1 2 3
Pesky atheists. Not believing one load of bullshit claims just because it was the only one they'd ever seen.
8/10/2011 8:54:16 AM
"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.
8/10/2011 8:54:46 AM
Even if the bible was the only holy book in existence it would still contain numerous inconsistencies, logical fallacies and outright absurdities.
8/10/2011 8:56:17 AM
Someone doesn't realize his bible is a modified version of the original text. If a book can be edited and changed from its original, then how can it be trusted to be true?
8/10/2011 9:00:02 AM
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.
8/10/2011 9:02:39 AM
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.
8/10/2011 9:03:05 AM
N. De Plume
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.
8/10/2011 9:03:58 AM
I wonder, what argument do they have for the Koran, for example?
8/10/2011 9:10:25 AM
You're absolutely right. A book by itself is not good enough evidence, especially when it contradicts reality. And being the only holy book in existence or not has nothing to do with it.
8/10/2011 9:12:38 AM
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.
8/10/2011 9:21:38 AM
Being the only book of fairy tales would not make those fairy tales any more true. Your argument is invalid.
8/10/2011 9:23:31 AM
You miss the point about evidence. There is no evidence for any of the claims made in the Bible. None. That is why atheists and skeptics invalidate the Bible as proof of anything except that men have always been good at writing fiction.
8/10/2011 9:27:55 AM
...huh? Maybe if one of these fucks actually read it....they may get a different idea...hmmm, then again, no.
8/10/2011 9:28:16 AM
Sweet Fancy Moses
Completely missing the point; we're asking you that question. With so many religious texts, why do you go for the Bible, let alone with its blatant contradictions of reality?
8/10/2011 9:41:28 AM
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.
8/10/2011 9:43:46 AM
The bible is a Sumerian creation myth. There is no reason to believe anything it says. Your post is a dishonest argument.
8/10/2011 9:45:00 AM
What argument ?
8/10/2011 9:48:02 AM
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.
8/10/2011 9:51:03 AM
And what even makes the bible a "holy" book? Even if it was the only BOOK in existence, that doesn't automatically mean anything.
8/10/2011 9:58:35 AM
The Bible is considered to be true by many people because the Bible tells them this is so. Until independent verification comes to light, atheists are completely justified in their skepticism.
8/10/2011 10:00:19 AM
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?
8/10/2011 10:07:59 AM
Well it does contradict itself, it does not offer much of an explanation for anything and it was written 2000 years ago
8/10/2011 10:22:12 AM
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.
8/10/2011 10:24:29 AM
I like refuting so-called "dishonest arguments" with non-sequiturs, don't you?
8/10/2011 10:27:32 AM
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.
8/10/2011 10:32:09 AM
1 2 3