First of all, I'm just going to be permanently out of character from this point onward unless otherwise specified, because this didn't go the direction I though it would. (I expected to defend the existence, infallibility, etc. of "Terry and His Magic Cactus.")
I explained what I meant. I suggested that you demand a higher standard of proof for religion than you do for other truths. I provided various standards that are used for different finding truth.
Thank you for the clarification. Do you have an example of me doing this? I don't deny that there might be one, but I don't recall such a thing.
Please, Have another read. I didn't say what you are suggesting.
Okay... It seems to say what I though it did.
I said that if a holy book doesn't claim infallibility we can deduct that from the list of potential infallible books.
That is what I was responding to.
Here, look. I can even quote myself:
So basically, the Bible claims to be infallible, and other holy books don't, therefore it's the only one that could possibly be true.
Okay, so you have now clarified that it is not the only such book, but the entirety of my argument after this still stands.
On the other hand, if a book claims infallibility it DOESN'T prove it is infallible. Yet it ought to be tested further. There are about 3 or 4 books that claim infallibility. None of them might be infallible. Yet, all of them can't be since they contradict each other. Yet it provides us with a starting point.
Yeah, I know. What's your point?
But let's assume for the sake of the argument - your argument - that somehow that Terry and not you wrote something here in this forum. After all, we all know, that Terry didn't write it and you did to make your point.
Wait a minute. The book claims its own infallibility, not Terry's. It just so happens to be called the "Holy Book of Terry." Why does it have to be written by Terry? Even so, yeah, sure, assume that if you consider it to be necessary.
And this is part of your problem and why it is not equal to even the false claims of some religious books, let alone the Bible. We know it is a joke.
Consider the hypothetical in which I actually believed in all of this stuff, and I made that very clear. You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.
Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus. Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay. The Bible is a book that tells a story about history. It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story. The bible is not infallible because I say it is. That would be hearsay. The Bible tells its own story. It claims its own infallibility. Whatever I say about it is hearsay. Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay. that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.
Well, I quite deliberately made that "book" of mine have no reference to Terry beyond its name, but if you still find this so problematic, suppose that I am the one being referred to when "Terry" is said.
The bible's authors all admitted that they were sinful creatures and prone to mistakes. Many told lies in their lives. If you understood infallibility this would not be a concern for you.
Okay. I could say the same thing about the "Holy Book of Terry." What's your point? You seem to be attacking something I never said, followed by my intelligence. When did I say "The Bible was written by fallible people, therefore it is fallible." I didn't say that now did I?
There are more differences than you have articulated. And what you fail to realise is that people believed its infallibility well before it was ever for sale. And as for the book of Terry to be accepted as not good, that is baloney. No one knows about the book of Terry - except you.
This hurts my argument how? Also, should I have listed every single difference? Could you provide such a list?
In the middle of the Second World War 11 there was a book burning. And many thousands of bibles were burnt. The bible's infallibility is not subject to the whim of the majority.
Thank you so much for assisting me in striking down that anticipated counterargument! Seriously though, between this and the last thing you said, I'm beginning to wonder if you're mixing up your arguments and my arguments.
DO you know what hearsay is? It sounds like you need to do a refresher course.
Looks good to me!
Did the 20 people in the first part see the pig in your living room?
Who knows? In either case, it's still hearsay!
If they did and told some people and then soon a 1000 people heard and believed, then the first 20 people are providing first-hand eye witness testimony of what they saw.
It's still hearsay! Eye witness accounts that are still unsubstantiated are still hearsay!
The 1000 people who then believe what they heard from the first 20 are not eye-witnesses of the pig, but of what people have told them. We wouldn't necessarily believe what the 1000 people heard is truth or lies. We don't have enough evidence one way or the other. We would have to go and ask the 1000 why they think it is true. We would then go and talk to the original 20. Of course, even though the first 20 did see a pig, doesn't mean that you or I are going to believe them ipso facto. We might try and determine if we can go the house and see the pig. But we might not be able to - since the pig has died since the original story was told and so we might deduce it was just a story. An urban myth.
It is still hearsay! It continues to be hearsay!
Or we might ask ourselves another question - we go to the house and see if there is any evidence that the pig was there? Perhaps we might find some pig excrement. Or the place smells of pig.
Well. That wasn't part of the story, but in that case it would not be hearsay.
Then we can't know for sure - since someone might have planted the excrement or sprayed the air with pig smell. But there would seem to be circumstantial evidence. We could add that evidence to the eye witness testimony and draw some conclusions.
Yeah! Exactly! That's what would make it not hearsay in that case!
We might eventually take the view - it's nonsense. We know it's nonsense because there has never been a pig in this country ever. Or we might leave the question open and start to question the credibility of the witnesses. What would be their motive to lie about this? DO they have a history of telling lies? Of concocting silly stories. What are they going to get out of it?
The second part of your story - with one pig is no different. That is the point. Some people do their homework and some don't. You seem to be saying that because some people don't do their homework and believe whatever, that everyone does that. It's simply not true.
No, I am not. I am suggesting that both are cases of hearsay. That's it. This whole section of my post, from the Holy Book of Terry, to the story of the pig and the donkey was all just to demonstrate that the Bible is no less of hearsay than those few sentences of the "Holy Book of Terry" that I wrote on the spot. Also, it wasn't "with one pig," it was with one person claiming to have seen a donkey instead of a pig. The point was that the claim of there being a donkey was no more of hearsay than the claim of there being a pig.
And the reality is - if one person does there homework and comes up with a conclusion that the evidence in the bible is plausible then that shouldn't be dismissed because there are a whole lot of gullible people.
Plausible? See a previous part of this post. Also, evidence? What evidence? Do tell!
Not at all. I have asked you to produce Terry. At least I have a book.
Produce God then. Also, hold on. What's wrong with the Holy Book of Terry?
I'm not dodging. I don't think that all religions work the same. Many work simply on fear or expectations.
In our modern secular world, many people are taught the sciences from their textbooks and they believe it to be true. They never test it or check the credibility of their authors. They assume it's true. For many people - today science has become the new religion. Scientists are like priests. They are believed to be true at first glance. Sometimes they get caught when they are dodgy. Sometimes they never get caught. But most scientists I think are genuine and are doing what they think is best. Many others do it for the money or the prestige. Public scientists like the tenure and the grants that come from places like the UN. Private scientists like the kickbacks they get. But most people in the community would never question them. Unless - it is a scientist backing a tobacco company and some might then assume a bias.
Religion and science works in similar ways. It is a plea to authority. Yet this doesn't mean that their working tools are necessarily dodgy or have not been validated in the most appropriate ways.
Have you ever taken a science class? If you have you'll know that you do your own experiments in there.