Using the bible to prove the truth of the bible

I've been learning a bit more about Christianity recently. This is the first of a set of posts on and around the topic.

Disclaimer: I am an atheist. My views on Christianity may not be flattering. If you may be offended by it, don't read it.

Most Christians I know are Christian because their parents were. They have been told that god exists and that the bible is the word of god since they can remember. They believed what their parents told them, just the same way they believed in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Although their parents eventually confessed that they really were leading them up the garden path with the last three, most people still believe that their parents were telling the truth about god.

Questioning the beliefs and values you receive from your parents and deciding for yourself what to believe and value is part of the transition to adulthood. However, many people I've met have never actually questioned their belief in god/Christianity. (I suspect this is partly because the god idea double entrenches itself by discouraging questioning and making a virtue of irrational belief, aka faith.)

When you ask some people why they believe in god, they will often include 'because the bible tells me about him' in their justification. When you ask them why they believe in the bible, they will say 'because it is the word of god'. It seems that religion is so effective at discouraging logical, rational thought that many people don't even seem to notice the circular argument. (Or maybe the lack of logic and rationality is what causes people to be religious.)

Obviously, the god belief and the bible belief go together and mutually reinforce each other. If you have the two planted in your mind, then I guess the whole thing makes some kind of internal sense. If not, then you're screwed, because it's just not possible for a sane rational person to believe either thing. Unless you believe one of them, the other makes no sense.

The strongest argument (I think) that can be put forward for believing in christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. This is the bible basher's best chance of coverting people, and is the evidence that some of the more logical christians cling to to try to reassure themselves that they aren't deluded.

If some guy really did die, and really did come back to life again before eventually floating up to heaven, then a supernatural god is probably the best theory that could explain it. And since the event was documented in the bible, it lends credibility to that as well, making it possible to swallow the two together.

Now, obviously Christians realise this too. Just google 'proof of resurrection' or 'evidence for resurrection'. You'll find millions of hits. But almost _all _these proofs assume you already believe the bible is true (and hence already believe in god). They use the bible to try and 'prove' the resurrection. Obviously, if you already believe the bible, you'll probably find this argument compelling. Otherwise, you just have to wonder what has happened to their brains that they consider this proof or evidence.

You can't use Corinthians to prove the gospels. You can't use John to prove Matthew, Mark and Luke. You can't use the bible to prove the truth of the bible. It just doesn't work like that. The only way to prove that the events of the bible (say, the resurrection) actually occurrred, is to have them _independently _verified by non-biblical sources. Does religion so damage people's ability for logic and reason that this simple fact is not blindingly obvious?