Writing a paper to send to my local priest

Dumbledore

Like many others on this forum, I wish to leave the Catholic Church as I do not believe in god and I do not wish ot be counted as something I am not. I feel if I am officialy regarded as Catholic the church can claim yet another member and more power.
I wish to write to my local priest(who is a very nice man) and tell him this, but I also want to have valid reasons for leaving. So I want to write an essay saying why I do not believe. One of the issues is the history of the bible, and how many times it has been chopped and changed over time, and how there is no way it could tehrefore be the word of god after so much editing. A quick Wikipedia search of the bible did little to help me, so does anybody know where I can find links to reputable sources that will explain this history of the bible? Any help would be much appreciated.

I apologise for any spellign or grammatical mistakes, these school computers have no spellcheckers.

p.s. I also plan to propse a night of debate with himself and two friends agaisnt myself and my two atheist friends, to give him one last chance to make me believe. If this happens I will of course post a loose transcript and it should be very entertaining!

Rev Hellfire

Hoo hoo, its sure to be a hoot !

Lets face it who wouldn't want to invite some folks over so they can poke fun at your beliefs over a nice cup of tea and perhaps one or two of those coconut nice biscuits. Though I'm quite fond of the those raspberry biscuits which look like custard creams, but have a red filling rather than the custard one.

Make sure you include in your report which biscuit types you get.

robindch

Dumbledore wrote: »

I want to write an essay saying why I do not believe.

Possibly not the best use of one's limited time on this earth -- most religious people have pre-packaged answers ready for most of the usual things. If I were you, I'd just fill out the usual form and send it in. Then go and have a few beers.

Previous threads on the same topic are here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055184468
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055063723
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054890629

Dumbledore wrote: »

I apologise for any spellign or grammatical mistakes, these school computers have no spellcheckers.

Use Firefox. Comes with a built-in spellchecker.

PDN

Why not just write to the priest and explain your lack of faith in God? That in itself should be enough to let the man know how you feel, and that way you are writing an essay about something you know about (your own personal lack of faith) rather than something you apparently don't know very much about. Think about it, if you have to look up links on Wikipedia and ask for help from strangers on an internet forum then you're probably not going to win an argument with someone who has studied that particular subject at third level or even post-grad level.

Naz_st

Dumbledore wrote: »

... but I also want to have valid reasons for leaving.

Dumbledore wrote: »

...as I do not believe in god...

Is there a more valid reason?

Goduznt Xzst

I would not engage in a debate with your local Priest, no good can come of it. Also, it is a fools errand to try and prove the errancy of the Bible to your Priest. He has the limits of his imagination on his side, he could simply rebut all your claims about the Bible by saying "The Bible we have today is the Bible God wanted us to have. He guided its translation and the concatenation of the biblical canon, if you do not understand why he did so in the manner he did, well that is because God works in mysterious ways unknown to man"

How exactly would you go about rebutting that?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Think about it, if you have to look up links on Wikipedia and ask for help from strangers on an internet forum then you're probably not going to win an argument with someone who has studied that particular subject at third level or even post-grad level.

Indeed!

OP, why don't you just write a letter, and leave it at that. Though I don't know why you're insisting on bothering this nice priest with challenges and debates, etc. Better still, forget about it and ensure you don't tick (or let someone else tick) the "Catholic" box in the next census.

Dumbledore wrote: »

I apologise for any spellign or grammatical mistakes, these school computers have no spellcheckers.

Damn backward school system! How else are kids going to compose correct prose, I ask? :pac:

Genghiz Cohen

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Though I'm quite fond of the those raspberry biscuits which look like custard creams, but have a red filling rather than the custard one.

Oh man, I love raspberry creams, forget penicillin, forget electricity if there were a god, those would be his greatest creation.

Dumbledore

Hmmm, varied responses. I will reply to each post as I see fit.

Rev Hellfire

Hoo hoo, its sure to be a hoot !

Lets face it who wouldn't want to invite some folks over so they can poke fun at your beliefs over a nice cup of tea and perhaps one or two of those coconut nice biscuits. Though I'm quite fond of the those raspberry biscuits which look like custard creams, but have a red filling rather than the custard one.

Make sure you include in your report which biscuit types you get.

I merely invited him, surely if he did not wish to discuss this matter then he could decline the invitation. Also I am sure he would like the chance to bring me back to his church, especially when attendance seems to be dramatically falling.

Robindch

Possibly not the best use of one's limited time on this earth -- most religious people have pre-packaged answers ready for most of the usual things. If I were you, I'd just fill out the usual form and send it in. Then go and have a few beers.

I am a big fan of debating, and would like to challenge myself by trying to disprove his pre-packaged answers. I just want to see what techniques he would try to use to bring me to believing in god.

PDN

Why not just write to the priest and explain your lack of faith in God? That in itself should be enough to let the man know how you feel, and that way you are writing an essay about something you know about (your own personal lack of faith) rather than something you apparently don't know very much about. Think about it, if you have to look up links on Wikipedia and ask for help from strangers on an internet forum then you're probably not going to win an argument with someone who has studied that particular subject at third level or even post-grad level.

Just because I do not know the intricacies of of the editing and doctoring and even censoring of the bible over the centuries, does not mean I do not know very much about it. I have much confidence in my debating skills, especially when I have facts and undisputed evidence to back up my claims, as opposed to him. He is a former lawyer, and will know when he is beaten in certain aspects of the debate.

Naz st

Is there a more valid reason?

Not at all, but I want to make it appear that I have good reasons for leaving, and that I have come to a logical decision, as opposed to him thinking I am lazy and just became atheist because most people my age are.

Goduznt Xzst

I would not engage in a debate with your local Priest, no good can come of it. Also, it is a fools errand to try and prove the errancy of the Bible to your Priest. He has the limits of his imagination on his side, he could simply rebut all your claims about the Bible by saying "The Bible we have today is the Bible God wanted us to have. He guided its translation and the concatenation of the biblical canon, if you do not understand why he did so in the manner he did, well that is because God works in mysterious ways unknown to man"

How exactly would you go about rebutting that?

Certainly some good can come of it, each of us will gain more understanding of the others viewpoints, and may consider changing our beliefs(or lack thereof). I am always up for a debate because it is a great way of opening my mind.
While that may be hard to rebut, I would make the point that either

a) If god made this happen, he must have control over free will, because he made people make these changes. Therefore he must have control over the likes of persons such as Josef Fritzl or the 9/11 bombers. A great god he is.
b) then it must be denied that god has control over free will, therefore he could not have given us the bible he wanted to have.

Dades

Indeed!

OP, why don't you just write a letter, and leave it at that. Though I don't know why you're insisting on bothering this nice priest with challenges and debates, etc. Better still, forget about it and ensure you don't tick (or let someone else tick) the "Catholic" box in the next census.

But I am not exactly bothering him, I am not forcing him to read the letter and I am not forcing him to engage in any debate. I most certainly will not tick anything like that box, out of interest, is there an Atheist and anti-religion box?

Overall, I wish to debate because I am a very open minded person, and I am only 99% sure that god does not exist, because I do not have irrefutable evidence to prove he does not. There fore I am still open to being converted, I would like to hear his arguments as to why god exists and why I should believe in him. All I am looking for is further understanding.


p.s. As regards the Firefox, I am a major supporter of Firefox, yet the version we have in school is so old it does not have a spell checker and we are not able to install anything!

PDN

Dumbledore wrote: »

PDN
Just because I do not know the intricacies of of the editing and doctoring and even censoring of the bible over the centuries, does not mean I do not know very much about it. I have much confidence in my debating skills, especially when I have facts and undisputed evidence to back up my claims, as opposed to him. He is a former lawyer, and will know when he is beaten in certain aspects of the debate.

Really?

If you are that confident of your debating skills then why not practice on me? We can have a debate either over on the Christianity forum or, if Dades agrees, here on the A&A forum. We can have it moderated so there are no other posters - just you and me.

I can't wait to hear your "facts and undisputed evidence" about the Bible being chopped and changed over time.

Dumbledore

PDN wrote: »

Really?

If you are that confident of your debating skills then why not practice on me? We can have a debate either over on the Christianity forum or, if Dades agrees, here on the A&A forum. We can have it moderated so there are no other posters - just you and me.

I can't wait to hear your "facts and undisputed evidence" about the Bible being chopped and changed over time.

Certainly, how about say each of us having 24 hours to reply to each post? giving us time to compile organised, good posts?
Do you wish to discuss certain, specific topics? or the merits of religion in general? Also I would suggest a poll as to who presented the better arguments at the end but it is open to corruption in that whichever forum it is posted in, will have an obvious advantage. Any other ideas as to how to decide a winner? I would be up for a sig bet.
I look forward to it.

PDN

Dumbledore wrote: »

Certainly, how about say each of us having 24 hours to reply to each post? giving us time to compile organised, good posts?
Do you wish to discuss certain, specific topics? or the merits of religion in general? Also I would suggest a poll as to who presented the better arguments at the end but it is open to corruption in that whichever forum it is posted in, will have an obvious advantage. Any other ideas as to how to decide a winner? I would be up for a sig bet.
I look forward to it.

You yourself have already specified the topic. Your claim is that the Bible has been chopped and changed over time and that therefore, after so much editing, there is no way that it can be the Word of God. That gives us two main topics:
1. You are to prove that the Bible has been significantly chopped, changed and edited over time.
2. You are to demonstrate that such editing makes it impossible for the Bible to be the Word of God.

24 hours for a response seems a very long time, but if you need that long I'll gladly concede it to you. I must add the provision that I will be unable to post from 14-20 April since I will be in China and their enlightened brand of atheism, and their habit of snooping on people's internet activity, would make it dangerous for my associates if I were posting about the Bible during that time.

A poll would serve no purpose except to count how many atheists or Christians were reading the debate. I much prefer 'last man standing'.

aidan24326

Dumbledore methinks you don't know what you're letting yourself in for. Have your <banging head against wall> emoticon at the ready!

robindch

Dumbledore wrote: »

I am a big fan of debating, and would like to challenge myself by trying to disprove his pre-packaged answers. I just want to see what techniques he would try to use to bring me to believing in god.

That way madness lies! The religions have had thousands of years to evolve bogus arguments designed to sway the unwary and to convince the unsure.

Remember what the great Omar Khayyám had to say:

Rubaiyat wrote:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent,
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

Debating with the religious can be fun, but like nailing jelly to a balloon, it's not an activity that you should take all that seriously

Naz_st

Dumbledore wrote: »

a) If god made this happen, he must have control over free will, because he made people make these changes. Therefore he must have control over the likes of persons such as Josef Fritzl or the 9/11 bombers. A great god he is.
b) then it must be denied that god has control over free will, therefore he could not have given us the bible he wanted to have.

Sorry, but every part of those statements have logical inconsistencies:

"If god made this happen, he must have control over free will"
Why? Why couldn't God have made [the bible] happen and not have control over free will? A boss can dictate a note to a secretary, it doesn't affect her free will.

"because he made people make these changes"
Even if true, does not impact on "free will" in general.

"Therefore he must have control over the likes of persons such as Josef Fritzl or the 9/11 bombers"
Doesn't follow.

A better argument along the "Free Will" lines is the paradox of omniscience. Roughly:

1. God is omniscient.
2. Since God is omniscient, he must have complete foreknowledge.
3. If God has complete foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X, then you must engage in event X.
4. You must engage in event X.
5. Therefore, free-will is not possible

It's referred to a Theological Fatalism, and it's an old argument with a lot of thought on both sides and plenty of logically esoteric counter-arguments.

"then it must be denied that god has control over free will, therefore he could not have given us the bible he wanted to have"

Same issue:
Why does his not controlling free will mean he could not have given us the bible?


Honestly, what good do you think can come from a debate with this priest? Do you think you're going to suddenly open his eyes to the truth that there is no God and he's been wasting his life? I'm sure your arguments sound like irrefutable logic to your ears, but even if that were the case, and you were as articulate as Dawkins or as eloquent as Harris or as belligerent as Hitchens, you won't change his mind.

I am only 99% sure that god does not exist

Do the pure maths calculations on your position:
Your 99% sure there's no God, he's 100% sure there is. You lose!

Dumbledore

PDN wrote: »

You yourself have already specified the topic. Your claim is that the Bible has been chopped and changed over time and that therefore, after so much editing, there is no way that it can be the Word of God. That gives us two main topics:
1. You are to prove that the Bible has been significantly chopped, changed and edited over time.
2. You are to demonstrate that such editing makes it impossible for the Bible to be the Word of God.

24 hours for a response seems a very long time, but if you need that long I'll gladly concede it to you. I must add the provision that I will be unable to post from 14-20 April since I will be in China and their enlightened brand of atheism, and their habit of snooping on people's internet activity, would make it dangerous for my associates if I were posting about the Bible during that time.

A poll would serve no purpose except to count how many atheists or Christians were reading the debate. I much prefer 'last man standing'.

Sounds fair. Unfortunately I must insist on a 24 hour response time as I am in school 9-6 Monday to Friday and also have my Leaving Certificate to worry about in general. I may also be unable to post between 6-9 of April as I will be participating in a Model United Nations conference.

The rest of what you say sounds good, as I said I am looking forward to it!

sink

PDN wrote: »

2. You are to demonstrate that such editing makes it impossible for the Bible to be the Word of God.

That is somewhat impossible since there is no way to categorically prove even that your post was not the word of god as god could just be using you as an instrument of his divine will or some other such nonsense.

Dumbledore

sink wrote: »

That is somewhat impossible since there is no way to categorically prove even that your post was not the word of god as god could just be using you as an instrument of his divine will or some other such nonsense.

Also seeing I do not believe in god I could look at it as being impossible, but I shall make an attempt anyway.
The only thing I do not want to see from PDN is something like " God did that because he can". There is to be none of this, as it is impossible to debate something if what you claim is that anything is possible with god, then it is impossible to refute this in your eyes.

Naz_st

PDN wrote: »

1. You are to prove that the Bible has been significantly chopped, changed and edited over time.
2. You are to demonstrate that such editing makes it impossible for the Bible to be the Word of God.

Oh dear.

I much prefer 'last man standing'.

Oh dear, oh dear.

"Lambs... this way... We have a nice new home for you inside this big metal shed full of sharp, pointy things."

robindch

Dumbledore wrote: »

Sounds fair. The rest of what you say sounds good, as I said I am looking forward to it!

I hereby predict that you will lose the debate, hand down and with knobs on

There are a number of things which you've not specified and which PDN has (understandably) ignored. Unless these are tied down first, you're going to sink faster than a spanner in the Atlantic.

Continuez...

Speaking of which, do you want a separate thread for this? I'm sure that we can persuade everybody else to stay out for the duration.

Dumbledore

Naz_st wrote: »

Oh dear.

Originally Posted by PDN
1. You are to prove that the Bible has been significantly chopped, changed and edited over time.
2. You are to demonstrate that such editing makes it impossible for the Bible to be the Word of God.


Oh dear, oh dear.

"Lambs... this way... We have a nice new home for you inside this big metal shed full of sharp, pointy things."

Now that I think of this it the question arises that you must accept that there is a possiblilty that god does not exist PDN, otherwise how is it possible for me to prove something if you will not believe it? What I am really asking is, if you are offered irrefutable evidence that the bible can not be the word of god, will you believe it? Otherwise the entire debate is futile.

Dumbledore

Also PDN could you please state which copy of the Bible you intend to quote from? Just so I can see the book of evidence so to speak, or lack thereof. There are many different versions and were I to prove one thing silly you could just claim that is not the bible you follow. Surely you can see even now that the reason for so many different versions of the bible means there must have been some changes over time?

PDN

Dumbledore wrote: »

Also PDN could you please state which copy of the Bible you intend to quote from? Just so I can see the book of evidence so to speak, or lack thereof. There are many different versions and were I to prove one thing silly you could just claim that is not the bible you follow. Surely you can see even now that the reason for so many different versions of the bible means there must have been some changes over time?

I am happy to use the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that are viewed by most biblical scholars as being the most accurate.

After all, if we were debating Voltaire we could hardly dumb the debate down by insisting that we only use one particular English translation, could we?

Dumbledore

PDN wrote: »

I am happy to use the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that are viewed by most biblical scholars as being the most accurate.

After all, if we were debating Voltaire we could hardly dumb the debate down by insisting that we only use one particular English translation, could we?

Well unfortunately I do not speak Hebrew or Greek, so unless there is a translation we can both agree on this debate will not happen, you can claim victory, but it would be a cheap and honourless one.

Zillah

Dumbledore wrote: »

Leaving Certificate

I knew it!

Go easy on the lad PDN, he's only a wee one.

Rev Hellfire

Yes PDN, you must toy with them for our amusement first only once our blood-lust is satisfied can you dispatch them.

PDN

Dumbledore wrote: »

The only thing I do not want to see from PDN is something like " God did that because he can". There is to be none of this, as it is impossible to debate something if what you claim is that anything is possible with god, then it is impossible to refute this in your eyes.

What? So, let me get this straight. You want to prove with "undisputed facts" that the Bible is not the word of an omnipotent God, but in order to do this you have to demand that I, as a Christian, work from the assumption that God is not actually omnipotent? That kind of reasoning is more circular than the Magic Roundabout!

Any kind of rational non-circular debate must operate on the grounds that I don't expect you to assume my presuppositions and worldview, and you don't expect me to assume your presuppositions and worldview.

Now that I think of this it the question arises that you must accept that there is a possiblilty that god does not exist PDN, otherwise how is it possible for me to prove something if you will not believe it? What I am really asking is, if you are offered irrefutable evidence that the bible can not be the word of god, will you believe it? Otherwise the entire debate is futile.

Don't worry, I'm an open-minded kind of chap. I am open to all possibilities, including the possibility that you will create philosophical history by being the first person ever to offer irrefutable evidence that the Bible cannot be the Word of God.

Well unfortunately I do not speak Hebrew or Greek, so unless there is a translation we can both agree on this debate will not happen, you can claim victory, but it would be a cheap and honourless one.

Yes, I can see that it would be cheap and honourless for me to claim victory on the basis that, by being able to read Hebrew and Greek, I therefore know more about the subject of our debate which, amazingly enough, is a book that is written in Hebrew and Greek.

However, don't give up quite so easily. The whole point of translations is that we can compare one to another and cite the opinions of scholars who can explain the various shades of meaning of the various Greek and Hebrew words.

Unfortunately, by trying to insist that only one English translation can be used, you would already be admitting defeat by creating a big fat straw man. Christians (either Protestant or Catholic) do not believe that any one English translation is perfect. That would be contrary to everything we know about language and translatability. Christians believe that any given translation of the Bible is the Word of God to the extent to which it has accurately translated the original biblical text. You see, if you want to use your debating prowess to offer 'undisputed facts' and 'irrefutable evidence' to confound a Christian then you need to make sure that what you're arguing about is actually what Christians believe.

There are many different versions and were I to prove one thing silly you could just claim that is not the bible you follow. Surely you can see even now that the reason for so many different versions of the bible means there must have been some changes over time?

Oh dear! We haven't even started our debate yet, but already you're putting your foot in it.

It is a complete non sequitur to claim that different versions of the Bible means that the Bible must have changed. If two translators take a paragraph written in French and translate it into English, then most likely their translations will not match word for word. This is because a word may be translated in one or more ways. Also, if the same paragraph was translated once in 1611 and then again in 2009 then the translations will certainly differ because our usage of the English language has changed. However, the text of the original French paragraph itself would not have changed at all.

To be fair, I'll treat this little logical slip-up as the friendly knockabout before the tennis match actually begins. It would be uncharitable of me to claim to be 15 to love already.

robindch

Just spun this off into a separate thread, so PDN + Dumbledore, please, this way:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055526028

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

What? So, let me get this straight. You want to prove with "undisputed facts" that the Bible is not the word of an omnipotent God, but in order to do this you have to demand that I, as a Christian, work from the assumption that God is not actually omnipotent? That kind of reasoning is more circular than the Magic Roundabout!

How can something be more circular than a circle?

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

How can something be more circular than a circle?

"With God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26)

seanybiker

Ha Ha I have heard some stupid things in me time but this takes the buscuit.
You dont believe in god so you want to debate it with a priest and try to take the [I used a word that one of the moderators doesn't like!!!!] outta his beliefs. How old are ya??????

A lot of people dont believe because they feel it was forced upon them in their early life. Now you are doing to someone else what many of us had to indure. Could you not just let him have his beliefs and you have your own beliefs and that be it.
Im not a believer but I dont have the urge to have a sit down with a priest and try prove him wrong, or give him a "chance to make you a believer". I must say giving him a chance is really nice of you. I'm sure the amount of sleep the poor chap is gonna lose over you is bad for his health.
Your a non believer and ya dont even know why sure. You checked wickipedia for [I used a word that one of the moderators doesn't like!!!!] sake to get some arguments. Ha Ha. Surely to [I used a word that one of the moderators doesn't like!!!!] ya must have your own idea why you're an atheist.


Now Im off to the car forum to write them a letter as to why bikes are better than cars. I hope some people think I'm a cool biker for doing that.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: