Bible as a source.

[Nilloc James]

Many Theists use the bible as their sole source and refuse to follow the,
Evidence or retraction rule many follow.

I understand this in theological debates but not others.

Debate question:

Can the bible be used as evidence without another source?

[Nilloc James]

Can I take the incredibly long awkard silence as the sound of theists with their jaw on the floor or does one want to answer?

[Flail]

The Bible is a book of claims and tales....a book containing tales of supernatural events and supernatural beings....it is written of a time when men were ignorant,superstitious and science was primative....it is written by men about whom little is known of their motives,ability to observa and communicate...their bias and their susceptibility to doctrine and fear....there is nothing to believe as the claims are absolutely without foundation or proof...they are not either self proved or self evident....

[cnorman18]

Well, I'm a "theist," and I say, No.

The Bible is not acceptable evidence for events alleged to be historically factual or real. No other document in human history that reports supernatural events is so accepted, and the only possible reason to hold that the Bible is exempt from that standard is religious belief.

The Bible is not evidence for the proper or correct beliefs of a religious group; interpretations vary, and no one group or person has the right to say theirs is the only correct one.

The Bible is a subject to be debated, not an authority on the basis of which to end debate.

[blipverts45]

Many Theists use the bible as their sole source and refuse to follow the,
Evidence or retraction rule many follow.

I understand this in theological debates but not others.

Debate question:

Can the bible be used as evidence without another source?

I view the Bible as a book of literature and important to issues related in particular to claims from "Christianity." I have no problem with those people making such claims and using the Bible. It fails at the creation-evidence issue, of course, but Christianity is largely a religion based on "faith." I would say that Christianity cannot stand with much of any integrity on many debates if one abides by the rules established for this forum. I say that as a non-theist/Christian. Alter the rules on another forum and its debatability changes. Having said that, and having been on this forum for a short time, I perceive that is the reason there are so few Christians who will debate here. I have noted a few of the repeat theists, beat pretty much the same drum in extreme redundancy. I would rather debate theological issues myself, but most debates on this forum seem to go back to the question of God's existence or like one veteran atheist who "pretends" theism is correct and then asks what i think are absurd questions based on this false pretense. Now, i have probably made myself unpopular with fellow athiest-agnostics but I have stated before that I am very intrigued by the literature of the Bible and its complexity, and it is based on that that I would make any attempt to defend "Christianity" (which seems purposely ambiguous).

[jmac2112]

The atheist says "There is nothing beyond the things that we perceive with the senses." The agnostic says "We can't know whether or not there is anything beyond the things that we can perceive with the senses." Any meaningful debate about the truth of Christianity (as opposed to, say, a clarification of Christian beliefs) should begin at the beginning with a debate about the basic atheist/agnostic beliefs stated above. However, the only evidence for the existence of the supernatural is metaphysical, and metaphysics is anathema to atheists and agnostics.

So, to answer your question, I don't think there is any point using the Bible at all, either alone or in conjunction with other sources, when discussing the truth of Christianity with someone who does not believe in the supernatural. If there is no God who might want to reveal Himself to us, then there can be no revelation, and all accounts of God's search for man are nothing but fairytales.

[bernee51]

The atheist says "There is nothing beyond the things that we perceive with the senses." The agnostic says "We can't know whether or not there is anything beyond the things that we can perceive with the senses." Any meaningful debate about the truth of Christianity (as opposed to, say, a clarification of Christian beliefs) should begin at the beginning with a debate about the basic atheist/agnostic beliefs stated above.

Then I suggest you try to get it right.

An atheist says "I do not believe in god(s)". An agnostic, in reference to the existence of gods, says: "I do not know if god exists". This position can equally apply to theists and atheists.

The 'truth' of christinaity is dependent on a particular god concept chosen from the many concepts man has constructed.

However, the only evidence for the existence of the supernatural is metaphysical, and metaphysics is anathema to atheists and agnostics.

Really? I am an atheist for whom metaphysics is not only not anathema but an active pursuit. I guess you must be wrong.

So, to answer your question, I don't think there is any point using the Bible at all, either alone or in conjunction with other sources, when discussing the truth of Christianity with someone who does not believe in the supernatural. If there is no God who might want to reveal Himself to us, then there can be no revelation, and all accounts of God's search for man are nothing but fairytales.

Not so much 'fairytales' as an attempt to answer basic questions about existence and to find meaning and purpose in said existence in the face of the perceived suffering which surrounds him.

[jmac2112]

bernee51 wrote:

Really? I am an atheist for whom metaphysics is not only not anathema but an active pursuit. I guess you must be wrong.

Interesting. Do you believe, at least in principle, that the existence of God could be demonstrated by arguments from effect to cause? Or do you mean the sort of idealist metaphysics that starts from the assumption that we cannot know whether or not things exist independently of the mind (a la Kant)? If the latter, then I can see how you could be an atheist interested in metaphysics.

[Easyrider]

Can I take the incredibly long awkard silence as the sound of theists with their jaw on the floor or does one want to answer?

I'm here for you, Nilloc.

And yes, there's no compelling reason, except for a scalding case of anti-supernatural bias, why the independent Gospel accounts cannot be taken as historical accounts.

[bernee51]

bernee51 wrote:

Really? I am an atheist for whom metaphysics is not only not anathema but an active pursuit. I guess you must be wrong.

Interesting. Do you believe, at least in principle, that the existence of God could be demonstrated by arguments from effect to cause?

No I do not believe that because I would argue counter to the existence of effect/cause. I'm more along the 'emergent' line with 'effect and cause' being a construct based in the illusion of time.

Or do you mean the sort of idealist metaphysics that starts from the assumption that we cannot know whether or not things exist independently of the mind (a la Kant)? If the latter, then I can see how you could be an atheist interested in metaphysics.

From wiki...

Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world....

A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

I am however not given to Cartesian solipsism.

I prefer "I am therefore I think" as a base position.