Hello, I'm Roland!

[rasfert]

I find your community here intriguing. You seem to have a high standard for rationality.
I'm an atheist.
I would like a discussion concerning the acceptance of holy scripture as the word of God.
My initial argument will go something like this:
(feel free to shoot me down as I go on...)
A work claims to be the word of God.
Said work was scribed (pen to paper, stylus to clay, keyboard to printer, whatever) by a human, with DNA, and (presumably) fingers.
The divine provenance of this work cannot be guaranteed by words within it. Only from without can such provenance be demonstrated.
Any response which uses claims from within the Scripture will also be forced to accept that the following is true:
"This quoted text is true because the Creator of the Universe told me so personally to write it down. Heed it well: All unicorns are flesh-colored, and this text is invariably true."
The key point in my argument is this: nothing in holy scripture can be used to justify its validity.
Is there anything outside of scripture which ensures its validity?

My spurious example attributes a demonstrable characteristic to a nonexistent class of objects. Does its assertion of divinely-inspired truth make it true?

I am sorry if this is a question that has been asked and answered, but I am curious.

For the curious among you, I have a degree in Philosophy, and have been a High School mathematics teacher for 10 years.

-Roland.

[Brother Harold Porter]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

Merry Christmas Roland!

No, let's do it this way instead. The KJV1611 is the inspired word of God and nothing else matters.

Will you come to Jesus or slap Him in the face on His birthday?

In Christ

[Brother Enoch]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

Hello Roland. Tell me, why did you choose the anniversary of the birth of baby Jesus to come here and spit all over his tiny little face? This is a Holy day for us. Have you no shame?

[Halleluyah Rob]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

We get posters like you every day, you're not unique, interesting, or intelligent.

The only discussion available on this forum is that which is based around True Christianity™, and rightfully so, seeing as how it's the only intelligent way of life.

[rasfert]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

Brother Harold:

You say: "The KJV1611 is the inspired word of God and nothing else matters"

I do not mean to disrespect your belief, but I have to reason along the following lines:

The word of God must be true.
The word of God must be followed.
The word of God is important.

(one of) My question(s) is this:
What tells us that the word of God is the word of God?

If it's the self-same word of God, how do we know that the translators PAID by king James weren't somehow in cahoots with, oh, I don't know, evil, to pollute that self-same word of God?

Is there a standard against which KJV can be compared?
Do other versions compare well against this standard?

Is NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) worthy of contemplation?
(My personal belief is that NRSV is the closest in English to a correct translation of the ancient works, especially the old testament)

How do we KNOW (and knowledge is a deeper condition to satisfy than belief) that KJV is correct without reference to it?

You can claim that you know it is true because you know that it is true.

If you do, I would complain that you are expressing a somewhat circular argument.

To Brother Enoch:
I chose this day for no reason. It is simply the day upon which I chose to post here. Does my questioning of the legitimacy of the Bible imply a spitting on the face of baby Jesus? I think it does not. You, however, are free to think whatever you may. Did Jesus write the Bible? No. Did anything I wrote spit in the face of Jesus? No. You are too quick to rise to accusing me of foul acts. I am an atheist, yes, this much I have admitted to. I am in unfriendly territory: this much I understand. Do I accuse you of being rude or disrespectful? No, I do not, and I do not believe that I have been so. I have striven to be respectful.
I won't quote scripture, because I can't, but I will say this: don't be mean.
Being mean is generally a bad idea. If your religion has a problem with "don't be mean" then maybe you should think about it a little bit before blindly following it. Being mean is bad. Your comment to me was mean. I am not offended. I am merely pointing out that your comment was mean-spirited. Merry Christmas.
I hope you had a wonderful day, enjoyed the presence of your family, and ate well.

To Halleluyah Rob:
While I won't apologize for not being unique, or intelligent, I will take issue with you for my being uninteresting. If I were uninteresting, I would doubt that you would have sent a reply to this thread. I could be wrong, I often have been, frequently with my wife. But on this issue, I'm fairly certain that my post was not uninteresting.
Unless, that is, you're in the habit of posting the same reply to every single uninteresting thread you read, in which case, I apologize.
If not, though, that is to say, if you're not in the habit of posting to every uninteresting thread that pops up here, I suggest you modify your posts in future to better reflect the truth.

As for the truth, and this goes out to everyone, how can we know what it is?

If a book contains two statements, and one of them is a lie, and the other is a statement that the book contains nothing but the truth, what do you do?

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

The problem with using the famous circular reasoning argument is that if the Bible is indeed true, your argument will say it's false, and therefore be a useless argument.

Allow me to explain:

Suppose the Bible is true. It is the Word of God. If it said that itself is the Word of God, it would be telling the truth. God did indeed give us the Word and in the Word it says that God wrote it, and would therefore be true.

Now suppose you write a document that said "A giant blue octopus created the world and we know this is true because the giant blue octopus wrote this letter and therefore the document is true." This document would be false. It would be telling a lie.

Now you reason just because your octopus example is false, that the Holy Bible (which is indeed true in this thought experiment) must be false. But you're wrong. Your circular reasoning argument has failed.

Just because you can write something false down doesn't mean everything written down is false. That is the argument you are using to counter the Bible's divine origins.

[Brother Enoch]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

I won't quote scripture, because I can't, but I will say this: don't be mean.
Being mean is generally a bad idea. If your religion has a problem with "don't be mean" then maybe you should think about it a little bit before blindly following it. Being mean is bad. Your comment to me was mean. I am not offended. I am merely pointing out that your comment was mean-spirited. Merry Christmas.

I'm mean? You come here on Christmas Day, the birthday of our savior, to tell us He's not real, and when I take umbrage to that, you say I'm mean? Really?

Do I barge in on you, wherever it is you hang out, on whatever day is most important to you, and tell YOU all your beliefs are false?

And then you have the audacity to wish me Merry Christmas? Mind-boggling.

[rasfert]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

Reverend Jim:
Thank you for the reasoned reply, and thank you for not accusing me of spitting on the face of Baby Jesus or being boring and unintelligent.

My argument says nothing about the truth of the bible.
In fact, I haven't even made an argument, I've merely posed the troublesome question: "Is there anything outside the Bible that suggests it might be true?"

Disregarding, for the moment, whether the Bible is true or not, let us consider the following.
The Bible says it is true.
The Bible says all sorts of things about all sorts of things.
And it's true, because it says so.

The only way to prove the Bible false (which I have no intention of doing) is to show that any of these premises are false.

I do not preclude, for an instant, that the Bible is true. If it could be demonstrated to me in a satisfactory manner that it were, in fact, true, I would cease being an atheist in an instant.

To borrow (steal) from your argument:
Suppose that the Bible is true. That it is the Word of God.
Okay. It's true. It is the actual Word of God.

Here's what you missed:
What if it's NOT true?
What (outside of the Bible) contradicts this supposition?

My argument is not circular.
My argument isn't even an argument, but merely a question:

What, outside of the Bible itself, lends support to the supposition that the Bible _is_ true?

If the answer is "nothing" then the circularity accusation falls smartly on those that continue to assert the truth of the Bible based on its own assurances.

If your belief in the Truth of the Bible is what compels you to believe its truth, is not the fallacy of circularity on your shoulders and not on mine?

I look forward to your responses.
(Unless they're vituperous attacks caused by a misunderstanding of my willingness to learn, in which case, I will interpret those attacks as being written by fools.)

[rasfert]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

I'm mean? You come here on Christmas Day, the birthday of our savior, to tell us He's not real, and when I take umbrage to that, you say I'm mean? Really?

Do I barge in on you, wherever it is you hang out, on whatever day is most important to you, and tell YOU all your beliefs are false?

And then you have the audacity to wish me Merry Christmas? Mind-boggling.

Actually, I didn't say anything about the reality or not of Jesus. Jesus was a real person. I have no doubt of this whatsoever.
You are quick to take offense, Brother Enoch: you assume that because I am an atheist, I am your enemy; I am unreasonable; I am rude.

I won't do you the disfavor of reflecting these same attributes back upon you, but will instead ask that you reflect upon what you have said to me, the way you have said it, and then look upon what you see in that reflection and see if you are perhaps guilty of what you accuse me.

It's true that I am intruding, but I am, (I hope) doing so politely.

And I do not feel it audacious in the least to wish you a merry Christmas.

I could wish you a terrible Christmas, I suppose, but that would be mean.

And I'm not mean.

If you'd like to actually address a question I've asked, that would be most welcome. If you'd like to berate me further, that's fine too, I suppose.

I will not lose my temper. I will not accuse you of stupidity.
I wonder how long you can do the same.

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

There have been atheists here that claim they are atheists because of the circular reasoning argument, so I assumed you were dismissing the Bible outright because of it. So what if the Bible is not true? Well, it's hard for me to imagine that, but for the sake of the thought experiment, let's assume the Bible isn't true.

If it isn't true, it isn't true. However the circular reasoning argument has nothing to do with this. This was my point. Just because the Bible is based on circular reasoning, there are only two conclusions: The Bible is true or the Bible may or may not be true. But you cannot say, with certainty, that the Bible is false using the argument against circular reasoning.

You then ask two questions: "What outside the Bible contradicts it being true?" and "What outside the Bible lends support for it being true?"

Well for that, you would have to look at the many of our threads already in place here that show outside support of the Bible. You can try reading some of our threads in the Creation Science forum here that show that the Bible is correct about science and that false secular ideas like a spherical earth, natural selection, evolution, heliocentricism, stars millions of miles away, racial origins, etc. are false.

If anything, every day more evidence is compiled that the Bible is true. There's also the prophecies in the Bible that have come true, the testimony of our church, and other things.

So let's summarize my point:

• You can't say the Bible is false because of the circular reasoning argument.
• The validity of the Bible is proven by mountains of outside evidence.

I pray you will open your eyes to the Truth and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

[Brother Enoch]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

Actually, I didn't say anything about the reality or not of Jesus. Jesus was a real person. I have no doubt of this whatsoever.

Jesus is the Son of God. He is not past tense. Do not deny that you reject His divinity. It's the reason you came here to challenge us. On Jesus' birthday of all times. Couldn't you have waited a day or two?

You are quick to take offense, Brother Enoch: you assume that because I am an atheist, I am your enemy; I am unreasonable; I am rude.

I assume you are rude because you sought us out to tell us we are wrong, and did it on our Holiest of days.

I won't do you the disfavor of reflecting these same attributes back upon you, but will instead ask that you reflect upon what you have said to me, the way you have said it, and then look upon what you see in that reflection and see if you are perhaps guilty of what you accuse me.

I've reflected. And believe I've shown remarkable restraint,

It's true that I am intruding, but I am, (I hope) doing so politely.

You are intruding. And politeness extends beyond crafting words carefully. Saying everything another believes is wrong in their private forum is not polite. It's unspeakably rude. If you have Christian neighbors, would you walk into their house, uninvited, just to tell them how wrong they are in everything they believe?

And I do not feel it audacious in the least to wish you a merry Christmas.

You don't? When we say 'Merry Christmas' we are celebrating the birth of Christ - the Divine Christ. For you to say there is no divine Christ, then wish us a Merry Christmas is beyond audacious. And it's mocking.

I could wish you a terrible Christmas, I suppose, but that would be mean.

And I'm not mean.

No. Just disrespectful

I will not lose my temper. I will not accuse you of stupidity.
I wonder how long you can do the same.

So far, so good. You haven't proved yourself stupid yet. Just incredibly insensitive. And you seem to have a penchant for accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. Not sure what that implies about your intellect.

[rasfert]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

Thank you once again for a reasoned response, Rev. Jim.

I appreciate your reading what I write, and writing your response based not on knee-jerk reflex but rather on thought.

I would really like to explore the evidence that you have mentioned.

I am afraid, though, that if I do a search of threads here, I will be confronted with results that do not stand up to critical examination (if the comments from others than you on this thread are any indication, such an expectation is not unwarranted).

I have some problems with a literal interpretation of the Bible (whatever translation).

Here's a little science: If you change an electrical field in space (say, shunt a couple of amps of current into a wire), you will create a changing magnetic field. This is how light works. If you have a compass over the parenthetical wire, it will sway and move when the current is cut or applied. This is, science believes, a pretty fundamental characteristic of the universe.
It's not in the Bible.
Why not?

Do we not need to know this? (It makes the Internet, and thus this discussion, possible)
Did God omit important information from the physical authors (or translators if you're really into KJV) of the Bible?
Was God incapable of communicating this? (I hope not -- sorta shoots down the whole omnipotent theme)

I don't mean to be flippant.

I just wonder how one can rely upon a text with so little information about the world (the Bible is frighteningly sparse on physics, I don't believe it ever even MENTIONS friction as a fundamental physical property) to describe so much of the way we should lead our lives.

When should we turn to science to answer questions?
Never?

I await a response.

[rasfert]

Re: Hello, I'm Roland!

I assume you are rude because you sought us out to tell us we are wrong, and did it on our Holiest of days.

Re-read carefully, Brother Enoch. What have I told you? I believe you will find that it is nothing. I have done no more than avow my atheism and ask questions. I have not accused you of anything, not even of being rude, and I do, quite earnestly, believe that I have not been rude. Re-read carefully, Brother Enoch. Does my disbelief threaten you so?

You are intruding. And politeness extends beyond crafting words carefully. Saying everything another believes is wrong in their private forum is not polite. It's unspeakably rude.

Re-read what I wrote, Brother Enoch. What have I stated about my belief other than I have none? Have I attacked yours?
Re-read what I have written before you attack me, Brother.

You don't? When we say 'Merry Christmas' we are celebrating the birth of Christ - the Divine Christ. For you to say there is no divine Christ, then wish us a Merry Christmas is beyond audacious. And it's mocking.

No. Just disrespectful

So far, so good. You haven't proved yourself stupid yet. Just incredibly insensitive. And you seem to have a penchant for accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. Not sure what that implies about your intellect.

Now I will say something to you.
You accuse me of insensitivity because I do not believe in what you do.
If I do not believe in what you do believe in, I must be... what?
Evil? Rude? A horrible person?
I have a 19 year old cat. I love her. I got married in May. I'm not a horrible person. I just don't believe in the same God that you do.
I'm not telling you you're wrong.
you are (and copy this down for future reference) QUICK TO TAKE OFFENSE. You are perhaps a little tolerance-impaired.
I come here to learn.
You accuse me of rudeness and insensitivity.
Ah, well, I suspect I won't be learning much from you, Brother Enoch.