Re: What is your strongest disproof of the Bible?

[minstrelofc]

Can we agree on that point?

That's a valid point.

Yay! We agree!

"minstrelofc, you're wrong! Assuming that you know anything to start with is faulty logic!"

Assuming that you know the answer to questions that have not been answered is faulty logic, and leads to not searching for the truth.

"minstrelofc, you're wrong! Assuming that you know nothing is not really an assumption!"

It's an assumption, a slightly lazy one perhaps, but an assumption. In my opinion, it's a better and safer assumption than assuming there is a god.

"minstrelofc, you're wrong! If you assume you know nothing, you'll end up Atheist, not Agnostic!"

Nope. If you assume you don't have the answers, that would be agnostic. If you don't have the answers but open your mind to the proofs which present themselves to you through research by way of the scientific method, and you do not attribute everything you do not have proof for to a deity which there is no proof for, then you can end up being an atheist.
You see, atheism is unique from religion in that it does not rely on assumptions or faith, it relies on proof.

Wow, I wasn't expecting you to answer my proposed counter-arguments.

I'm glad you agree that assuming you know nothing is actually an assumption. I'm not so sure it's a lazy assumption - it seems fairly good to me. In fact, if you are going to end up with all the data, then starting by assuming you know nothing is the very best assumption you can have - it ensures that you will approach the data in an unbiased fashion, and will end up with the correct conclusion. It's even better when teamed up with Science, whose very purpose is to get *all* of the data.

Assuming you already know something, however, is dangerous. If you're wrong, then even if you end up with all the data, you could very easily end up with a biased conclusion.

I'm fairly sure you'd agree with all that; the only sticking point I can see is the "getting all the data" part.

Personally, I believe that as you encounter the data (in your quest to get it all), you could very easily end up with some sort of data bias - you've got 20% of the data, but you have no way of telling if that data is representative of the rest of the data. (If you were getting all of the data in a random fashion, you could determine the probability of the rest of the data conforming to the data you have, but how can you ensure you're getting the data randomly?) If you are getting data bias, then at any one point on your journey, you could be significantly incorrect - even though you will end up correct in the end.

On the other hand, if you assume something, and by some freak chance you're right, then you've got a good idea where the other data will eventually lead. This could be an advantage, especially if all of the data that exists will not be collected within your lifetime.

Now, before I make my last point(s?), does all that make sense? Any parts you disagree with?

[liveyoungdiefast]

This is my most rational argument against the Bible being valid. Nearly any Christian in the world asserts that God allows bad things to happen. Of course it's out fault, we're the sinful humans and it's all our fault, but no Christian can say that bad things don't happen.

So here is my most rational argument against the Bible - if God didn't stop the Holocaust, God didn't stop killer viruses, God didn't stop all the Earthquakes and tsunamis, God didn't stop the rise of 10,000 false religions, why would God stop anyone's attempt to distort the Bible and rewrite it? It's clear that the Christian perspective involves God never physically stopping sinners, so why would God prevent the Bible from being distorted over 2000 years if he protected nothing else in the world?