This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Tell me again how the Bible doesn't contradict itself? (Easter Edition)

#31OrangeWizardPosted 3/31/2013 6:33:11 PM
From: Wandering__Hero | #028
Just to clarify, Aethists who start and argue in these topics do realise they almost never if ever at all win them any converts, right?


Angstheists that start these topics think that all theists have completely abandoned reason, and rely solely on faith, so I don't know why they think they can even accomplish anything.

I think they just want a setup for the punchline that is the "administering medicine to the dead" quote.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#32Moorish_IdolPosted 3/31/2013 6:43:36 PM
Iamvegito posted...
Yeah, no one reads my posts.

D'awww, there there. I read them. But I usually agree with you, so I don't have much to say.
#33DarkContractorPosted 3/31/2013 6:46:51 PM
From: Wandering__Hero | #028
Just to clarify, Aethists who start and argue in these topics do realise they almost never if ever at all win them any converts, right?



debate on this board is one of the primary reasons I de-converted



without the divine inspiration element, I see the testimonies of the Bible no more valid than I do the testimonies of those claiming to be abducted by UFOs. But the divine inspiration argument isn't workable, because of all the contradictions
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#34JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2013 7:05:42 PM
No it does not.
Lie #2.
Horrible person.


Reread it, must've confused it with something a poster said. My bad. Still rationalizations. By the logic of the second point in that article, Elvis could've been at the tomb. After all, it didn't say he wasn't. Still bad logic. Still a bad article.

I still don't care what it "LOOKS like" to you


I don't care what you have to say at this point.

It's like a test to see if you're honest in your search for God, or if you just want to confirm something you already think you know.


Funny, I call it education.

Just to clarify, Aethists who start and argue in these topics do realise they almost never if ever at all win them any converts, right?


I was convinced by such articles on other boards.

People are meant to base almost all of their actions on these words, discrepancies are important when you are claiming it is the word of god. The book better be perfect.


Agree. SInce God is supposedly smarter than someone with a PHD, he should write better than someone like that.


Angstheists that start these topics think that all theists have completely abandoned reason, and rely solely on faith, so I don't know why they think they can even accomplish anything.

I think they just want a setup for the punchline that is the "administering medicine to the dead" quote.


I'm sorry, but you've lost all credibility with me and I don't care what you think. Move along.
---
Desktop: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/K6Pj
Laptop: http://us.gateway.com/gw/en/US/content/model/LX.WY202.001
#35bratt100Posted 3/31/2013 7:06:20 PM
Iamvegito posted...
From: bratt100 | #029
I'm sorry but pointing out the flaws in a book is a bad thing?

It isn't, but in most cases, you're arguing against a straw man. Certainly, it's news to the many people who sit in pews every Sunday and don't know anything about the Bible other than what their pastor said that week. People who take the text seriously are likely to already know it, though.
People are meant to base almost all of their actions on these words, discrepancies are important when you are claiming it is the word of god. The book better be perfect.

Yeah, no one reads my posts.


Don't worry, I read your posts.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#36OrangeWizardPosted 3/31/2013 7:19:49 PM
From: JonWood007 | #034
Still rationalizations.


This is not a dirty word.

You can call it a rationalization, or a justification, or mental gymnastics, but it's just internet-tough-guy posturing until you can actually refute it.

So get to going.

By the logic of the second point in that article, Elvis could've been at the tomb. After all, it didn't say he wasn't.

"Your" beef was that "It says that X was at the tomb, and it didn't mention Y there, so CONTRADICTION!"

But now you're saying that the refutation: "Just because one person mentions X does not mean that Y wasn't there". is akin to saying "lolo elvis could have been there".

Yes, Just because one person mentions X, does not mean that Elvis wasn't there. So what? Do you not see how this is not even close to a refutation?

Oh, but what I say doesn't matter, conveniently, so you'll probably ignore this anyway.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#37JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 3/31/2013 7:30:06 PM(edited)

This is not a dirty word.

You can call it a rationalization, or a justification, or mental gymnastics, but it's just internet-tough-guy posturing until you can actually refute it.

So get to going.


How about, the gospels were written decades after the fact, anonymously, by people with different perspectives that they were trying to get across? How about, we can't verify any of the events in the book? How about, it's a more plausible explanation that the Bible is an anthology of works written by some ancient culture, not by a divine being. Just because you can rationalize away contradictions doesn't mean it's the best argument, or that it should be done. The more likely explanation, given a solid historical approach to the Bible, is to accept the contradiction, rather than explain them all away.

I swear, in one way or another, all your claims about religion boil down to this.

http://www.intellectualbubblegum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/QEdj5.jpg
---
Desktop: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/K6Pj
Laptop: http://us.gateway.com/gw/en/US/content/model/LX.WY202.001
#38IamvegitoPosted 3/31/2013 7:32:31 PM
From: bratt100 | #035
Don't worry, I read your posts.

Well, I don't find the Bible to be universally normative, or necessarily infallible. I'm not alone in that, either.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#39bratt100Posted 3/31/2013 7:52:58 PM
Iamvegito posted...
From: bratt100 | #035
Don't worry, I read your posts.

Well, I don't find the Bible to be universally normative, or necessarily infallible. I'm not alone in that, either.


To do so would be a lie.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#40Far421Posted 4/1/2013 7:05:53 AM
Polish_Crusader posted...
Thats a good point, RealJ. But i was being really honest, a lot of people do not know what a contradiction means. A true contradiction would be if paul said it was mary and mary, and luke said it was jesus and peter. Thats a true contradiction. Not one sayin paul and peter, and the other saying peter without mention of paul. Thats only point of view, they didnt say anything against each other.


So Joanna (as in Luke) and not Joanna (as in John) isn't a contradiction?
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292