Why believe the bible?

[Whateverist]

Lol no it doesn't

It is, it assesses human psychology by statistics observation often, which sometimes works and sometimes, it doesn't prove anything.

That is one kind of psychology, it isn't the only kind.

[Mystic]

It is, it assesses human psychology by statistics observation often, which sometimes works and sometimes, it doesn't prove anything.

That is one kind of psychology, it isn't the only kind.

True, but too much of it is based on statistics.

[Amarok]

Historical scholars care about the WHY and make inferences and tie things together with the WHY. WHY were there relatively widespread Christians in the decades between Jesus and the Gospels?  The answer is that the general beliefs about Jesus did not come from what we now call the Bible. Where did they come from? The most obvious answer is that the momentum of the eyewitnesses/contemporaries following Jesus death and resurrection motivated serious, early efforts to propagate the Gospel and repeated the events we eventually learn about.  While not conclusive of anything but belief, it is another piece of evidence that 1) supports the overall NT theme and 2) cripples any theories of late fabrication/hoax/simple misunderstanding.

Umm there is no much wrong in this paragraph i don't even know were to begin

---

That is one kind of psychology, it isn't the only kind.

True, but too much of it is based on statistics.

Nope the right amount of it is based on statistics

[Mister Agenda]

That you accept hearsay claims from decades after the purported events as evidence of said events says more to your credulity than anything else.

Hearsay is not evidence Steve-o. No matter how much you deperately want it to be.

Except Bastard-o...there is actually a term called 'hearsay evidence'...you should write someone about getting that corrected.

And it's typically not admitted in court because it is hearsay evidence, except for very specific exceptions. If someone says someone else told them you committed the murder, you should hope you've got the kind of lawyer that will point out that the statement is hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

[Amarok]

Except Bastard-o...there is actually a term called 'hearsay evidence'...you should write someone about getting that corrected.

And it's typically not admitted in court because it is hearsay evidence, except for very specific exceptions. If someone says someone else told them you committed the murder, you should hope you've got the kind of lawyer that will point out that the statement is hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

But Mister Steve needs that kind of evidence to be credible to maintain his cult

[possibletarian]

Regarding all of your comments above:

-- We are wired to believe in the supernatural

I'm not sure that can be true, I don't believe we are pre-wired at all. I do perhaps think we all wonder about a life after out body dies, in other words we cannot imagine what not existing must be like, hence our search for a 'beyond' to our life and perhaps dreaming of our loved ones led us to believe (or at least hope) there could be an afterlife.

Most early religions were built this way a belief in the spirits of ancestors, some in re-incarnation, many believed in multiple spirits and eventually distinct gods and later in the day monotheism. To claim a hard wiring is to put the conclusion (something must have hard wired us) before the question.

Add to that the many different beliefs it seems so scattered and in disarray that it's hard to imagine any intelligence of worth behind it, all of them seem to be built on a hope or fear of death or what happens to us after death. I was indoctrinated to believe in a supernatural world, but upon asking question about it do not believe it's a valid proposition, so i (along with other atheists) have somehow overcome this built in belief.

-- To most people, a miracle, a story, listening to people's experiences with the supernatural is not considered impossible. 
-- If it is possible, then context is examined. 

You mean to most people who have been taught there is a world beyond our own ?

For example, the Mark 2 story about the paralytic man. If I heard today that a paralytic man was healed out of the blue. I would say "perhaps". If it was related to me this story:

 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. 

Well i suspect you do believe that, I however do not believe it happened as I have seen nothing like it that i can refer to.

Why believe the Bible and not some random claim in remote parts of India? No context is provided that makes sense. If some context is offered, does it fit into a wider context that continues to make sense? and so on.

Why would it have to be in context to be valid miracle.. for someone who believes they happen ?

You don't believe the Bible is Holy therefore the content is true. You believe the content is true and the Bible becomes Holy.

There is nothing in the bible that leads me to believe it's true at least from a spiritual point of view.. no

The Bible and the claim are not the same thing. There is ample evidence that people believed the content for decades prior to the current books of the Bible being written. So, how can they be the same thing if one preceded the other?

Well there is ample evidence that people believe the Quran, or the teachings of Joseph Smith, we don't doubt that many believe, and had a belief before they were written and i'm uncertain what your point is.
But you really don't see the problem quoting a story book for evidence that the same book is real, the fact that they believed it before just shows how easily they could be fooled into believing it.

[Mister Agenda]

There's a catchall exception for admitting hearsay evidence: no better information is available and it will serve the cause of justice. To many religious people, anything that supports their religion automatically 'serves the cause of justice' and should be allowed. Of course, anyone who doesn't already agree with their conclusion will see that it's the cause of apologetics being served, not justice.

---

I do perhaps think we all wonder about a life after out body dies, in other words we cannot imagine what not existing must be like, hence our search for a 'beyond' to our life and perhaps dreaming of our loved ones led us to believe (or at least hope) there could be an afterlife.

Most early religions were built this way a belief in the spirits of ancestors, some in re-incarnation, many believed in multiple spirits and eventually distinct gods and later in the day monotheism. To claim a hard wiring is to put the conclusion (something must have hard wired us) before the question.

And people had then-inexplicable experiences every night. While they were asleep, some part of them seemed to go on journeys, to encounter other people (some of them dead in the waking world), gods, monsters, talking animals, and so on. I do not blame ancient people for concluding that there is a spirit world. But we know a lot more about the brain activity behind dreams now, and it's not nearly as justified as it used to be.

[Amarok]

Regarding all of your comments above:

-- We are wired to believe in the supernatural

I'm not sure that can be true, I don't believe we are pre-wired at all.  I do perhaps think we all wonder about a life after out body dies, in other words we cannot imagine what not existing must be like, hence our search for a 'beyond' to our life and perhaps dreaming of our loved ones led us to believe (or at least hope) there could be an afterlife.

Most early religions were built this way a belief in the spirits of ancestors, some in re-incarnation, many believed in multiple spirits and eventually distinct gods and later in the day monotheism. To claim a hard wiring is to put the conclusion (something must have hard wired us) before the question.

Add to that the many different beliefs it seems so scattered and in disarray that it's hard to imagine any intelligence of worth behind it, all of them seem to be built on a hope or fear of death or what happens to us after death.  I was indoctrinated to believe in a supernatural world, but upon asking question about it do not believe it's a valid proposition, so i (along with other atheists) have somehow overcome this built in belief.

-- To most people, a miracle, a story, listening to people's experiences with the supernatural is not considered impossible. 
-- If it is possible, then context is examined. 

You mean to most people who have been taught there is a world beyond our own ?

For example, the Mark 2 story about the paralytic man. If I heard today that a paralytic man was healed out of the blue. I would say "perhaps". If it was related to me this story:

 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. 

Well i suspect you do believe that, I however do not believe it happened as I have seen nothing like it that i can refer to.

Why believe the Bible and not some random claim in remote parts of India? No context is provided that makes sense. If some context is offered, does it fit into a wider context that continues to make sense? and so on.

Why would it have to be in context to be  valid miracle.. for someone who believes they happen ?

You don't believe the Bible is Holy therefore the content is true. You believe the content is true and the Bible becomes Holy.

There is nothing in the bible that leads me to believe it's true at least from a spiritual point of view.. no  

The Bible and the claim are not the same thing. There is ample evidence that people believed the content for decades prior to the current books of the Bible being written. So, how can they be the same thing if one preceded the other?

Well there is ample evidence that people believe the Quran, or the teachings of Joseph Smith, we don't doubt that many believe, and had a belief before they were written and i'm uncertain what your point is.
But you really don't see the problem quoting a story book for evidence that the same book is real, the fact that they believed it before just shows how easily they could be fooled into believing it.

Also he's wrong the earliest Christians were not like the ones who wrote the bible he's inventing consistency

[possibletarian]

And people had then-inexplicable experiences every night. While they were asleep, some part of them seemed to go on journeys, to encounter other people (some of them dead in the waking world), gods, monsters, talking animals, and so on. I do not blame ancient people for concluding that there is a spirit world. But we know a lot more about the brain activity behind dreams now, and it's not nearly as justified as it used to be.

Me neither, I can easily see how belief in an afterlife evolved.

[RoadRunner79]

These where not witnesses to these events, but they do confirm (from a non-friendly) point of view a number of things that where known about Jesus fairly early.  They confirm the Gospel and that Jesus was known as a healer and miracle worker.

And the existence of folklore proves that green M&M's are aphrodisiac and the world is populated by dangerous hitchhikers.

Does the existence of folklore disprove claims of evolution as well? Can anyone use this type of reasoning to reject any evidence the don't want to admit? I don't think that this is an argument.