The same reason, historians, explorers, and others wrote journals and history books it was the only source that told us that they had made a discovery. All we have are the claims they made that they really did a certain thing at a certain time, on a certain day and at a certain place...Why should we believe these men and not believe the prophets?..What makes a history book right and the Bible wrong? I'm sure there are flaws in both...Anything handed down for years and translated into different languages will have some errors.
"Those who control the past now, control the future, those who control the present now, control the past." - Rage Against the Machine
Sorry, even contemporary atheists question the validity of history books. I'd be surprised if anyone studied ANY form of history after high school and didn't find that the most heated debates in the subject are about an author's bias or distorted interest.
The problem with this is that the only source that tells us that these men were "inspired by God" is THEM!!! it is in their own writings that these claims exist. Sort of like taking a murderer's statement as the only premise to decide that he is not guilty...
I agree! And since no one else has found a way to directly combat this logic (besides criticizing something else), so far everyone else agrees too. I'm sure the atheists are happy that tomspug was kind enough to point out that the reason (and the only viable one presented so far) he believes in the Bible is because he can identify with it morally! It helps him out! Thus the relationship it has with the supernatural is now void. Belief or not, we have to assume that God has relied on the word of man to carry his message.
But...
Who says he has? The existence of the Bible doesn't mean that God is "relying" on it overmuch. There's also the church's living witness to Christ's redeeming presence in the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're referring to miracles. Sorry, but I think we can also all agree that not everyone who has died has witnessed them. Therefore, that logic is also moot. If your referring to the teachings of Christ having an impact in the world, then explain to me how they are his property? Explain how you believe in the God of the Bible by the Bible's ability to agree with your ethical standards if Christ was the originator in the first place.
If the Bible is holy because of its quality and quantity of ethical advice (which I'm not going to deny), that still doesn't explain how or why it MUST be supernaturally conceived.
And if anyone is going to insinuate that the Bible's popularity is a testament to its holiness, you're opening up a can of worms...i.e. violent proselytizing or using reward and punishment (happiness in heaven and pain in hell) as baiting tactics. Or the fact that it generally was the religion of the most powerful forces during the age of imperialism.
Furthermore, I have just concluded that even answering the question of why you believe is impossible to answer logically. The paradox forms a circle through Faith, Proof, and Ethics. There is no end. What a *****.
And now to the feud...
The problem with the Bible is that it is TOO AWESOME!
If it wasn't God-inspired, then I'm going to have to come up with a better reason for it always helping me in every situation every time I make the choice to read it for advice/guidance, every time.
Helping you? I am going to assume that you are referring to the fact that you identify (by meaning of 'agreeing with') with the Biblical stories' moral ALL of the time.
Pending you don't believe in a universal ethical code, then the Forer Effect should suit your experience just fine (at least to the limited degree that it does). Why? As long as you believe the Bible (depending on the degree of its provision) provides sound ethical advice (and this is NOT what Mestemia was arguing against), then that advice should apply to EVERY one of your moral dilemmas.
You mentioned that you thought Mestemia was implying that you were tricking yourself with the Forer Effect? The trick of the Forer effect is that positive advice (whether ethical or how to run your life) affects everyone and not individuals specifically. By using words like "you" to reference the reader (which the Bible never does and is the limitation of the Forer effect that I described earlier), the brain unconsciously decides that the informative party is "I" and there is a 1 on 1 conversation, thereby applying the illusion (or trick) that it is personal. What, you don't believe in a universal ethical code?...
I don't know if you've ever actually believed in God before, but I'll tell you something very important about faith: it REQUIRES that you confront your own skepticism. If you ignore skepticism, it's not faith, it's blind devotion (two different things). Faith is an action, not a lack of action.
And here's some advice for you! Take note on how someone's response applies to yours. Or at least point out the discrepancy the opposing party presented instead of ignoring it and spreading confusion...or just admit you were wrong when you admit:
Dude, the Forer Effect doesn't apply.
Confront your own skepticism? That's exactly what Mestemia did for himself with the Forer Effect, and you hold this against him? I mean this guy has done nothing BUT confront his skepticism. I guess he's just got more than you. Faith is harder for some of us, we can't help it...but we do CONFRONT IT! If we didn't care about faith, we wouldn't be taking any interest in this topic. If you mean you have to confront skepticism (suspended judgment) by way of realizing its there and ignoring it anyway for the sake of obtaining faith, then we can conclude that faith is an illogical act (by definition of skepticism). Therefore, by your definition, faith is an illogical action.
I guess I have a hard time believing in God because I keep making sense all the time.