From Belief to Doubt, and Beyond

[POI]

In a prior posting, I attempted to challenge 'minimal facts' Christians here --> (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40714&start=20). As with many topics, it went virtually nowhere, in regard to Christian interaction. I guess my hypothesis, in that thread, remains unchallenged. These types of Christians only wish to argue unfalsifiable stuff to protect their beloved belief(s). Thus. let's instead try another approach....

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

[1213]

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

What say you, if I say one?

[TRANSPONDER]

We know how it works, and not just with Christianity. Humanity is a self - justifying ape and will make up any narrative to win, logical fallacies (including personals) being favorite and pretty much expected in political debate.

I have argued for religious apologetics of the three kinds - evidence, fiddling and Sauce. It might also be reason, unreason and denial. Notably with the evolution debate where 'evidence' is produced and is nearly all based on misunderstanding and irrelevance. Or better, the Gospel debate, notably the resurrection, where people generally seem unaware of the contradictions and the Believers certainly are. They just put bits of different stories together in their heads to make One story. The women went to the tomb and the angels told them that Jesus was risen. Never mind the different stories, weave them all together. Differences can be shrugged off. Notoriously, the excuse witnesses to an actual event can give different accounts.

Well, so far they can keep their end up, but really, John having no angelic message? Nobody but Matthew recording the women running into Jesus? And nobody seems to have noticed that nobody else event hints at a tomb guard. The penitent theif in no -one but Luke is shrugged off 'The others didn't see it'. Any excuse will do.

So we get the second stage - trying to manipulate the evidence to make it fit the belief (and of course accusing the critics of doing it). The whole narrative of not having Mary go into the tomb, hear the message or run into Jesus is full of holes and of course Luke says specifically that Mary Magdalene (24.10) and the others saw and reported all this. But let's ignore any evidence that doesn't fit the narrative, eh? Even if it's in the Bible.

That's why I say self justification where the Faith is the Id of the self, is what's at stake here. The social position, identity and self - justification as a good and worthwhile person in society is pinned on the religion, as it might be the political party or even football team, just as Chariot race teams became political from Rome to Byzantium. Wars have been fought over it. (1)

So, anyway, we get the fiddling to try to deny the problems and contradictions, with footling excuses like 'they wrote differently', or 'Jesus did many things' and this is just smokescreening. I won't dwell on the Sauce, but cheeky jibes is the way of it, and I think it's trying to get the last hit in and somehow feel 'I won that one'. I know, because I've done it and felt it in the past, though I don't do it now, because I want to Know, not to Win.

The believers want to Win, and if it isn't right, they don't want to know. "The whole problem with you is that you don't want to know what the problem with you is" (Lucy van Pelt).

I'm watching the Big Bang and age of the universe get (perhaps, Thanks to the Webbiscope) rewritten with interest, not horror because atheist Dogma is going up in smoke. That Theists are going (eventually) to use this to beat us over the head with can't be helped.

But the expert consensus that Exodus did not happen (at least as in the Bible) is being fought fiercely. Odd that they have to fight for factual history of some bronze age event but can just dismiss anything inconvenient, like slavery in the Bible, of course.

(1)I don#t think any war has been fought over different dogmas of atheism, but maybe in the future, eh, South Park?

[POI]

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

What say you, if I say one?

Well, I'd say you believe everything the Bible says is correct. I'd also say that you likely perform some mental gymnastics, or apologetics, to keep it that way. I'd also say that you believe if that one claim is falsified, you would find the Bible untrustworthy. Thank you for responding. Based upon your response, it only takes one claim falsified to no longer trust what the Bible says. I guess this is why your protection mechanisms, or (belief preservation), is quite strong.

"Belief perseverance is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it. Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect."

[bjs1]

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

I think that Transponder has a valid point. Man is a self-justifying ape who will make up any narrative to win. This is not limited to Christians.

This is particularly true since there is no clear standard of what falsifies an event in antiquity.

Think of it this way: How many stories in the Bible must be verified to you own personal standard of verification for the Bible to be considered, if not inerrant, at least overall true?

How you answer that question will give you a good idea of how a Christian will answer your question. Or how a Muslim would answer the same question about the Koran, etc.

[POI]

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

I think that Transponder has a valid point. Man is a self-justifying ape who will make up any narrative to win. This is not limited to Christians.

This is particularly true since there is no clear standard of what falsifies an event in antiquity.

Think of it this way: How many stories in the Bible must be verified to you own personal standard of verification for the Bible to be considered, if not inerrant, at least overall true?

How you answer that question will give you a good idea of how a Christian will answer your question. Or how a Muslim would answer the same question about the Koran, etc.

I understand the answer will differ for everyone. What is YOUR answer to this question, regarding the debate topic?

[TRANSPONDER]

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

I think that Transponder has a valid point. Man is a self-justifying ape who will make up any narrative to win. This is not limited to Christians.

This is particularly true since there is no clear standard of what falsifies an event in antiquity.

Think of it this way: How many stories in the Bible must be verified to you own personal standard of verification for the Bible to be considered, if not inerrant, at least overall true?

How you answer that question will give you a good idea of how a Christian will answer your question. Or how a Muslim would answer the same question about the Koran, etc.

It's true that verification of old records is not always straightforward, but that only means that doubt is increased for all records, not decreased for the Bible.

I was willing to let a lot of slips and errors go and fish the disparate elements together into a plausible narrative. But the same problem arose with some of the old histories; we may accept the events, broadly, but we do not credit miracle claims. Especially if we compare the gospels and find that one writer knows of a big miracle but the others don't mention it.

I put it to the general public, why wouldn't you think it was made up? You read a lot of important theological teachings in John, not even hinted at in the synoptics. Why wouldn't you think John made it up? You hear that history doesn't know of a Passover release custom, nor for that matter of a massacre of innocents, nor indeed a Roman tax - census in the time of Herod, for all the apologists try to invent one.

And most of the rest of the Book. The extent of the problems in not well known because it looks to me like it has been covered up. With pious intentions perhaps, but not discussed unless they have to. There have been massive debates about the nativities, and I think the last gap for that particular god was plugged when I found that Josephus seems to say that Varus carried on as governor until Archelaus (king of Judea) got back from Rome and another Syrian governor was appointed. There is no place for Qurinus to conduct a 'Registration' before 6/7 AD and it couldn't be in the time of Herod anyway.

For me, the nativities were the first 'Biggie' that really started me doubting whether some of these other stories were really true. I think people like a statue with feet of clay to crash down. They react with anger when they find that religious leaders have been bamboozling them. It just takes someone to point it out.

[1213]

Well, I'd say you believe everything the Bible says is correct. I'd also say that you likely perform some mental gymnastics, or apologetics, to keep it that way. I'd also say that you believe if that one claim is falsified, you would find the Bible untrustworthy. Thank you for responding. Based upon your response, it only takes one claim falsified to no longer trust what the Bible says. I guess this is why your protection mechanisms, or (belief preservation), is quite strong.

Interesting. I want truth, love and righteousness to win. If you can truly prove Bible wrong, I have no need to try to defend something that is not true. However, my standard for truth may be slightly higher than atheists seems to have, that is why it may look like I have some kind of mental gymnastics going on.

[POI]

If you can truly prove Bible wrong, I have no need to try to defend something that is not true.

Well, I've been trying to demonstrate this. But you abort as soon as your blank assertions are challenged. Please harken back to the topic you abandoned here (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40622&start=40), posts 39 and 42, to be specific. It would be silly to debate unfalsifiable claims, which is why we can investigate the falsifiable ones. The Exodus is a decent place to start, unless you argue that it too is unfalsifiable.

However, my standard for truth may be slightly higher than atheists seems to have, that is why it may look like I have some kind of mental gymnastics going on.

I cannot speak for others. My assessment, thus far, is about you. You look to demonstrate belief preservation. If you really cared about truth, then why avoid exploring the Exodus claim?

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, I'd say you believe everything the Bible says is correct. I'd also say that you likely perform some mental gymnastics, or apologetics, to keep it that way. I'd also say that you believe if that one claim is falsified, you would find the Bible untrustworthy. Thank you for responding. Based upon your response, it only takes one claim falsified to no longer trust what the Bible says. I guess this is why your protection mechanisms, or (belief preservation), is quite strong.

Interesting. I want truth, love and righteousness to win. If you can truly prove Bible wrong, I have no need to try to defend something that is not true. However, my standard for truth may be slightly higher than atheists seems to have, that is why it may look like I have some kind of mental gymnastics going on.

From what I have seen your standard for 'truth' is different from atheists in that it begins with Faith and fiddles the evidence, reason and even the Bible to fit with it, but it isn't 'higher' because atheists when they have problems demand more evidence, Religious apologists faced with problems suggest we should ask for less evidence and rely on Faith - but only for their faith.