Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[BobRyan]

People say that about lots of different religious texts. Without evidence to back up the Bible (such evidence being something other than the Bible itself), the claim doesn't carry any weight, except among believers.

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

There are some holes in that. It is possible to accept Christ without believing that the Genesis stories are an accurate historical account

I am responding to someone who has on their profile "atheist" and they speak in general of the idea that the Bible is not from God, not a text that God inspired and that only those who already believe it... believe it. (the very definition of a tautology or circular argument).

Your profile says that you are "other religion" so I don't know if you join Kylie in that claim that the Bible is not inspired by God or not. But suffice it to say that the "mere existence" of a T.E. that happens to also be a Christian does not change the point given that Atheists do not join them in saying "God inspired all of the Bible except for its claims about His work as Creator". The Atheist POV is consistent in that it denies all of the Bible as being a text inspired or authored by God rather than engaging in pick-and-choose. So you have to give them credit for that much.

I point to the problem in that "believers believe because they already are believers" argument by pointing to the irrefutable fact of large numbers of atheists and agnostics that have become Bible believing Christians.

=========================

I'm an Anglican* and I believe that the Bible in its entirety is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Your point...?

My point in that comment above is that it is a circular argument to claim one has to already believe the Bible in order to believe the Bible.

Your response about evolution does not change the fact that the atheist claim that one has to be believe the Bible in order to believe the Bible - is in fact a circular argument. "Those atheists that changed to become Bible believing Christians - believe the Bible is true - because they are believers in the Bible".

 

[Speedwell]

Agreed - at least that is the case with the ones I have encountered - they would look at things like the predictions made in the book of Daniel and then compare that to actual history (for example).

Which was written in the second century BC after most of the things it "prophecized" and before the death of Antiochus, which the author gets wrong. But it is not a book of prophecy anyway, and the Jews never regarded it as such. By literary form it's an Apocalypse, the only other one in the Bible.

 

[Speedwell]

Present board policy is that Anglicans are not real Christians? I did not know that.

No, it appears to be the policy of our President and the religious extremists who back him.

 

[BobRyan]

No, it appears to be the policy of our President and the religious extremists who back him.

whose president? the U.S. President?

Are you saying that President Trump says Anglicans are not Christians?

Are you saying that anyone who votes for him must be a religious extremist??

??

 

[Speedwell]

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.



I am responding to someone who has on their profile "atheist" and they speak in general of the idea that the Bible is not from God, not a text that God inspired and that only those who already believe it... believe it. (the very definition of a tautology or circular argument).

Your profile says that you are "other religion" so I don't know if you join Kylie in that claim that the Bible is not inspired by God or not. But suffice it to say that the "mere existence" of a T.E. that happens to also be a Christian does not change the point given that Atheists do not join them in saying "God inspired all of the Bible except for its claims about His work as Creator". The Atheist POV is consistent in that it denies all of the Bible as being a text inspired or authored by God rather than engaging in pick-and-choose. So you have to give them credit for that much.

I point to the problem in that "believers believe because they already are believers" argument by pointing to the irrefutable fact of large numbers of atheists and agnostics that have become Bible believing Christians.

=========================


My point in that comment above is that it is a circular argument to claim one has to already believe the Bible in order to believe the Bible.

Your response about evolution does not change the fact that the atheist claim that one has to be believe the Bible in order to believe the Bible - is in fact a circular argument. "Those atheists that changed to become Bible believing Christians - believe the Bible is true - because they are believers in the Bible".

So why did they become "Bible-believers?" I've always wondered about that. My assumption always was that they were proselytized by some sect or other that had made literal inerrancy into essential doctrine and so it kind of came with the territory for them.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Agreed - at least that is the case with the ones I have encountered - they would look at things like the predictions made in the book of Daniel and then compare that to actual history (for example).

Which was written in the second century BC after most of the things it "prophecized" .

Even in the worst bend-and-wrench of the book of Daniel - you end up with about 2000 years of history predicted by Daniel. Plenty of "evidence" for all those atheists and agnostics that converted to Christianity once they saw that.

 

[BobRyan]

So why did they become "Bible-believers?" I've always wondered about that. My assumption always was that they were proselytized by some sect or other that had made literal inerrancy into essential doctrine them.

I find an unmistakable paucity in your logic at that point.

How is it that an atheist immediately decides to be a Christian just as soon as he discovers that the Christian believes the Bible to be without Error?? What Atheist have you ever met that said "you know,,, I would be Christian but I don't find any Christians that believe the Bible is without error"..?

How is that even logical to make such a claim? OR are you simply not being serious?

 

[Speedwell]

whose president? the U.S. President?

Are you saying that President Trump says Anglicans are not Christians?

Are you saying that anyone who votes for him must be a religious extremist??

??

No, not anyone, but certainly many who do vote for him are right-wing fundamentalist Evangelicals. As to the rest of us not being real Christians, his religious spokesman, the Rev. Jeffress, made that explicitly clear some months ago and I saw The Donald on TV just a few nights since not only trashing Biden but his church as well. No, he did not say specifically that Anglicans are not Christians but he and many of hs supporters have made it clear that "believing the Bible" is a litmus test for authentic Christian faith. It even creeps into this forum, even though it is heavily moderated in that respect. Just a few posts up your Bible buddy Hammster denounced me as an atheist.

 

[Speedwell]

I find an unmistakable paucity in your logic at that point.

How is it that an atheist immediately decides to be a Christian just as soon as he discovers that the Christian believes the Bible to be without Error?? What Atheist have you ever met that said "you know,,, I would be Christian but I don't find any Christians that believe the Bible is without error"..?

How is that even logical to make such a claim? OR are you simply not being serious?

No, I'm serious. I did not grow up around fundamentalists, though I knew such people existed. When I finally found out what they believed about the Bible my response was, "They believe what??? about the Bible? Why?" I still don't know, but I assumed that for most of them it was because they were evangelized by a sect which made it part of the deal.

 

[Speedwell]

BobRyan said: ↑
Agreed - at least that is the case with the ones I have encountered - they would look at things like the predictions made in the book of Daniel and then compare that to actual history (for example).



Even in the worst bend-and-wrench of the book of Daniel - you end up with about 2000 years of history predicted by Daniel. Plenty of "evidence" for all those atheists and agnostics that converted to Christianity once they saw that.

I'm not prepared to believe that very many people have come to Christ because "prophecy proves the Bible." To begin with, Christians who believe that kind of thing are a small minority of Christians as a whole. How does it work? You prove that the Bible is "true" by OT prophecies so then you have to believe the Gospels are true and if the Gospels are true then you have to believe in Jesus?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just a few posts up your Bible buddy Hammster denounced me as an atheist.

No, he didn't.

Here's the conversation:

But there are two issues in play: One, is the document correct and two, do I understand it correctly. In this example, we haven't got the original document to examine for ourselves, only the opinion of others about what it intends to communicate.

And that’s what I would expect from atheists.

He said, "That's what I would expect from atheists."

What makes you think he was including you in there?

 

[SelfSim]

Atheists reject the notion that a Deity exists because there is no objective test evidence for that.
However, the possibility of what we mean by 'existence of Deities' remains, because minds 'create reality'

... Minds perceive reality and some minds are more accurate in their perception than others.

Minds perceive and that's it! Some of those perceptions, once described using language, add meaning to the word 'real' (or 'exists'). All of that is objectively testable.
See how that's completely different from what you just said? It contains no posited assumptions about what reality 'is'.

Your notion of 'accuracy' assumes that there is some 'thing' which exists (and is the 'truth') independently from our minds, which we are homing in on. That is a belief! If you disagree then go ahead .. cite the objective test which demonstrates that .. whilst you go about doing, that, I will observe you using your mind .. which then provides me with objective evidence which contradicts the notion of that 'thing' existing independently from your perceptions.

A tree "exists" but how tall is that tree from the perception of a blind man that happens upon the tree? A sighted man observing at a distance may notice the blind man getting more and more info about how tall the tree is - but the tree is not changing size as he does so.

See my post above. Your blind man still has a mind .. and thus perceptions. Those perceptions will be different from yours, because different minds perceive things differently, (that is also abundantly objectively evidenced). There are aspects both parties can agree upon, because we all share a common mind type, (ie: type 'human'). Agreement between those perceptions form the basis of what we mean by 'objectivity'.
There is no need to make assumptions about some reality supposedly 'existing' independently from those perceptions .. that ends up as just one big belief and what I mean by belief there is:
'Any notion which I hold to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

Might seem like a detail not worth mentioning but it leads to a lot of errors down the road if you take a wrong turn right at that point.

.. and your argument is based on one big belief, as I have shown above.

 

[SelfSim]

Reality does conform to God’s word.

Reality is a word .. its a human word .. the only way it 'conforms', is by way of the meaning you associate with that word.

 

[Hammster]

Reality is a word .. its a human word .. the only way it 'conforms', is by way of the meaning you associate with that word.

I didn’t bring it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reality is a word .. its a human word .. the only way it 'conforms', is by way of the meaning you associate with that word.

Do you force-fit words into a crossword puzzle and say "nuts" to the clues?

4 across: Clipper ship, Santa _____

Cruciverbalist's answer: Clara

 

[SelfSim]

I didn’t bring it up.

Sure .. but if you accept that we choose what that word means (and not God..(?) ), then Kylie's suggestion of proceeding by way of demonstrating contradictions, is logically valid, I think.

 

[SelfSim]

Do you force-fit words into a crossword puzzle and say "nuts" to the clues?

4 across: Clipper ship, Santa _____

Cruciverbalist's answer: Clara

Inane ..

 

[Hammster]

Sure .. but if you accept that we choose what that word means (and not God..(?) ), then Kylie's suggestion of proceeding by way of demonstrating contradictions, is logically valid, I think.

Okay.

 

[Kylie]

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

Point taken. But I've found that the arguments that are used in those cases are mostly emotional arguments, they have very little actual evidence.

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

And what evidence is that?

Also bear in mind that I've seen Muslims claim that there is evidence that the Koran is divinely inspired as well, so the Bible is hardly unique in that regard.

 

[Kylie]

That would be circular reasoning. IF the source being evaluated makes a claim that proves to be true - then that source is not being "left behind" it is being evaluated.

My point was that in such a case, we can prove that the claim is true without having to bring in the original source as part of the evidence.