - I can't see Dida's reply - she must have blocked me! It says she is "no longer active". What did she say? That I'm hostile? Obviously a sensitive soul...... So yes, Dida did meet her match many times over. And then chickened out.


Just because I'm atheist, doesn't mean that I rebuke any historical value. What easier way to take short cuts in writing than to add real locations, people, and events?
The difference between myths and legends can easily come into play here.
If you want to classify the bible, it can be considered a book with various myths and legends.

It's funny that you say that. A lot of scholars tend to determine old stories as myth or legend because they can't find enough proof of the reality of them. The thing is that all those "myth" and "legends", even the Jewish Torah is based on oral tradition before they were written down when writing was developed. Religious stories often were told and repeated exactly time after time in a very detailed way. Other stories (legends) were less precise, I guess.
Anyway, a lot of these myth and legends have appeared to contain more truth than "just a story". People tend to determine that what they don't understand as fabrication of fantasy.

@Gert here's the thing though...
There's no way that anyone can say that before the written language was invented that these stories were told exactly. Word for word.
The human brain is an interesting tool.
When information is distorted (be it age, or a long time since the story was last accessed) our human brains tend to fill in the blanks and cover those holes.
The thought of these stories being told word for word before writing was created, is laughable in my opinion.

@Gert Did you ever hear the police interviewing witness to a car accident? I was one of those witness ....and my recollection of the accident, from the angle where I was standing, was not even close to the information provided by the guy who saw the accident from across the street.

Did anybody tell you something about a third party and, after you passed what you were told to a fourth person...and he/she passed the "same info. to a fifth one"....the original information came back to you COMPLETELY DISTORTED?

Well, that' s the history of the Bible....Please.

There is no difference between those who wrote / told the Bible and the minstrels of the Middle Ages.

@NeoXerops Yep, I'm laughing at this too. Chinese whispers.

@NeoXerops I know, but do you know how meticulous the Jewish took care of copy and past, long before the computer existed. These religious "stories" were copied and imprinted word after word, just as the copying later on "paper" was executed. If you see an old text of the torah and a new one, you can't find a mistake. That's how religion works. Sorry.

I know @DUCHESSA I've studied at law school. But read my reply to NeoXerops, than you understand my point.

@Gert Sorry, but word of mouth has a way to twist the truth many times over ...IAW, by the time the Bible was first printed "the truth" was not longer THE truth

@DUCHESSA Well, I don't want you to believe it, it's just the way I see it. Have you ever heard a poet recite his whole bundle? and no word wrong.

@Gert One thing is to recite a poem....even a long one as the "Mio Cid"...and another one is to get a story that was told and re-told in different languages during centuries by thousand of people and to believe is the original. Like I equals the minstrel of the Middle Ages.

@DUCHESSA I never pointed at just "storytelling". There you are right. I never mentioned different languages. My example is just the Jewish religion and other old religions that are transferred by the word of mouth. One language, not storytelling but transfer knowledge, history, from mouth to mouth, the old, controlling the result at the young. In Jewish tradition just as in others priests are a separate caste. But, if you don't want to believe me, don't. I'm okay with that.

@Gert Your legal skills help you with the back n forth....bit the fact is the stories in the Bible are as fake as a three dollar bill

Well @DUCHESSA, when you are convinced that the stories of the Bible are fake, you are convinced that the stories of the Bible are fake. It's always hard to reason with people that are convinced about whatever. I'm glad for you are convinced. It gives you at least some grip on the reality of your own word. I congratulate you with that. It's always nice to be sure.

@Gert The, the stories in the Bible are distorted hence fake; if you fail to "see" this are the hard one to reason with, dear....and a waste of time. Adiós.

@DUCHESSA Hahaha, you are not reasoning Duchessa, you are trying to convince me of your conviction. You try to do what a Christian friend of mine tries to do all the time. You are only the owner of your own truth, based on what you learned, experienced and combined that way. I apparently learned and experienced different things so I came to other conclusions. Nothing wrong with that. But you try to force your truth on me and you don't even use valid arguments. But I'm okay with that. I am glad we are not all the same. Just accept that other people are thinking different. Isn't that why we're on this site?


Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.
People only look for truth in the bible because they already believe it is a book of truth.


OK, having read the Bible very thoroughly...

The key story of the Bible is Moses. Moses received the original revelation and the Law. Without that, you have nothing. Jesus is the Son of Who exactly?

Guess what, you don't have that. We know that there is essentially zero history in the OT until after the fictional conquest of the Land in Joshua.

Also, Jesus taught these key immoral lessons

  1. Have no care for tomorrow, no saving or thrift
  2. Shun your parents and family (cult anyone?)
  3. Vicarious redemption of sin

Not to mention, the historicity of Jesus has enormous problems. There are no contemporary accounts and the earliest Gospel was written more than a generation after the alleged events. The Pauline and Gospel Jesus could hardly be more different. It's a mess.

Tough question, do you really know the Bible?

"is a lot of scientific evidence to support the fact that a lot of the stories did take place but not for the reasons the authors wrote about. "

People are fond of saying this, but seem to always fail to be able to back it up.

We KNOW the "Books of Moses" are entirely fiction. Your flood example is laughable. Yeah, there have been floods and stories about flood. Is that somehow supposed to support Noah and a GLOBAL flood? Fiction all the way.

Start listing the scientific evidence for ANY important story of the Bible. I am all "ears."

Right... ICR is a complete and utter joke.

If you belief a single thing they say, you are gullible. There is no way around it.


I have read it. Several times. I know more about their book than a lot of "christians".


You cite the evangelical Institutite for Creation Research (see its antiscientific and fundamentalist beliefs here: [] ) below:

"There is a lot of scientific evidence to support the fact that a lot of the stories did take place but not for the reasons the authors wrote about. Did you know there are over 200 accounts of the flood and proof the Earth had been flooded? [] "

I am not in this community to waste my time with religious propaganda.

Stick with us - it seems Dida's given up and pissed off.

What was she like, over time? I remember only one previous comment of hers, about past trauma. But I see she reached the sainted level of 7 before being bodily assumed into her heaven.


Not believing without evidence? Because I think religion is retarded I don't need evidence. I grew up in church and I've read most of the Bible. I can see going to school and studying the Bible if you believe it but why would I waste my time studying something I don't believe? Theres lots of books on lots of religions that I have no intention of reading just in case they might contain an actual fact.


I have read it. My question. Why do you believe the bible is true?. Religion came first, then they wrote the book to back themselves up.

Well, you have a point there. The problem is the mix of religion and history. That creates the confusion on which religion thrives.

Folklore and mythology have too often proven to be not completely without truth @SeaStar, so I think I stay agnostic, because that allows me "not to know".

Is there truth in Lancelot and the knights of the Round table? The fact that some biblical stories intersect with regional historical events does nothing to prove the bible is a truthful document anymore than the average novel peppered with actual historic references is made to be believed. The fact is that the bible the faithful worship today has been translated, edited, rewritten, revised thousands of times, and was originally put together to benefit a Roman emperor and consolidate his power. To make this book the center of your life makes as much sense as worshipping Dr. Seuss, or Aesop’s fables, both of which contain better life philosophies. And a book that can encompass every denomination from a Catholic, Ortodox or other, to Amish, to snake handling Pentecostals, has no real message, just interpretations controlled by human con men and women.


For me it was a few the talking snake & ass..and the rampant incest, murder & general mayhem..


Mostly because it's their job to prove to me. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to disprove their theory by reading their books. I mean a lot of us dismiss Scientology but I sure havent read their stuff. Same with the book of Mormon.

thanks for saying that. WHy does a person have to put effort into disproving whatever book someone puts up as a model for a belief system?

They're being hyperbolic


The best, actually the only recorded history of the era that Jesus was suposedly doing his thing is that of the Romans. They had scribes everwhere writting down. everything. No mention of Jesus. I don't know how you went about your researech but if you found a single speck of evidence substatiating the bible I'd love to see it.


I have studied the bible as a christian in my past. There are some things that are true relating to the cullture of man, but the creation of man has no facts to prove it happened in a biblical sense.

@Dida i see where u are going with this. I just never understood how a human can write about the book of genesis when humans didnt exist....i have struggled with this my entire life.

OK it could just be me but your "There are some things that are true relating to the cullture of man" line makes no sense at all. Kinda like "the inspired word of god".,

@Casey07 culture and religion are not the same things. culture is a reflection of the current conditions of existence for example....hunting and fishing. Neither have anything to do with religion but they are both referenced throughout the bible.

@twshield Huh?

@Casey07 have you actually read a version of the bible?

@twshield your question is really an accusation that I I am getting opinions about things I know nothing about. But I'll answer you anyway I taught adult Sunday School at new wine Christian Fellowship. I used the new international version, the King James, the American Standard and the living Bible. I use Strong's Concordance for clarification. I have weekly Bible studies in my home. studies in my home. When I I said your comment referring to "the culture of man" made no sense I did not mean biblically. I meant it made no sense at all. That phrase is nonsensical. Culture is a bunch of traditions beliefs and quite often religion particular to a a certain group of people some cultures are purely religious like the Mayans in Central America. Everything they did was part of a ceremony. There have been in the history of mankind thousands of cultures but no one culture of man on top of all this I question your claim of having studied the Bible. At one point you say that hunting and fishing I referenced throughout the Bible. Sorry but hunting is mentioned 0 * in the New Testament. In all the books of the Old Testament it is mentioned in passing just three times. As for fishing it's worse. The closest you get is JC saying to stop fishing for fish and start fishing for men. Rather than study the Bible I think you saw the bumper sticker with the Jesus fish on it and concluded that there was a lot of stuff about fishing in the Bible. You call that study. Not one thing you said in your post or any of the comments reveals any understanding of the Bible I think you are a phony

@Casey07 you have basically proven my point I was making...much appreciated! You are correct religion is a component of culture however the bible is a representative of religion and cultural existence of a particular time. I ask if you had read the bible because anyone who has should be a able to understand my statement. I find it interesting how people tend to over analyze simple things. I basically care less about your christian background. I could care even less about a debate concerning the bible. @Dida asked a question with her post, and i offered my opinion.Your critique of my comment means absolutely nothing to me because i don't know you. Sorry.....


"ignoring the bible because of religion seems to be closed minded to me and not much different than simply believing without evidence."

I think you are way off base.

Because, the reason most atheists got be atheists is having an OPEN MIND about the evidence and actively changing their mind.

In the US, most atheists were born into religion. Your characterization of non believers being ignorant of what they don't believe is largely bullshit.


Of course there's some truth in the bible. It's almost impossible to imagine a work of fiction that big that doesn't state truth SOME time.

There is, by similar argument, some truth in Alice in Wonderland, and The Lord of the Rings, and other works of fiction.

The problem are those for whom 'it's in the bible' is a claim of reality - and in that there is no justification at all.


Apparently Dida quit and ran away.

I guess we'll never know if she changed her mind, but I have my suspicions...

I was wondering, my notifications say she replied to me but I can't see it. I guess her "tough question" was too much for her.


You are entitled to your own views. How do you know who has done research or visited the holy sites ? I'd worry about your own beliefs not others.


As a child I was indoctrinated to believe that the catholic faith had the only real truth, further that those who didn't believe in it were all wrong.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any religion that is not based hearsay and myth. Is there any religion that accepts science, reason and free enquiery as a guidline to follow? If so that makes all religions false in the same way.


I came to disbelieve out of logical contingency at age 8. My fascination with mythology finally allowed me to read and study it's history, reaffirming that which I could know, with that I had not.


The book is not a best seller for its presentation of history of which very little is verifiable. It is a book put together to market religious doctrine. Toilet paper would be the best use for most of it's pages.


Are you talking about "truths" or "universal principals". Don't doubt it has a lot of the latter mixed in with the crazy stuff, but the bible isn't the only source of universal prinicipals, and you hear so much of the crazy stuff all the time to understand that it's probably not the best source.

godef Level 7 Mar 8, 2018

The bible's credibility is down the toilet. There is so much in it which IS absolutely false/contradictory/absurd, why should anyone who has come to such a realization bother trying to cull from it what little truth there may be. And once you dismiss the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc...there's a whole of Philosophy, Literature, and actually reputable History, to explore. Why waste time giving the Bible some unearned exalted status amongst all the other potential sources of truth? And don't even get me started on Christ!


have you read and dug deep with the Book of Mornon, Scientology or any other books put forth as The Way?


The bible was written by men, for the benefit of men.
The history of it is more interesting to me than what's contained in it.
Every translation, every time it was copied, it was altered to reflect the beliefs and agendas
of whomever was financing the translation or copying.
The people weren't even "allowed" to know what was in it for centuries.
The catholic church kept the contents secret for hundreds of years, and only
allowed their representatives to disseminate certain parts of it to the people.
After the invention of the printing press, it was a crime punishable by death, to
copy the bible and distribute it among the people.
When the King James version was written, every reference to "woman as prophet" was
changed to "woman as servant".
I think what truly appalls me, even more than just the belief that the bible is the "word of god", is the complete ignorance of the book's actual history.
These believers have no knowledge of the history of their "holy" book, or their religions.\
It is in no way a history book. Granted, some factual events have been included, but I really think that was just calculated to make it appear more credible. It's not a reference
book, that's for damned sure.


I guess my question is: why do you assume people did not read it?

marga Level 7 Mar 8, 2018

No different than any other issues, or ideas that many make firm judgements about without knowing much of anything about them ...

What ? People should use their brains !?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:34044
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.