My change to Atheism from Christianity (I'm 14)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

You don't "believe" there is much error in that one, yet you insist on using multiple translations, not knowing the original text personally. This is fine with me, but you made a big deal about not understanding things and yet speaking on belief based on the consensus of scientists. Why is this a special circumstance, in which balancing multiple versions against each other may or may not be necessary to correctly understand the Word? In other words, why is there not an ultimate version?

---

Oh I get ya. Well using multiple translations is to improve my understanding of the scripture, not to minimize error. There are a couple errors in the KJV and I believe one or two in the NIV but we are well aware of them. Some translations like the NASB and ESV are literal translations they translate everything exactly how it was written in the manuscript. Some translations like the NIV are translated in a way that better suits the English language, they are great for picking up and getting a quick knowledge of what the text meant. It's good to use several versions for this reason. As to your other question, science is never based on consensus but biblical scholarship is far more based on it, although not completely. So it's not really a double standard, just different areas of scholarship. Good discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll put this more directly. The bible purports to tell us many things about god, including accounts of events which can and have been investigated. In saying that the original text was innerrant you have left open the possibility that the texts which we have now may not be an accurate source of information. If I take an event credited to god which we know did not occur, Exodus for example, where the description of god (through his actions) is incorrect, I am making an attempt to argue that the god of the bible is not an accurate representation of god (IE does not exist as stated). You could immediately retort that the text, in that case, is not accurate, and therefore my argument is not valid. You have left enough room to retreat from any position that you feel may be faltering.

On the other hand, were you to take this position, you will be proposing that the biblical god is not based on the biblical accounts, but your own personal preference for certain texts within biblical accounts.

If you would like to remove, in advance, any of the many descriptions of god and his actions found in the bible I'm okay with that.

[Epimethean]

OK, I can see that, Statler. I suppose what I wonder is, if each one is prone to a certain set of errors, and if you must set each against the other in order to arrive at what is at best an approximation, would you not feel better reading it yourself in Greek? Science may not be "based" on consensus, but when, as is the case, the majority of credentialed scientists agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, it feels no less genuine to me to cite this as a string leaning and a good place to stand on the shoulders of giants, as it were.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I'll put this more directly. The bible purports to tell us many things about god, including accounts of events which can and have been investigated. In saying that the original text was innerrant you have left open the possibility that the texts which we have now may not be an accurate source of information. If I take an event credited to god which we know did not occur, Exodus for example, where the description of god (through his actions) is incorrect, I am making an attempt to argue that the god of the bible is not an accurate representation of god (IE does not exist as stated). You could immediately retort that the text, in that case, is not accurate, and therefore my argument is not valid. You have left enough room to retreat from any position that you feel may be faltering.

On the other hand, were you to take this position, you will be proposing that the biblical god is not based on the biblical accounts, but your own personal preference for certain texts within biblical accounts.

If you would like to remove, in advance, any of the many descriptions of god and his actions found in the bible I'm okay with that.

---

Wow, you know exodus never happened? Sometimes I think you give yourself too much credit. Nope, not removing anything from the Bible ahead of time, I know you can't do any more damage than any other skeptic has unsuccessfully tried to do to scripture over the millennia.

[The Grand Nudger]

The damage that skeptics have done over these many many years is exactly why you're here attempting to argue for the existence of your version of god instead of simply demanding that I believe with a scourge in your hand.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

OK, I can see that, Statler. I suppose what I wonder is, if each one is prone to a certain set of errors, and if you must set each against the other in order to arrive at what is at best an approximation, would you not feel better reading it yourself in Greek? Science may not be "based" on consensus, but when, as is the case, the majority of credentialed scientists agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, it feels no less genuine to me to cite this as a string leaning and a good place to stand on the shoulders of giants, as it were.

---

Sure I wish I understood Greek, but I don't, however I trust that I can still gain an extremely good understanding of scripture just from our English translations. Like I said, the errors we know about are very minimal and do not change the overall meaning of any of the Bible. I think there is two verses in Matthew that are believed to be additions that appear in some translations and one small passage in the KJV that I believe is also an addition. They don't say anything super controversial though, so don't get too excited :-)

As for the consensus point, sure if it makes you feel better to go with the consensus opinion then go for it. However, you really shouldn't try and use this opinion to argue against others who believe the consensus is wrong on these matters. Don't forget, if we were living a couple hundred years ago I could very well argue that the consensus opinion believed the earth is 6,000 years old and therefore you should too :-) I would not be surprised that within the next decade they will be saying the earth is over 5 billion years old, so I really don't put too much stock in the majority opinion, it's a pretty corrupt system these days.

---

The damage that skeptics have done over these many many years is exactly why you're here attempting to argue for the existence of your version of god instead of simply demanding that I believe with a scourge in your hand.

That's an absurd analogy. I am a Reformed Christian, I don't believe any amount of persuading can force you to believe apart from saving grace. Those skeptics look like brilliant men until they meet an apologist in debate and their dishonesty is brought to light. Bart Ehrman for example is one of the most dishonest men writing on such matters alive today. He refuses to even debate any Biblical scholars because he knows they will bring to light his dishonesty.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's a link to a great book full of actual, verifiable information. I could link you libraries full of books like these if you were actually interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

I'm going to link one of the authors too, so you can go about attacking the man as an unreliable source (what with not being a "biblical scholar" and all), without risking the uninvited intrusion of actual archaeology into your head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein

You see, I actually wanted to know about the bible, the middle east, and ancient cultures in general. It's kind of my thing.

Late edit. If anybody had a reason to find any evidence of exodus btw, it would be Isreali archaeologists. Proof of Exodus would be literal "keys to the kingdom".

[Epimethean]

Interestingly, though Dawkins has a mixed history in debates, Hitchens tends to do very well indeed against the apologists. I put that down more to personality type than difference in argument.

[Minimalist]

No, Minimalist, the quote you've posted is a cosmological argument, which he has stated is not, in fact, his position. That particular piece of wisdom is just something that fell out of his mouth, not his position.

Every premise he has begins with the assumption that his fucking fairy tales are true. If that isn't a "position" I don't know what is.

[The Grand Nudger]

On a related note, what does it say about a person when they wholeheartedly believe something like the death of the first-born (a part of the exodus narrative) as a historical fact. Are we to accept this cartoonishly barbaric vision of the ancient hebrew peoples' complacent acceptance of gods great gift in this regard? Is that just something that ancient hebrews would have obviously been okay with, or something that a hebrew god would just obviously do? That's borderline anti-semetic, in my opinion.