The argument of "Which religious text do we believe, Self? Why trust the Bible?" is an invalid argument because even if the Bible was the only holy book in existence, atheists still wouldn't say it was good enough evidence. So it is a dishonest argument.
61 comments
"If". But the bible is NOT the only so-called "holy book" in existence. And this fact is much more easily explained by Atheism than by Religion. It is MUCH more probable that all of these "holy" texts are nonsense than exactly one of those countless texts is the real thing and all others are wrong.
Were there only one "holy book" in existence, even the same text written by completely different cultures, I might consider this as possible evidence for the existence of a deity. But again, this is nothing but hypothetical speculation. Reality shows that there are a lot of different sacred texts in existence which contradict each other in their most fundamental teachings. Often, these texts even contradict themselves, and are full of internal inconsistencies. My conclusion from this observation: Religion is a cultural phenomenon, and all these deities are fictional characters.
Why believe an text unless it stands up to critical review. the Bible does not. Nor to any of the others, AFAIK.
Also, it's claim to be the inerrant word of God has no foundation except in the book itself, and the word of men who believe what it says. But there is no objective evidence.
I think this is a perfectly reasonable arguement, and perfectly honest. Produce the external evidence that God wrote/inspired it, and the record of his handing it down from on high and we shall be able to argue in a decent and honest way. But until you do. your argument is dishonest.
Even if Harry Potter was the only book series about a child learning magic in existence, it would still be pure fiction!
Being the only one of its kind does not unilaterally confer truth upon anything.
That's because the Bible ISN'T good enough evidence. It makes bold, grandiose claims, but presents no evidence to support them, and is even contradicted by evidence we do have. 1 or 1,000,000, it doesn't matter how many holy books there are. Great claims require great evidence, and "it's true because it says it's true" is NOT great evidence.
One question is why trust the bible over other holy books?
A separate question is whether the bible is bullshit in any case.
These concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Well, that's true enough - if the Bible were the only religious text, then no one would ask "which religious text do you believe". That would be a stupid question - like asking "what color would you like your US dollar bills in?" But since there are other religious texts, it's a legitimate question, which Self hasn't answered.
He's technically right here, but not for the reasons he thinks. Atheists would not accept the Bible as evidence because it contradicts itself and is not an unbiased source. Even if there were only one religion in the world, atheism would still be a respectable position. So no, it is not a "dishonest" argument.
I'm dreading the day when those paragons of reason and logic, those staunch Christian foot-soldiers, get hold of me and start to convert me with their persuasive scholarship and dogged honesty. For how can a mere man of atheistic leanings hope to hold out against the searing truths and overpowering evidence of Bible God when enunciated by a towering evangelist like Self-Mutation, specially if he starts wielding the Black Book of Death and pointing out its esteemed holy wisdom?
Of course not because the Bible doesn't correlate to anything at all we see in demonstrable reality. Maybe if the Bible were the only Holy Book in the world, found across every culture in existence and was obviously factually correct on every subject it taught and preached profound morality that supersedes anything mankind has ever created. But sadly the Bible is none of those things, and so it isn't valid evidence of your claims, circular logic aside.
Well, the buy-bull is not the only religious text in existence so the argument is valid. See, the thing is that most atheists live in the real world, not the world of "IF". Not only that but, since the argument is to prove why YOUR BOOK is the correct one out of NUMEROUS religious texts, the argument is indeed valid at face value.
But, for the sake of your small world of "if", let us pretend that the buy-bull were indeed the only religious text in existence. You would still have to prove that it is the ONLY explanation and the MOST accurate explanation for EVERYTHING. It fails on both these counts.
You're right, even if the Bible was the only book, its mere existence isn't enough to justify belief in it. However, you missed the most important part of the question: Why trust the Bible? . That question is honest and valid whether 1 holy book exists or 1,000,000. The existence of multiple holy books is simply the icing on the cake in the case against believing the Bible at its word.
It's not a dishonest argument because it's a completely valid point. Since the bible obviously ISN'T the only religious book in existence your argument is useless.
Regardless, if your scenario were possible the bible would still have the same flaws and lack of evidence so I guess you're right in saying I still wouldn't believe it, but I fail to understand how the other argument is dishonest because why should I have to give pretext to hypothetical situations? I happen to be arguing in reality.
The base question is still how do you know Christianity is right and not some other religion? How do I somehow forfeit the argument by still probably being an atheist even if Christianity were the only religion? You're removing only one of the many problems I have, chief among those being lack of evidence, instead of actually confronting the issue.
As an agnostic, I am skeptical of the Bible. But since it's not the only holy book out there, I can also be skeptical of the Qur'an, the Tanakh, the Tao of Pooh, the Satanic Verses, Sidhartha, Spiderman comics, and anything by Michael Crichton.
It's not to say that I don't enjoy reading those books. I do very much. I just don't believe in any of them.
Or else its not the argument you think it is.
I have to say, even though I think this guy is a troll, he plays very clever word games.
Reductio ad absurdam FAIL.
Each holy book in existence has to stand or fall on its own merits. That said, the mere multiplicity of holy books that agree only on a few humanistic tenets (e.g. the Golden Rule), each with thousands, millions, or billions believers, argues against the existence of One True Book.
Well for starters, you're living in "If"-Land. We don't. There are numerous religions, all claiming to be unquestionably right. However, even if the Bible was the only holy text in existence, it wouldn't make it any less riddled with suspect "laws" and INTERNALLY inconsistent.
You know, he has a point.
Conflicting religious texts and various versions, revisions, translations, and interpretations is no reason to discredit any of them individually.
We should be focusing on why they're really bullshit. The fact that each and every one fails to stand up to scrutiny, regardless of competition, is much more important.
It isn't an argument, it's an attempt to get you to think critically about the bible, maybe even to get you to read the damn thing.
The best way to make atheists out of christians is to get them to read the entire bible.
i hope i'm not the only atheist who believes this on fstdt, but i always assumed that back in ancient times, in order to have a functioning society, elders gave out general guidelines for good conduct. this simple reason in turn was forgotten by the population, but not the acts, and the holy books were written down using those general lines of good conduct. throw in primitive superstition ( like eating pork in the middle east will kill you, being an unstable meat) and you get a philosophical treatise being regarded as law by all. this tradition is kept, and improved on, and voila! holy text passed down for ages.
my theory has the advantage of accounting for a lot of major ideas and taboos from different religions, while not calling the holy texts mutually exclusive. however, being a history student, with no real qualifications in theological history or archeology, i can't definitely prove it, or (by lack of research) disprove it for the moment.
if anyone thinks like this or debunks it, thanks for pointing me to the source material, cos i think it's a pretty good question where did religion come from originally and why
kthxbai
So...because a book is not objectively inerrant, it's not good for anything?
No atheist has ever argued that, or they would be protesting the existence of libraries and the fiction section of bookstores.
"Which religious text do we believe, Self?"
Well, you could always ask him yourself :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Self
A link to his own site is there.
[/smartarse]
As he's a writer, he'd most probably say to you, Self-Mutilation: '"Why trust the Bible" is an invalid argument because even if the Bible was the only holy book in existence, it has no peer-reviewed, extra -Biblical citations with supporting evidence to back up such, so it'll never be good enough evidence.
So yours is a dishonest argument' is what he'd say.
(Whilst Will Self - as a literary satirist and cynical old sod - is okay, I preferred Mark '1950s Throwback' Lamarr on the comedy quiz game "Shooting Stars":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_Stars
Eranu! Uvavu! X3 )
Of course, because we shouldn't base our understanding of reality on say-so, but on reality itself. Your holy book has as much validity as anyone else's, that is, none.
Well, without any other evidence, it wouldn't be good enough evidence to convert someone who's not already inclined to believe it. This is not a Chick Tract, nor is it one of those godawful Left Behind books.
Hear! Hear! I always trust the Bible. Whenever I am sorely troubled about the best way to present justification for my genocidal propositions, I almost always consult that reliable bastion of wickedness, the Holy Bible, particularly the King James Version. Often I need confirmation that I'm taking the correct stance vis-a-vis miserly money hoarding and general acquisitiveness. My first port of call? Why! That glorious espousal of egotistical self-gratification and gleeful self-entitlement, the magnificent Black Book of Death.
Nope. It is not a dishonest question. It is a hypothetical question. You just didnt get that. The reason we ask you which text should we believe is to illustrate to you that your wholly babble has no more validity than any of the others. So if it was indeed the only text out there, it still would have no validity.
Never the less, just for fun. Let's pretend that your wholly babble IS the only text. My next question is: You gospels cant possibly be all correct because they all contain contradictions amongst each other. So.........which of the 3 gospels do you plan on getting rid of? I can't possibly believe in something that contradicts itself. So, you have to eliminate 3 of the gospels before the babble can be taken seriously. And that doesnt even take into account the contradictions between the epistles.....
The argument is still valid. Please answer the question "Why trust the Bible?".
If the Poetic Edda was the only holy book in existence, would you say it was good enough evidence?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
