Why the bible?

[Strathos]

Ruthie is right that atheists have their own versions of "why are there still monkeys" that they continue to use.

 

[Sayre]

Ruthie is right that atheists have their own versions of "why are there still monkeys" that they continue to use.

Some do, yeah. Ruthie's error was assuming I was one of them without knowing a single thing about me. There are a whole lot of apologetics arguments that are sound and I'd still defend if they came up. Of course, there is a whole lot of rubbish too.

 

[Kyle Arn]

To PsychoSarah

For your information. I did not compare them both and i bluntly stated that i did not read it.
But based on my experience i looked at truth and what that is. I said that i read the bible because Jesus saved me. Not because i found on to be more truthful or accurate. I do believe The bible is very accurate and the truthful one. I also believe that the Quran is very accurate. Yet if there is a controversy between the two i would look at the Bible. Now what i meant was this question of weather you should choose the Bible or the Quran.
Is a matter you must decide for yourself. I just told you what i believe and said it was truth. Kyle Arn.

 

[Sofaman]

So how do you go about making that decision for yourself?

 

[Heissonear]

You're preaching. There's no difference in essence between your preaching and the preaching of a muslim or of followers of any other religion.

.

Preaching? You need to read Post #251 again. The statements were from firsthand experiences.

.

 

[Kyle Arn]

So how do you go about making that decision for yourself?

You must decide weather you are with God or not. It all comes back to the fall of man. I do believe Paul the apostle says it best.

Romans 12:2 ESV /
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Since we have been saved we must now live according to his word. That is why i read the Bible because in order for me to live as Christ wants me to. I must read the word of God(The Bible). Peter describes it like this.

1 Peter 2:9 ESV /

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

The Bible is the ultimate truth if there be any Controversy. I must look to the Bible to see weather it be true, good or evil.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.

Preaching? You need to read Post #251 again. The statements were from firsthand experiences.

.

It's still preaching.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To PsychoSarah

For your information. I did not compare them both and i bluntly stated that i did not read it.
But based on my experience i looked at truth and what that is. I said that i read the bible because Jesus saved me. Not because i found on to be more truthful or accurate. I do believe The bible is very accurate and the truthful one. I also believe that the Quran is very accurate. Yet if there is a controversy between the two i would look at the Bible. Now what i meant was this question of weather you should choose the Bible or the Quran.
Is a matter you must decide for yourself. I just told you what i believe and said it was truth. Kyle Arn.

Truth is demonstrable.

You're flat out denying to even have read "the competition".
Your beliefs are merely your beliefs. They don't become "truth" just because you hold them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm basing my words on multiple encounters with atheists both on and off line whom I have found do not do research and have based their beliefs on ignorant assumptions of scriptures that they have not investigated to any degree.

How is that different from YOUR assmptions of scriptures that YOU have never ingestigated?
There are more then 1000 religions practiced TODAY. And that's not even counting all the denominations within those religions.

So... did you investigate all these religions? Did you investigate the many thousands that were practiced in the past?

You should be carefull with such statements. They have a tendency to come back and bite you in the behind.

"Talking snakes "

This is a prime example of what I am talking about.
The Hebrew for the serpent in the garden is "nacash" It does not literally mean a talking snake.

Are you aware that many christians disagree with you on that?

The word for nacash means Shining One, deceiver, or liar. The snake was used to symbolize the fallen angel Lucifer (who goes by many names *and this can be explained also through linguistical changes in words as languages change over time through cultures.)

You can remove every talking animal and burning bush from the entire book. It doesn't make any difference. Genesis is obvious myth, through and through. Just another creation myth. One amongst many thousands.

You can remove every single page of the bible and only keep the generic concept "god", and still you have nothing but a faith-based claim that is unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unsupported and even unsupportable.

I'm an atheist because of that fact. I couldn't care less what your ancient text says.

 

[Smidlee]

Truth is demonstrable.
.

Truth is unfalsifiable so it's not scientific.

 

[Ruthie24]

How is that different from YOUR assmptions of scriptures that YOU have never ingestigated?
There are more then 1000 religions practiced TODAY. And that's not even counting all the denominations within those religions.

So... did you investigate all these religions? Did you investigate the many thousands that were practiced in the past?

You should be carefull with such statements. They have a tendency to come back and bite you in the behind.

Are you aware that many christians disagree with you on that?

You can remove every talking animal and burning bush from the entire book. It doesn't make any difference. Genesis is obvious myth, through and through. Just another creation myth. One amongst many thousands.

You can remove every single page of the bible and only keep the generic concept "god", and still you have nothing but a faith-based claim that is unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unsupported and even unsupportable.

I'm an atheist because of that fact. I couldn't care less what your ancient text says.

OK, as you wish.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This thread is a follow up on a post I made in another thread. Apparantly it caused a bit of a stir and since we were going very off topic, I decided this topic deserved its own thread.

The topic came up after I saw EternalDragon mention that he read the quran.
I asked him what it is about the bible that gives it more credibility then the quran. Or what it is about the quran that gives it less credibility then the bible.

Several people answered and all I got as answers were as fallacious as it gets.
The most recuring fallacious themes here were confirmation bias, double standards and circular reasoning.

Consider this simplistic example... If I ask you why you believe 2+2 equals 4 and not 5... then answering "because I already believe it is 4" is not a valid answer.

That doesn't tell me why it's more rational to believe it's 4 rather then 5. I require an actual argument, a demonstration,...something...anything.

Not a priori nonsense or other fallacies.

Likewise, when receiving answers to my question of quran credibility vs bible credibility, they could be summarized as "The bible has more credibility because I believe it". Which is, off course, fallacious nonsense.

So, in the hope of getting an actual reasoned answer, I'll ask again to the entire forum:

What is it about the bible that gives it more credibility then the quran?
Why do you believe the bible and not the quran?

Try to be intellectually honest about this.
Refrain from answers that employ:
- confirmation bias (= "because I already believe the bible" or judging the quran through bible-believing goggles)
- circular reasoning (= "the bible is true because god says so in the bible and god exists because the bible says so.... in the bible).
- double standards (= judging jesus going by bible descriptions of him while judging mohammed by non-quranic descriptions of him)


If you want help on how to go about this...
Take a step back and view it objectively. Forget for a second that you are a christian and lay the books side by side and ask yourself how you will decide which one is more plausible, more credible.

Go at it without any preconceived beliefs, notions, whatever.
Leave emotions out of it.

How can I, as a hypothetical person who has first contact with both stories, conclude which one I should be believing?

Looking forward to your answers,
Dogma.

Basically, the Bible is composed of an abundance of narratives that are, even if not actual, arranged and structured as 'history.' The Qu'ran on the other hand is simply a large collection of 'sayings,' none of which are arranged or represented in any kind of historical backdrop. So, the Qu'ran seems--to me anyway--like just a collection of proverbs and prophetic denunciations.

Plus, the Qu'ran denies the divinity of Jesus, and the Bible appears more coherent to me philosophically.

Yes, I've read the Qu'ran cover to cover, as well as the Bible cover to cover, so I can make the qualification above that I've given.

Peace

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I will wager that nearly every single poster who answers that the Bible somehow has more credibility also grew up in a Christian household and was taught the Bible as a child.

Oh, please. As if it is that simple. Cut me a break.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Basically, the Bible is composed of an abundance of narratives that are, even if not actual, arranged and structured as 'history.' The Qu'ran on the other hand is simply a large collection of 'sayings,' none of which are arranged or represented in any kind of historical backdrop. So, the Qu'ran seems--to me anyway--like just a collection of proverbs and prophetic denunciations.

Plus, the Qu'ran denies the divinity of Jesus, and the Bible appears more coherent to me philosophically.

Yes, I've read the Qu'ran cover to cover, as well as the Bible cover to cover, so I can make the qualification above that I've given.

Peace

And the bible denies the divinity oh Hercules

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh, please. As if it is that simple. Cut me a break.

Actually, the vast majority of the time, it is that simple. Which is why we can pretty accuratly deduce someones religion by looking at their parents or geographic location. Do you deny this?

 

[Ruthie24]

And the bible denies the divinity oh Hercules

Hercules was a nephilim, human/demonic/animal hybrid. He had no divinity. He was a product of the fallen angels and earth women.

 

[Ruthie24]

Frances Collins was raised an atheist, yet he converted to Christianity. He never looked at the Bible growing up except singing in choir as his family were musically inclined.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hercules was a nephilim, human/demonic/animal hybrid. He had no divinity. He was a product of the fallen angels and earth women.

And jezus was an alien.
Good job on missing the point and even piling on...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Frances Collins was raised an atheist, yet he converted to Christianity. He never looked at the Bible growing up except singing in choir as his family were musically inclined.

Your point being?

Also, being raised an atheisy, but singing in a choir ha? Lol

 

[Ruthie24]

Your point being?

Also, being raised an atheisy, but singing in a choir ha? Lol

Yes, his family were extremely gifted musicians and they encouraged him to join the choir in order to learn how to appreciate music. He wrote the book called the Language of God.