actually, the best proof of the Bible is that without its truths you couldn't prove anything! People who want to disprove the Bible actually have to borrow from its worldview to attempt to do so and hence have already lost the argument before they even begin.
64 comments
Ah, because rabbits chew cud, salt loses its flavor, the world is a flat circle rather than a sphere, flora and fauna can speak and the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world. Do you want me to continue with more scientific falsehoods that can be found in your Bible?
Bible truths? Like a 6 day creation 6,000 years ago? Like a worldwide flood that never happened? Like a mass exodus of Israelites from Egypt which archaeologists never found evidence of?
This "without the bible you can't prove anything" idea appears to be another fundie falsehood that one of them came up with and the rest pass around as fact. It's not even a good argument. It's totally stupid.
Yes, because having seen the pictures of earth from space, we have scientifically verified that the earth is not only flat, but is supported by four pillars.
Oh wait....
Looks like science has gotten along just well without the bible, thank you very much. Please show me in the bible where it talks about electricity or electronic circuits, and if you can't then get off your computer.
This is one of the few times I've voted WTF not because the quote is super fundie but because it actually made me say "what the fuck?". Where in the Bible does it say anything about logic, investigation, evidence, or science? I can pretty well prove that water expands when it freezes without ever opening the Bible. Countless non-Christian cultures have developed systems of mathematics without the Bible. The West uses the Arabic system of algebra FFS and many of the mathematical principles (such as the Pythagorian Theorem) developed by the Greeks. And math happens to be the only thing that can be proven to an absolute. Even as a former Christian I just don't see where the Bible provides any way to prove anything. Isn't it all supposed to be revelation and faith anyway?
The above commenters have clearly (and happily) not encountered presuppositional apologetics. This is a corner-stone of presuppositionalism: claiming that without logic, you can't do science, and logic, uhm, comes from God, because yeah.
"People who want to disprove the Bible actually have to borrow from its worldview to attempt to do so and hence have already lost the argument before they even begin"
Bitch, please. I don't even have to go into 20% of Argument Annilhilation Mode, to merely point out that the notion of a man made from dirt - and a woman cloned from one of his ribs; also a talking snake, insects with four legs, bats that lay eggs, rabbits that chew their cud, and goats bred near patterned poles that give birth to young with matching fur colour/pattern characteristics, mean that your so-called 'Biblical Worldview' has been destroyed, before the argument even fucking existed to be annihilated in the first place.
It's not about "disproving" the Bible, it's about seriously investigating its claims to truth. And no, you don't have to borrow from its worldview in the slightest. You can use logic, whose workings predate Christianity.
Actually, the best proof of the validity of scientific inquiry is that without its truths you couldn't prove anything! People who want to shirk science in favor of scripture actually have to borrow from the scientific worldview to attempt to do so and hence have already lost the argument before they even begin.
Now that actually
quinky has it right back in comment #1480996; this is presuppositionalism, the new rising fad in evangelism. basically, it's assuming axiomatically that you can't have a coherent thought without the bible, therefore anybody who tries to debunk presuppositionalism coherently proves jesus.
it's not really circular logic --- unlike a circle, it doesn't have a circumference; it's more like point-shaped, dimensionless, go-nowhere logic. and the folks who buy it will (predictably) insist on hanging onto it beyond all sense and reason, because jesus.
> actually, the best proof of the Bible is that without its truths you couldn't prove anything!
Yeah, the Bible is allegedly true just because the Bible says so. If the Bible would't exist, it obviously wouldn't be around to state that it's true, and nothing else would even hint to that fact.
> People who want to disprove the Bible actually have to borrow from its worldview to attempt to do so
It's funny how the Bible cannot justify its philosophical, ethical or moral values without referring to concepts that were already apparent for people at the time. Repackaging the work of pagan philosophers and calling it their own.
Proving something requires facts and the Bible is not the only source of facts. Philosophy is not fact either so you don't need the Bible to prove anything not related to Christianity. Those who want to disprove don't have to borrow anything from it, they just have to produce evidence that the claims in the Bible are untrue.
This kind of Xians reminds me of Dawn of War Chaos Cultists: as soon as they see something that looks even remotely useful or positive, they try to cap-toor eet, fohr Kay-ohss Khrisst! as if it was a strategic point.
Sorry fundie, but your little cult can lay no claim to logic and science.
@Nomen Nescio:
Maybe a new straw for the Evangelicals to grasp, but not a new fad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Van_Til
Everything else you said I agree with because Jesus therefore Jesus with a side of Jesus on fresh-baked Jesus with Jesus gravy.
The bible says pi=3.
Damn! I lost the argument!
@quinky , Nomen Nescio:
Otherwise this argument works, like much of apologetics, for absolutely anything. Not a Satanist? Well, to argue against Satan you have to borrow from a Satanic worldview so you have already lost.
without its truths you couldn't prove anything! ... borrow from its worldview to attempt to do so
As far as I know, neither Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) nor Confucius were aware of the existence of the Bible.
At their times Israel was a tiny, totally unimportant blurp and the Bible, i.e. its parts, was known only to the locals. It was one small collection of stories among thousands of locally implemented religious texts througout the Levant and the Middle East. Nothing special. Was it "different", like the pious like to believe? No, it wasn't.
Siddhartha Gautama and Confucius did a fine job of developing moral and philosophical codes, all without the so-called Biblical truths.
Sorry, but the Bible is just a pimple on the ass of history being seen through the magnifying glass of Christianity.
The bible was written at a time when people of yesteryear were like today's Muslims.
Thinkathat. Fundies today are not any different from Muslims, in terms of being credulous to religious beliefs of ages past.
People who want to disprove the Bible actually have to borrow from its worldview ...
"Borrow its worldview" = "assume the Bible is true". So what you're saying is that people who want to disprove the Bible to you need to begin by assuming the Bible is true? That's like saying "prove 1 =/= 2" by first assuming that 1 = 2.
that first sentence is possibly one the dumbest I've read in a while. Without the buy bull, I can prove the earth is not flat, without the buy bull, I can prove bats aren't birds, without the buy bull I can prove rabbits don't chew cuds. Without the buy bull I can prove the earth is 4 billion years old.
What? The worldview that there is a "firmament" above the Earth, or the worldview that Pi is exactly three, or the worldview that everyone who's not a Jew can easily be murdered if they live on land that God has intended for His Chosen People? Are those the worldviews we have to borrow from? I don't think so, dearie.
Actually, we don't want to disprove the Bible, any more than we want to disprove Alice in Wonderland. We just regard them both as fairy tales, myths and/or legends.
So we just start with the premise that the Bible is absolute indisputable truth and the only possible source of knowledge. If you do not start with that premise then you are completely without a foundation for any knowledge at all, therefor you can't really know anything and have no method of obtaining real truth.
So, based on the real truth and the only source of real knowledge, being the Bible as absolute truth and the only source of knowledge, we can then conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible is absolute and indisputable truth.
And if you disagree with this, then you have no basis for any sort of morality, and you have no reason to care if what you say is a lie or not, and you just want to sin, and you have no purpose or meaning in your life.
That makes it absolutely certain that I am right and you are wrong -- no matter what.
Is it just me, or are presuppositionalists a bunch of fucking assholes?
Honestly, have fundies ever READ the fucking bible? I can not comprehend why someone who has genuinely read that garbage, cover to cover, would be so fucking eager to defend it and accept it as absolute truth. Perhaps it's my slightly-renewed faith in humanity talking, but I simply refuse to believe that people can be that stupid. But then again, these are fundies...
Okay, I'll write my own bible that has self-evident truths in it.
1:4 contradicts the logical assertions before it, and is obviously false. This book contains truth, but the crap parts of it can be refuted using that truth.
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.
