h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

No, that's just a tiny part of it!

He has articles that cover all sorts of issues, and I couldn't possibly duplicate them without using as much time and bandwidth as he did. I posted the extract I did, as a (partial) answer to the "which Bible?" question.

Yes, but posting a link doesn't duplicate or replace offering an opinion yourself, I'm afraid. For that matter, I'm afraid to say I found the link you did post to be a bit of a dud, or at least not terribly interesting or convincing.

I don't aim to be needlessly obtuse here, but did you have anything to say?

<>

Yes, but as it is pretty much along the lines of what David (the guy who posted those articles) would say, you'd find it not terribly interesting or convincing!

'I happened by and saw this post and have been sort of itching for a chance to wade into debate with a theist.'
-Good, I hope your itch has been satisfied a little?

'So "truth" can be drawn or inferred from the text of "The Bible" if you "give it credit" or assume that it is true? That doesn't strike you as vaguely circular?'
-Well, the way I see it something can only be true two ways, either we give it credence and hold it to be true, or we deduce it from things which we hold to be true. Relying solely on things that can be deduced is what strikes me as vaguely circular.

'I thought you just said corroboration of "Biblical" accounts is what lends "The Bible" veracity, and now you're arguing the lack of corroboration for "Biblical" accounts is what lends it veracity. Seems like you should pick one.'
-There is a lack of eyewitnesses still living, the bible cannot therefore be corroborated by them, because they're not available. There are some historical accounts which do agree with the Bible, but I wouldn't say this lends it veracity, since we can't verify the historical accounts themselves. This depends on your point of view. If you believe history, then to you some parts of the bible are true. If you don't believe history then this kind of corroboration is useless to you anyway. If you believe eyewitnesses, then if you were born earlier you might have had the opportunity for things to be verified. The latter type of verification is to my mind the more conclusive type, but it's a bit late in the day for it.

'"So some of it is admittedly true."
Admitted by who? Corroboration or assimilation of other sources doesn't make a source 'true' or 'false', it makes it an assimilation or cocrroboration[sic] of another source.'
-You're right, it doesn't make it true or false. So what does make something true then? I think truth is a) ideas we hold to be true and b) things deducible from those we hold to be true.

I'm not saying you do, but one can keep a philsophy where one only keeps track of falsehoods and not truths. You can know something is false without even believing anything, those sentences which are contradictions in terms, are indisputably false because they cannot be true no matter what you believe. (You may need to add logical technicalities such as having a "consistent" system.) So, such a philosophy is perfectly correct but it still leaves you in the dark, because it only tells you what's not true. It does not account for truth, only for falsity.

So possibly it's more enlightening if you believe things, even though you can't prove them. The extent to which you believe the Bible will vary from person to person. If you need it proved before you accept it, then I think, for such a spiritual book, academic research is not the only (and possibly not even the best) avenue down which to persue this proof.

If so, it's really unfortunate because most of us would like to if we could.

<>

And the first difference is that other religions claim that you have to follow the rules to be saved, Christianity says you're saved because God loves you. Except he only saves you if you follow his rules be believing in him.