The 'religious' credibility of the Bible, Christianity

[Phrenics]

There has been much discussion in the "Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?" thread. So far, in my perspective, debates or discussions the thread have not been won by either side. But I think that is because the discussion quickly spreads to the complex ramifications of the original question, and always ends up in confusion and frustrations from both sides.

Arguments in a debate cannot be focused on incongruous matters. In debates, both sides on debate have to acknowledge the essential topic, and when excursions occur, even if necessary, they have to be traced back to the original argument. So far, random arguments were posited haphazardly, and that, with the frequent evasions, has made the debate very hallow and chaotic. That is extremely frustrating, and I will like to pose this simple and essential argument.

First, I will like to cite this incredibly incisive and smartquote by Richard Dawkins. This is his answer when he was asked "what if you are wrong?" about Christianity during his lecture at Liberty University.

‘what if i’m wrong? I mean, anybody can be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.

You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the christian faith. you know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim; you’re not a Hindu.

Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India. if you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been brought up in Denmark at the time of the vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. if you had been brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus. if you had been brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.

There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo christian god in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question, what if I’m wrong? What if you’re wrong about the great Juju in the bottom of the sea?'

For those who do not 'get it', he is insinuating the following argument.

1. There are an infinite numbers of ideas that can be conceived randomly even at one's whim. It can be absurd as the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "flying teapot".

2. So what distinguishes the credibility of Christianity or any religion from that of the others? He is insinuating this by saying that people do not have faith because of a divine intervention; they do simply because of their external circumstances (Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India.) Yes, you can CLAIM to feel it, but that is the same to all the other religions. Yes, I can claim I have a spiritual relationship and that is no different that claiming to having that with the Christian god. Any religion can claim itself divine, and that claim doesn't be justified or consolidated even there are billions of believers in the world. I canclaim that The Spaghetti monster is real and the credibility is derived from me. That also is complete rubbish. You cannot hold belief as evidence to justify your point.

3. As there are an infinite numbers of conceivable and equally possible religions, the possibility of one being true is negated. 1/∞=negligible.

In this answer, Dawkins gets to the marrow of religion extremely wittily and humorously. It is sad that some do not try to understand it and resort to attacking the external appearances, the way the answers is conveyed, without any tries to understand the implications.

Hence, the possibility of "eternal damnation" is negligible as well.

The argument, "But there REALLY aren't an infinite number of religions" can also be refuted. Well, right. There are really a finite number of religions. But the origin from which religion is derived, the human mind, comprises an infinite number of possibilities. Religions are not what happened, or what is happening, but a mere conjecture of what might be happening. It doesn't matter what actually was conceived, since they are indistinguishable
.

[Xelsis]

1. There are an infinite numbers of ideas that can be conceived randomly even at one's whim. It can be absurd as the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "flying teapot".

2. So what distinguishes the credibility of Christianity or any religion from that of the others? He is insinuating this by saying that people do not have faith because of a divine intervention; they do simply because of their external circumstances (Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India.) Yes, you can CLAIM to feel it, but that is the same to all the other religions. Yes, I can claim I have a spiritual relationship and that is no different that claiming to having that with the Christian god. Any religion can claim itself divine, and that claim doesn't be justified or consolidated even there are billions of believers in the world.

3. As there are an infinite numbers of conceivable and equally possible religions, the possibility of one being true is negated. 1/∞=negligible.

That argument is complete nonsense-let me give you an example.

What was Nero doing on May 11, A.D. 42, at 11:39 PM and 17 seconds? I can think of an infinite number of things he could be doing. All of those things are equally possible. Therefore, is the possibility of one of them being true "negated?" Did Nero cease to exist for that time period? What about the next second?

Of course not, it's illogical rubbish. Even granting an infinite number of ideas, all equally possible, that one, or multiple, of them may be true cannot be negated by that argument-there is no logical connection.

[Pope Joan]

Biblical credibility does not depend upon its detractors.

The testimony comes from the billions of lives who have gained support and comfort through it.

[Phrenics]

Biblical credibility does not depend upon its detractors.

The testimony comes from the billions of lives who have gained support and comfort through it.

See, this is the strawman I was worrying about. I clearly stated that anyone can claim divine relationships of any religion. I can too claim that The Spaghetti monster is real and the credibility is derived from me. That is complete rubbish. You cannot hold belief as evidence to justify your point.

This is not even a discussion about whether religion is god or not. It's about the credibility of certain religion.

[Xelsis]

Biblical credibility does not depend upon its detractors.

The testimony comes from the billions of lives who have gained support and comfort through it.

See, this is the strawman I was worrying about. I clearly stated that anyone can claim divine relationships of any religion. I can also claim that The Spaghetti monster is real and the credibility is derived from me. That is complete rubbish. You cannot hold belief as evidence to justify your point.

This is not even a discussion about whether religion is god or not. It's about the credibility of certain religion.

Let's try a thought experiment. What makes you believe that scientific inquiry can demonstrate something to be true?

[USS Monitor]

Biblical credibility does not depend upon its detractors.

The testimony comes from the billions of lives who have gained support and comfort through it.

There are plenty of other holy books that have given people support and comfort. It doesn't prove any of them are true.

[Phrenics]

1. There are an infinite numbers of ideas that can be conceived randomly even at one's whim. It can be absurd as the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "flying teapot".

2. So what distinguishes the credibility of Christianity or any religion from that of the others? He is insinuating this by saying that people do not have faith because of a divine intervention; they do simply because of their external circumstances (Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India.) Yes, you can CLAIM to feel it, but that is the same to all the other religions. Yes, I can claim I have a spiritual relationship and that is no different that claiming to having that with the Christian god. Any religion can claim itself divine, and that claim doesn't be justified or consolidated even there are billions of believers in the world.

3. As there are an infinite numbers of conceivable and equally possible religions, the possibility of one being true is negated. 1/∞=negligible.

That argument is complete nonsense-let me give you an example.

What was Nero doing on May 11, A.D. 42, at 11:39 PM and 17 seconds? I can think of an infinite number of things he could be doing. All of those things are equally possible. Therefore, is the possibility of one of them being true "negated?" Did Nero cease to exist for that time period? What about the next second?

Of course not, it's illogical rubbish. Even granting an infinite number of ideas, all equally possible, that one, or multiple, of them may be true cannot be negated by that argument-there is no logical connection.

It is negated. All disparities of particles can be counted as one possibility, hence each is negated. The differences of the credibility of a certain religion is the same as one certain particle being in what place.

And as I said, don't make excursions. The past, and everything can be a delusion, and it is not the boundary of this discussion, it is a different branch of philosophy.

[Constantinopolis]

1. There are an infinite numbers of ideas that can be conceived randomly even at one's whim.

This is where your logic is faulty. Not all potentially conceivable religions are equal. Of the infinite number of possible religions, some actually exist and some don't. We should only pay attention to the religions that actually exist. How does it make any sense to worry about religions that MIGHT exist, but don't?

I mean, your logic is equivalent to saying: "Since there are an infinite number of possible scientific theories, it's impossible to know what is scientifically true, since it's impossible to test ALL the infinite theories to see which ones fit the data and which ones don't."

It doesn't make sense to worry about religions, or theories or philosophies, that might exist. Only about the ones that DO exist. And there aren't an infinite number of those.

[Osnil Returns]

Credibility of the Bible? It said there were currents in the ocean, held that the Earth was round when the experts claimed it was flat, and there are multiple outside sources that vouch for quite a few claims of the Bible.

[Xelsis]

That argument is complete nonsense-let me give you an example.

What was Nero doing on May 11, A.D. 42, at 11:39 PM and 17 seconds? I can think of an infinite number of things he could be doing. All of those things are equally possible. Therefore, is the possibility of one of them being true "negated?" Did Nero cease to exist for that time period? What about the next second?

Of course not, it's illogical rubbish. Even granting an infinite number of ideas, all equally possible, that one, or multiple, of them may be true cannot be negated by that argument-there is no logical connection.

It is negated. All disparities of particles can be counted as one possibility, hence each is negated. The differences of the credibility of a certain religion is the same as one certain particle being in what place.

And as I said, don't make excursions. The past, and everything can be a delusion, and it is not the boundary of this discussion, it is a different branch of philosophy.

Then knowledge ceases to exist, and you have no point at all.

[Phrenics]

See, this is the strawman I was worrying about. I clearly stated that anyone can claim divine relationships of any religion. I can also claim that The Spaghetti monster is real and the credibility is derived from me. That is complete rubbish. You cannot hold belief as evidence to justify your point.

This is not even a discussion about whether religion is god or not. It's about the credibility of certain religion.

Let's try a thought experiment. What makes you believe that scientific inquiry can demonstrate something to be true?

I can't. See, strawman. I said do not divert the conversation to existential philosophy or whatever.

[Phrenics]

Credibility of the Bible? It said there were currents in the ocean, held that the Earth was round when the experts claimed it was flat, and there are multiple outside sources that vouch for quite a few claims of the Bible.

Did you read the post?

[Xelsis]

Let's try a thought experiment. What makes you believe that scientific inquiry can demonstrate something to be true?

I can't. See, strawman. I said do not divert the conversation to existential philosophy or whatever.

Not existential philosophy-I'm actually using this as a point to get to Biblical credibility, but ignore it if you wish. You've already demonstrated based on your statements that you don't believe that anything can be credible, which makes the discussion rather meaningless.

[Phrenics]

1. There are an infinite numbers of ideas that can be conceived randomly even at one's whim.

This is where your logic is faulty. Not all potentially conceivable religions are equal. Of the infinite number of possible religions, some actually exist and some don't. We should only pay attention to the religions that actually exist. How does it make any sense to worry about religions that MIGHT exist, but don't?

I mean, your logic is equivalent to saying: "Since there are an infinite number of possible scientific theories, it's impossible to know what is scientifically true, since it's impossible to test ALL the infinite theories to see which ones fit the data and which ones don't."

It doesn't make sense to worry about religions, or theories or philosophies, that might exist. Only about the ones that DO exist. And there aren't an infinite number of those.

Well, anyone can create a religion, in which it is possible to have faith, right now. Hence, theoretically, there are an infinite number.

You already know what to put in consideration in science. It's entirely different.

[Hakons]

I can think of an infinite number of nationstates user called Phrenics. By your logic, how can we assume you are the one true Phrenics? We cannot, so we must ignore you altogether because we can't determine if you are real or not.

[Phrenics]

I can think of an infinite number of nationstates user called Phrenics. By your logic, how can we assume you are the one true Phrenics? We cannot, so we must ignore you altogether because we can't determine if you are real or not.

I made it manifest in my post to not divert this into existential philosophy.

Why does nobody argue about the disparity of credibility of Christianity from the others?

[Hakons]

I can think of an infinite number of nationstates user called Phrenics. By your logic, how can we assume you are the one true Phrenics? We cannot, so we must ignore you altogether because we can't determine if you are real or not.

I made it manifest in my post to not divert this into existential philosophy.

So you can't defend your argument that you are trying to use against something else?

[Democratic East-Asia]

I frankly, don't believe in any religion. All a bunch of unproven rubbish to me.

[Constantinopolis]

This is where your logic is faulty. Not all potentially conceivable religions are equal. Of the infinite number of possible religions, some actually exist and some don't. We should only pay attention to the religions that actually exist. How does it make any sense to worry about religions that MIGHT exist, but don't?

I mean, your logic is equivalent to saying: "Since there are an infinite number of possible scientific theories, it's impossible to know what is scientifically true, since it's impossible to test ALL the infinite theories to see which ones fit the data and which ones don't."

It doesn't make sense to worry about religions, or theories or philosophies, that might exist. Only about the ones that DO exist. And there aren't an infinite number of those.

Well, anyone can create a religion, in which it is possible to have faith, right now. Hence, theoretically, there are an infinite number.

No, there are a finite number. Everyone can create a religion, in theory, but not everyone actually has, in reality.

Come on, man, this isn't even hard. There are literally books in existence that describe all the major religions of the world. Pick up one or two of those books, then do some research on your own to find the more obscure minor religions, and that's it. You will have knowledge about all the religions that actually exist. It won't take you longer than a few years. I've done it.

It is entirely possible to study all the religions that exist (or at least, all the ones that have books written about them) and choose between them. People have done it. I have done it.

[Hakons]

I frankly, don't believe in any religion. All a bunch of unproven rubbish to me.

All knowledge requires faith.

[Phrenics]

Well, anyone can create a religion, in which it is possible to have faith, right now. Hence, theoretically, there are an infinite number.

No, there are a finite number. Everyone can create a religion, in theory, but not everyone actually has, in reality.

Come on, man, this isn't even hard. There are literally books in existence that describe all the major religions of the world. Pick up one or two of those books, then do some research on your own to find the more obscure minor religions, and that's it. You will have knowledge about all the religions that actually exist. It won't take you longer than a few years. I've done it.

It is entirely possible to study all the religions that exist (or at least, all the ones that have books written about them) and choose between them. People have done it. I have done it.

All of those conceived by man. Can you claim that your religion is different from others without basing it on faith?

[Hakons]

No, there are a finite number. Everyone can create a religion, in theory, but not everyone actually has, in reality.

Come on, man, this isn't even hard. There are literally books in existence that describe all the major religions of the world. Pick up one or two of those books, then do some research on your own to find the more obscure minor religions, and that's it. You will have knowledge about all the religions that actually exist. It won't take you longer than a few years. I've done it.

It is entirely possible to study all the religions that exist (or at least, all the ones that have books written about them) and choose between them. People have done it. I have done it.

All of those conceived by man. Can you claim that your religion is different from others without basing it on faith?

Everyone's thoughts are conceived by humans. How are your thoughts supposedly more correct than my thoughts without basing it on faith?

[The of Japan]

I frankly, don't believe in any religion. All a bunch of unproven rubbish to me.

All knowledge requires faith.

And believing that the one octillionth of a chance of the universe forming properly happened by chance requires more faith than believing in moral monotheism- that is, that there is a god whom is the source of morals.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I frankly, don't believe in any religion. All a bunch of unproven rubbish to me.

All knowledge requires faith.

I wouldn't say that's true.

[Xelsis]

No, there are a finite number. Everyone can create a religion, in theory, but not everyone actually has, in reality.

Come on, man, this isn't even hard. There are literally books in existence that describe all the major religions of the world. Pick up one or two of those books, then do some research on your own to find the more obscure minor religions, and that's it. You will have knowledge about all the religions that actually exist. It won't take you longer than a few years. I've done it.

It is entirely possible to study all the religions that exist (or at least, all the ones that have books written about them) and choose between them. People have done it. I have done it.

All of those conceived by man. Can you claim that your religion is different from others without basing it on faith?

Sure. Mine's different because mine's the biggest. Current principle of governance is what the plurality of the people say is right is probably right. Apply the same to Christianity, and you're golden.

There's a bunch of other ways as well, but if you don't want to get into "existential philosophy", that's a nice simple one.