daddy1gringo wrote:Crispy, look at what you are saying here. You give as your opponent's position a ridiculous circular argument: "The Bible is true because the Bible says so", and when I challenge you to show me where any theist used that, you give me examples of people attempting to show the credibility of the Bible by showing the correlation of various things it says to the world outside itself, as if that were the same thing. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. It's an acknowledgement that "because the Bible says so" is not a sufficient suppoort in a discussion with a non-believer.
Now as I said, you could argue that they have not thereby really proved anything -- in many cases I might agree with you -- but you can't reasonably claim that they are just saying things are true because the Bible says so, that's insane.
Let's look at it another way. Let's say, as "devil's advocates" that it were all true -- that there is indeed a "God" and that he was behind this particular bunch of stuff being written and collected and recognized as his communication of what he's up to. Many people, yourself included, believe that it is no such thing, but just a bunch of stuff written by various people. By your line of reasoning, any attempt to show otherwise is the same as an illogical circular argument, and discarded out of hand. You say you are still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong, but it is you who have constructed your line of reasoning such that you never have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
That argument would hold water if they were saying that the things in the Bible about God are credible because of X or Y evidence, therefore God. But that's not the argument. Maybe it would be easier if I break it down a bit...
Lionz argument from that point in the thread:
Premise: There is a numerical relationship between the dimensions of the great pyramid and events in the bible
Sub-conclusion: The bible is historically accurate
Premise: The bible is completely accurate (not logically proven by the initial premise and conslusion)
Premise: The bible says God exists
Conclusion: God exists.
That disconnect between claiming historical accuracy and then claiming supernatural accuracy destroys the logical chain. It becomes 2 separate arguments. The first part deals with the biblical history of the world, and the second part deals with the claims it makes to knowledge of the supernatural. Now just look at the second part underneath that line - do you notice anything there?
I almost can't believe we're going to this length anyways over what was a little bit of (admittedly biased) humour between two people without any real attempt at persuasion in any case, but whatever floats your boat.
Still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong....
You have already met one online.. ME. I have said many times that while I firmly and completely believe in my faith, I will never declare I can prove it, definitely not in a manner acceptable to anyone else.
I think several of us are waiting to hear you and several other atheists admit that we might possibly be correct, and WITHOUT disdainful "well, then the Easterbunny/flying gnomes, etc, etc, must be true garbage."
You claim to want honest and intelligent discussion, but honest and intelligent discussion doesn't begin with outright dismissing and deriding seriously and respectfully relayed views of others. (key on the "respectful" bit... I know I have sometimes lapsed, but usually in the form of throwing a mirror up).
In the end, there is a reason why these issues are declared faith and religion, not science. Its because they are just that.. beliefs, not proven facts. BUT.. just as there are many credible theories in science, in religion and faith there are many ideas that have credibility, even if not fully proven to the measures needed by science. In fact, many of the most followed scientific theories actually have no such proof. Seems like you are demanding of faith something more than you demand even of science... or have I missed your criticism of the theory of gravity somewhere?
Sorry Player, that was tiredness talking and me talking about daddy1gringo in particular rather than all theists. I hope I have generally been respectful in my arguments too (even if on occasion some people are offended by them, I sincerely offer no offence deliberately) and I also tend to mirror in my style of posting so there will be slips, I'm only human too.
But on your extended point, I have said (I think more than once) in this thread that I believe in a higher power of some sort. I haven't denied the possibility of God once. I have only stated that I think the Christian God concept and story seems so inconsistent and unbelievable to me (for very many reasons) that I do outright reject that particular flavour of what God is, along with any of them that impose a societal control structure in the shape of religious organisation. But I'm open to it being showed to me with evidence (just the same as someone can show me evidence of the theory of gravity by dropping a ball and watching it fall and measuring the rate at which it accelerates or whatever), and if someone can do so I'll happily (and eagerly) sign up.
I also think there are very many parts of the christian message which have great credibility. The tenets of love, tolerance, kindness, etc are not the parts I choose to reject.
To make an analogy, if I came to you tomorrow with a different theory of gravity, and it gave us pretty good results with experimental measurements, but it relied on adding in a whole bunch of really complicated assumptions and rules that sometimes contradicted each other and required interpretation by an expert (and I'd be the only expert to start with because I'm the one who thought it up, later people who have studied what I wrote and said may become considered experts too) - would you sign up to that theory or would you mock it?
Similarly, christians espouse their story of god, based on a book which requires and is subject to interpretation by experts to get definitive answers, and which often contradicts itself, and then claim it as truth (except for the bits that get revised down to allegory status over time). This for a God they claim is all powerful and exists inside each of us as a guiding force as long as we are open to him. And yet I'm expected to give it credence? Sorry but I will show no respect to the idea. The people, the christians, I will respect. The idea itself is despicable in detail.