You know, I find it depressing that I need write this at all.  I would have hoped that my fellow human beings would not be so credulous as to accept so many “facts” about the Bible (I am referring to the christian bible, though many of my points will apply to both the jewish and muslim faiths as well) at face value.  And yet, time and again I hear Christian apologists making claims like, “the Bible is validated by scientific discoveries.”  What?  You’re joking, right? 

So, I’m going to write a (hopefully) short series debunking these claims, with a title shamelessly stolen from Robert G Ingersoll, who is a hero of mine.  Your time will be much better spent reading his article than mine, if you have not already done so. 

I’m not going to be saying anything that hasn’t been said before; the primary purpose of these brief articles will be as something that I can point to in the future when an apologist starts making claims of the sort that can be seen in a response to a previous article.  I don’t think I’ll convince the kind of people who make these claims in the first place, but perhaps a more open-minded theist will stumble upon it somehow.

Each part will consist of a category of claims, some examples of such claims, why they are wrong, and some links to additional information.  If anyone thinks I have left something out, that my analysis is weak, or that I am not being objective (I cannot be unbiased, but I strive for objectivity,) let me know.  

EDIT:  I will no longer be responding to challenges to my arguments from anonymous posters.  If you want me to take you seriously, take 30 seconds to create a free account.

I apologize for the delay on this second part, but I do have a job and such.  This is something I do out of a personal desire.

If you have not seen the precusor to this post, you should read it first.

In this section, I will be looking at some of the specific questions and arguments.  It will almost certainly be updated with more arguments and details.  I am not a journalist of any kind, and I was not taking notes.  Thus, I’m sure I’ve forgotten some things.  If so, please let me know, and I will do my best to address them.

To be clear, when I refer to “God,” I am referring to the general conception of a theistic god. 

The following is my personal opinion.  It does not reflect the official position of any group with which I am associated.  If you were there, and disagree with any aspect of my assessment, please let me know in comments.

 
I’m starting this in the wee hours of the morning after returning quite a distance from a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek. The debate was hosted by the United Secular Alliance at VCU (Richmond, VA.)  Under consideration was, "Does God Exist?," with a twenty minute introduction from each debater, followed by a five minute rebuttal, a chance to ask their opponent three questions, questions from the audience, and finally a five minute concluding statement.

Now, let me first say that I am a Hitchens fanboy.  I have watched every video of his debates available online, read an awful lot of his material, and have a huge amount of admiration for him.  Several members of Maryland Atheist Outreach, Beltway Atheists and DC Atheist Women can testify to the fact that I was giddy as a schoolgirl waiting for the event to begin.  I shook hands with, and talked to Hitchens for a minute or two afterwards, and I will likely not wash that hand for a week.  Bear all of this in mind when I tell you that Hitchens' performance was, at best, disappointing.
 

 
The second part of my analysis in now up.