penia

This is taken from http://www.tektonics.org/

here is the direct link to this article http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html

What do you guys think?

{copy and paste deleted - go to the link}

rmadison

I don't think you deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Gooch's dad

If you really are JP Holding, then I agree with bagfullofsnakes. Your actions over at TheologyWeb, along with your unwillingness to debate people one-on-one outside of TW, and your record of changing debate transcripts after the fact,leads me to the conclusion that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: Ah, I see you aren't Holding, you're just copying a great big article from tektonics.org. I guess the same argument applies, though. Holding is nothing but hot air.

penumbra

In other words, any one who is critical of the bible in any way is automatically ignorant and deserves nothing but contempt? I guess then that rational discussion is out of the question, eh?

Radcliffe Emerson

People who blindly believe something that is nothing more than a series of books written by men don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
People who for the most part believe it because they've always been told to. (by their parents, churches, ministers, whatever)


Even my father who defends the bible vigorously, had to admit he believed it because he has always been told to.

rmadison

Well, I think all claims initially deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's that fine line between 100% skepticism, and 100% credulity, right?

But, the bible - and the legions of followers - have had ample opportunity to make their case, don't you think?

That is, we (skeptics) gave it the benefit of the doubt, checked everything out, decided it was bunk, and moved on.

If the theists have some new claim that hasn't been investigated yet, then by all means, it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Anybody seen a new* theistic claim lately?

Anyone?

Bueller?


* Note: By "new", I mean "original", and not simply a regurgitation of a previous argument.

Haran

I don't think that's what he's saying... I think he's saying, "Prove to me that you know what you're talking about and then I might possibly consider whether to believe you."

I don't agree with the way I've seen Holding act on TW, but I can agree somewhat with his statement above.

You have to prove to me that you know what you're talking about as a critic of the Bible. And even if you do know more than I do on a particular topic in relation to the Bible, how do I know that you truly know more than others who might claim the opposite of you? Why should I give you, as a critic of the Bible, the benefit of the doubt?

It just seems to be a word of warning to those who are easily and quickly swayed by claims of authority. It also seems like an exhortation to study, study, study...I would think most here would approve of that part at least...

Radcliffe Emerson

I agree with everything in your response.

rmadison

In regards to the bible - why not trump ALL claims to authority, and look at the book itself?

Why should I believe Person-A, who claims the bible says this, when I can read the bible myself, to see if it really says that?

The bible should be able to stand on it's own two feet, regardless of who's making claims about it, right?

I figure I know as much about it as anyone, simply by visiting biblegateway.com

http://www.biblegateway.com/

About 14 different versions of the good book on that site, so if I assume it's pretty comprehensive.

What important information do the theists have, that I do not also have?

Do you see what I mean?

MortalWombat

You aren't infested with the Holy Spirit, or something like that.