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?

[cnorman18]

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.

I quite agree. I identify myself as a "theist," but I claim belief, not knowledge. I do not self-identify as an agnostic because, rightly or wrongly, that label generally carries connotations of de facto atheism for most people, and therefore does not accurately represent my position.

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

"Inherited" as often as chosen, I would think, but otherwise that would be correct. Judaism is most often a matter of heritage, too, but in my case it was indeed a choice.

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.

Agreed again. Interest in metaphysics is not limited to those who believe in God.

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.

Those, plus an effort to construct a coherent ethic and an understanding of human nature and behavior.

Good post, as usual.

[Goat]

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.

Except, of course, the fact that the 'gospels' are not independent, unbiased, and they are loaded off with lots of magical mystical stuff that the very Christians that grip about 'anti-supernatural' bias would reject in any other religions scripture.. but accept in their own holy book.

[jmac2112]

The word metaphysics, going by its etymology, means "beyond the physical". It can also mean "after the Physics", referring to its location in the corpus of Aristotelian writings, but even so, the first definition seems more apt. Are there any atheists or agnostics who believe that 1) the universe exists independently of their own minds (i.e. there is actually a physical world to which the mind conforms when it knows), and 2) there is a reality beyond the physical that is also independent of the human mind, and to which the mind conforms when it knows?

[bernee51]

The word metaphysics, going by its etymology, means "beyond the physical". It can also mean "after the Physics", referring to its location in the corpus of Aristotelian writings, but even so, the first definition seems more apt. Are there any atheists or agnostics who believe that 1) the universe exists independently of their own minds (i.e. there is actually a physical world to which the mind conforms when it knows), and 2) there is a reality beyond the physical that is also independent of the human mind, and to which the mind conforms when it knows?

All good questions.

Rather than drag this thread off topic I have started a new thread, Atheists and metaphysics in which I address them.

[Catharsis]

In order to appreciate any book one needs to know its theme, and the purpose that has guided its writing. It is not a book of science - it is a book of religion.

[Macc]

I don't believe it should ever be used as a source. I agree with the majority of people above me who gave out great reasons why. I wish I could post a picture I came across in here but since I can't I'll just explain it. It's basically a recycling sign showing how the Bible twirls you around in the same circle over and over again. It goes like so.

THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD "but how can you be sure it's the word of God?" BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS US SO "but why believe in the bible?" THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE "but how do you know it's infallible?" THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD "but how can you be sure it's the word of God?" BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS US SO "but why believe in the bible?" THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE