Wish we could go back to bible argument.

[Sustacel250]

Bible argument is fair and just, verifiable and allows a correct exchange of value between individuals, it is also reciprocal and adheres to principles of merchant law or "meeting of the minds".
Bible argument is verifiable. Anyone can go on sacredtexts.org and see what the bible actually says. There are 46 "official bibles" all you have to do is have one of the bibles that is used as reference and then youre fit and suited for rational debate with anyone with authority.

An authority is FORCED to listen to your argument if you draw from the bible and your logic is good enough. I did seen priests dismissing arguments like a redditor, but they know they dont have power to do it. Eventually, whoever bases his authority on something verifiable like the bible, is forced to admit the bible is true and whoever argues using the bible in a correct manner is right.

Compare that with something volatile like "expert opinion", which is instead is unverifiable garbage. Nobody is an expert unless his name is paired by an NLP scammer journalist with the word "expert" on some digital screen.

The bible is: a publicly verifiable text. It is stable, it is public, it is transparent. There are 46 "official bibles" and in the conspiracy community they mostly refer to king james edition for whatever reason. There are other bibles. But as soon as you figure out which bible is used by your local authority, you become suited for argument with them.

Bible allows to have shared canon = share starting point. We have a premise basically. We have also internal logic and coherence, so we can arrange "meeting of the minds" and this is presumed in merchant law. Without of it, no exchange of value between indviduals can occur or it becomes unfair and unjust abuse of power.

Basically if 2 people agree on what to use as a standard, they can initiate exchanges of value.

The limit of the bible is that people will start saying is not authoritative. Or they will say authority is not derived from books or they will say professions are not bound to scriptural arguments. I get it. It has limits, including the many editions considered "sacred" or "official". Another problem is that normie dumbasses will pick 1 bible and you gotta know all 46 of them to dialog with them.

Expert opinion: It is subjective, it is based on what some asshole journalist with NLP training associates with the word "expert". It cannot be verified because the expert is quoted out of context. The studies of science are often available only thru pubmed, they have a pay barrier so avg people dont read it. I seen journalism pieces quoting an "expert study", the article had 200 views. The study that was linked had 34 views and costed 46 bucks to read it. So the "expert opinion" is not verifiable and not transparent.

Expert opinion is not based on peer criticism like they have us believe, not based on evidence, not based on "facts" as it is publicized by redditors. It requires credentials. The funny thing is if you have the credentials they are able to increase the treshold to be suited for debate and say you need specialization. If you also have specialization they can require you to have written precisely on the precise topic being discussed in the moment. For this discussion I also deliberately avoided to mention other problems of "expert opinion" such as eventual slander and eventual discrimination.

So basically "expert opinion" is based on unverifiable stuff and your "trust". Fuck giving trust. Its insane we are willing to accept this barbarity. "leading expert", "top specialist", "respected authority". These are vague nonsense titles that dont even exist.

You can say what you want about the church, literally what the fuck you want. Im atheist. I am open to criticize the church as much as you want. But one thing you cant say is they are so stupid like these "experts" we see in journalism. The church is old and wise. Say what you want about it but what lasts for millennia isnt a joke.

So I say we should go back to bible argument. Its much better and normies are not suited yet to go away from bible argument. Atheism in the masses was a mistake, they are not capable of building systems (not yet at least) that allow exchange of value or negotiations. ALl we get from "expert opinions" is abuse and deprivation of human rights. As an atheist I can explain this stuff on my point of view. But you can do the same if youre religious. I think we will both agree.