Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Rwandrall]

Here is the first one:

Evolution is now (hopefully) fact for anyone who thinks rationally.
The Old Testament (used both in Judaism and Christianity, dunno for Islam) claims the story of Adam and Eve is true

If Evolution is right, Adam and Eve never existed. Hence, the Bible claimed something that is not true

Since one thing in the Bible is wrong, the Bible as a holy book that speaks the word of God is not acceptable, everything it says can be questioned, and the burden of proof is therefore on the bible-believers.

I know, this argument is shaky at best, but it is pretty simple to explain, does not require philosophical interrogation and rarely leads to the loop argument of "i believe because i believe".

[tackattack]

Here is the first one:

Evolution is now (hopefully) fact for anyone who thinks rationally.
The Old Testament (used both in Judaism and Christianity, dunno for Islam) claims the story of Adam and Eve is true That would depend on your definition of true.. we believe it morally true not literally true
If Evolution is right, Adam and Eve never existed. Hence, the Bible claimed something that is not true

Since one thing in the Bible is wrong, the Bible as a holy book that speaks the word of God is not acceptable, everything it says can be questioned, and the burden of proof is therefore on the bible-believers.isn't that some sort of inappropriate generaliztaion or a fallacy of some sort?

I know, this argument is shaky at best, but it is pretty simple to explain, does not require philosophical interrogation and rarely leads to the loop argument of "i believe because i believe".

Are you just trying to get the burden of proof on the theists.. I thought that was a given?

[AtheistPhil]

The Old Testament claims the story of Adam and Eve is true

That would depend on your definition of true.. we believe it morally true not literally true

Well, some christians believe it's literal.
If the bible is the word of God then its meaning must be clear with only one interpretation/meaning possible.
If humans find multiple interpretations it could mean:

- that god and his word are imperfect therefore it's not God (at least not the standard perfect being most people imagine)

- humans aren't capable of understanding his word correctly (cause they're imperfect),
but since God is omniscient He knows that and either He can't make his word comprehensible by his own creatures or doesn't want to. The former goes against his omnipotence and the latter surely goes against a bible verse of some kind. ( But in both cases it means no interpretation of the bible can be sure to represent his word and therefore no bible passage can be used to disprove his existence. So a non-omnipotent God or a God who doesn't give a shit about us could still exist ! )

Therefore the only solution is literal interpretation which solves the truth definition problem (and even that is not really a solution because nothing says that the simpler interpretation is the right one)

In that case Rwandrall's demonstration stands on its feet, at least to me. (and it only states that "if evolution is right, then the Bible is not the word of the God described in the Bible")

[Rwandrall]

Here is the first one:

Evolution is now (hopefully) fact for anyone who thinks rationally.
The Old Testament (used both in Judaism and Christianity, dunno for Islam) claims the story of Adam and Eve is true That would depend on your definition of true.. we believe it morally true not literally true
If Evolution is right, Adam and Eve never existed. Hence, the Bible claimed something that is not true

Since one thing in the Bible is wrong, the Bible as a holy book that speaks the word of God is not acceptable, everything it says can be questioned, and the burden of proof is therefore on the bible-believers.isn't that some sort of inappropriate generaliztaion or a fallacy of some sort?

I know, this argument is shaky at best, but it is pretty simple to explain, does not require philosophical interrogation and rarely leads to the loop argument of "i believe because i believe".

Are you just trying to get the burden of proof on the theists.. I thought that was a given?

Actually, some theists i have met put the burden of proof on the athiests, because, in short, the Bible is innocent until proven guilty

About the generalization, i agree and that is why this argument is not perfect. However, imagine there was, lets say, a history book narrating rock solid events, such as the Napoleon Wars or World War 1, but that was written 2000 years ago. Now imagine we find an error in that book. Shouldn't that allow us to doubt the entirety of the book ?

Finally about the story of Adam and Eve being only a metaphor of some kind, i do not believe that the people who wrote the bible meant that, it was just the tale of creation that exists in all mythologies.

Imagine you are not in Christian, but Greek Mythology, ill just change a few things

Zeus created the heavens and the Earth, all the creatures of the land, the sea and the air, and then the two first humans, Kratos and Euclidia, who lived in a mystical garden surrounding Mount Olympus, home of the Gods. He told them NEVER to climb Mount Olympus, but Typhon, Zeus' enemy, took the form of a rat and guided them to the top of the mountain. They then got banished.

Does this seem to make any more sense than the tales of creation that are in any other mythologies ?

Another interesting tale: in actual Greek mythology...the one that brought sin and mortality to man was ALSO the first woman, Pandora...and the great God (Zeus) is ALSO a father figure with a long white beard who can both protect and smite.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Actually, some theists i have met put the burden of proof on the athiests, because, in short, the Bible is innocent until proven guilty

Welcome Rwandrall

Yeah,I know,it's hard to argue with someone against a position in which reason was not used to form and is not used to maintain.

The positions you quoted contain two logical fallacies. The first is about the burden of proof: Your Christian friends may not move that burden. It is the person making the claim who has the burden of proof.The atheist who asserts "I do not believe" is making no claims and need prove nothing.


The second is called 'argument from ignorance' . IE: The claim that a thing is true because it has not been proven to be false,or false because it has not been proven to be true.

A third fallacy is implicit: argument from authority. IE: It's true because the bible says so.

My position is the Torah is the mythology of an insignificant tribe of bronze age goat herders. The New Testament is the mythology of the religion loosely based on the first. I simply decline to accept the bible as evidence in any discussion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary"[4], that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief[citation needed] or argument from personal conviction[citation needed], refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Both arguments commonly share this structure[citation needed]: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true. The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of argument, in which a valid logical contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a premise.

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

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

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

[tackattack]

---

The Old Testament claims the story of Adam and Eve is true

That would depend on your definition of true.. we believe it morally true not literally true

Well, some christians believe it's literal.
If the bible is the word of God then its meaning must be clear with only one interpretation/meaning possible.
If humans find multiple interpretations it could mean:

- that god and his word are imperfect therefore it's not God (at least not the standard perfect being most people imagine)

- humans aren't capable of understanding his word correctly (cause they're imperfect),
but since God is omniscient He knows that and either He can't make his word comprehensible by his own creatures or doesn't want to. The former goes against his omnipotence and the latter surely goes against a bible verse of some kind. ( But in both cases it means no interpretation of the bible can be sure to represent his word and therefore no bible passage can be used to disprove his existence. So a non-omnipotent God or a God who doesn't give a shit about us could still exist ! )

Therefore the only solution is literal interpretation which solves the truth definition problem (and even that is not really a solution because nothing says that the simpler interpretation is the right one)

In that case Rwandrall's demonstration stands on its feet, at least to me. (and it only states that "if evolution is right, then the Bible is not the word of the God described in the Bible")

---

1. You're assumig that the Bible is the word of God. It isn't.
2. There i actually many teachings of Jesus trying to get people to look away from the literal interpretations of the Law to a more subjective law "written on the hearts of men" with the interprettion of the Holy Spirit.
3. "then the Bible is not the word of the God described in the Bible" point it out in the Bible and I'll agree.

---

Here is the first one:

Evolution is now (hopefully) fact for anyone who thinks rationally.
The Old Testament (used both in Judaism and Christianity, dunno for Islam) claims the story of Adam and Eve is true That would depend on your definition of true.. we believe it morally true not literally true
If Evolution is right, Adam and Eve never existed. Hence, the Bible claimed something that is not true

Since one thing in the Bible is wrong, the Bible as a holy book that speaks the word of God is not acceptable, everything it says can be questioned, and the burden of proof is therefore on the bible-believers.isn't that some sort of inappropriate generaliztaion or a fallacy of some sort?

I know, this argument is shaky at best, but it is pretty simple to explain, does not require philosophical interrogation and rarely leads to the loop argument of "i believe because i believe".

Are you just trying to get the burden of proof on the theists.. I thought that was a given?

Actually, some theists i have met put the burden of proof on the athiests, because, in short, the Bible is innocent until proven guilty

About the generalization, i agree and that is why this argument is not perfect. However, imagine there was, lets say, a history book narrating rock solid events, such as the Napoleon Wars or World War 1, but that was written 2000 years ago. Now imagine we find an error in that book. Shouldn't that allow us to doubt the entirety of the book ?

Finally about the story of Adam and Eve being only a metaphor of some kind, i do not believe that the people who wrote the bible meant that, it was just the tale of creation that exists in all mythologies.

Imagine you are not in Christian, but Greek Mythology, ill just change a few things

Zeus created the heavens and the Earth, all the creatures of the land, the sea and the air, and then the two first humans, Kratos and Euclidia, who lived in a mystical garden surrounding Mount Olympus, home of the Gods. He told them NEVER to climb Mount Olympus, but Typhon, Zeus' enemy, took the form of a rat and guided them to the top of the mountain. They then got banished.

Does this seem to make any more sense than the tales of creation that are in any other mythologies ?

Another interesting tale: in actual Greek mythology...the one that brought sin and mortality to man was ALSO the first woman, Pandora...and the great God (Zeus) is ALSO a father figure with a long white beard who can both protect and smite.

---

1. The burden of proof for the existence of God should always rest on the believer. How can you not believe in nothing?
2. A tale is a metaphor is a myth. It isn't an eye-witness account because they weren't recording anything for posterity in the "creation times".. too busy fornicating I'm presuming
3. I don't think anyone on here has denied similarities between Christian God and any other concepts of God before Christianity.



@padriac.. What is that fallacy from the first responce I gave, you're far more knowledgeble about the errancies of debate than I. Something about 1 chink in the armor making the entire armor worthless? I just wanted to know it's proper name if you don't mind

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@padriac.. What is that fallacy from the first responce I gave, you're far more knowledgeble about the errancies of debate than I. Something about 1 chink in the armor making the entire armor worthless? I just wanted to know it's proper name if you don't mind Smile

Sorry Tacky,that comment was not aimed at you.You posted whilst I was writing my post.

My comment was directed at the position of the Christians Rwandrall quoted.


As for being more knowledgeable than you. [about anything] I'm flattered that you think so,but I am reminded daily of the extent of my ignorance. I am often out of my depth here,in terms of knowledge and intellectually.

[tackattack]

---

@padriac.. What is that fallacy from the first responce I gave, you're far more knowledgeble about the errancies of debate than I. Something about 1 chink in the armor making the entire armor worthless? I just wanted to know it's proper name if you don't mind Smile

Sorry Tacky,that comment was not aimed at you.You posted whilst I was writing my post.

My comment was directed at the position of the Christians Rwandrall quoted.


As for being more knowledgeable than you. [about anything] I'm flattered that you think so,but I am reminded daily of the extent of my ignorance. I am often out of my depth here,in terms of knowledge and intellectually.

---

No I'm aware that was pointed at him I was just asking someone who knows more about fallacies what the actual name of the fallacy is that- just because 1 of a whole is false the other things withing that whole are false and therefore the whole is false... there's got to be a name for it.. I can't find it on my list though.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

No I'm aware that was pointed at him I was just asking someone who knows more about fallacies what the actual name of the fallacy is that- just because 1 of a whole is false the other things withing that whole are false and therefore the whole is false... there's got to be a name for it.. I can't find it on my list though.

Oh,in that case,I don't know. Not sure that is necessarily correct as a principle.

I think you may be conflating 'logical' or 'logically valid" with 'true'. Logic does not guarantee truth.In formal logic the premise is always accepted as true for the sake of argument.

An argument may take the form of:

IF A (which is actually true) AND B (which is also actually true) AND C (which is actually untrue)---- then X . The inference will be logically valid but untrue.

Sorry I couldn't help,but it's nice to be asked.

[chi pan]

i find it amazing how some here say christians are closed minded but prove themselves to be closed minded. i hear ppl saying "they assume it's the word of god but it's not." that right there is assuming it's not the word of god. ppl saying it sounds rediculous but evolution and the big bang theory sounds equally if not more rediculous. it's basically saying a puzzle put itself together by random events and luck. that something more complicated than anything we have ever built just happened. the fact is evolution has no evidence other than what made darwin come up with the theory in the first place (which isn't really evidence) and no further evidence has been found. they say one inaccuracy or hoax of the bible means it's all fake but there have been so many evelutionary hoaxes it's not even funny but every time it happens it's ignored. when someone combines an ape jaw to a human skull and presents it as a missing link but later is discovered to be a fake is just what ever. you accuse christians of holding back science but apparently athiests do the same thing. dismissing the notion of a creator because "that's just stupid." well i think throwing away possibilities with no evidence to rule it out is "just stupid." i think coming up with theories and withholding evidence that doesn't support those theories is "just stupid." you should find out how carbon dating works before you use that as evidence cuz that's just bad science built on assumptions. that's what evolution is. just because animals adapt means that's how all animals came to be? a chain of trial and error without any proof that it's possible for a spicies to change to another? there's proof many different types of cats exist and can create other kinds of cats but there's no proof a cat can become a squirl or can become anything other than a cat.

what i also find astounding is you assume your science is right but science changes all the time. science used to think the earth was flat or dome shape but in the book of Isiah 40:22 it says "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth..." so the bible had it thousands of years before science could prove it how interesting. if it were wrong then that could be evidence against the bible but every time ppl try to prove the bible wrong they find it's facts entirely accurate, all the historical and scientific ones. but i must thank science cuz on the other hand if it weren't for those finding new evidence to support it accidently, i wouldn't appreciate it as much so thank you