barleycorn Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 that was a quote without the matching quote so its manipulated to look as if Pippa has called the bible , babble which is something she would never do you are manipulating words and making it harder to answer the questions , I answer honestly and truthfully what my exeperience is and like lawyers in a court you twist the words and the meaning How about commenting on the highlighted bits, you knows the relevant ones. jb ETA: oh, and it doesn't even look as if it's pippa calling the bible the babble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Despite being penned by different authors over 15 centuries, the Bible does not contradict itself and does not contain any errors. [i note that others have already offered their critiques of this, but here's my 5 penneth anyhow.] Opening statement:- The Holy Bible does contradict itself and it is riddled with errors from start to finish. Arguments:- 1) The HB is not a book. It is a collection of books split into 2 volumes. The Old Testament basically contains conflicting creation myths and the history of an insignificant (but feisty) tribe of nomads (...the Jews). The New Testament contains the Jesus myth and what followed, ending up with the drug induced rantings of a guy writing in a cave on a Greek island. There is no evidence of a celestial input, but even if there was, what went into the B was decided by men and not a god;- The present canon of the B omits many other writings, such as those in the Apocrypha, which were rejected by various diets (e.g. The Diet of Worms. - Sreiously! Google it.) and synods. The Apocrypha contains such gems as the Gospel of Judas (I bet that's a hoot! ) and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. If there is a god, and they are part of his 'word' to us, he must be mightily pi**ed off that men cut bits out of it. 2) We need look no further than the first two chapters of Genesis to prove that the B contradicts itself. There is a creation myth in each which are incompatible with each other. Read them. If you want/need more, see here... http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html 3) There are many errors in the B. e.g. - The creation myth states that god made 2 great lights to shine, one by day and a lesser one by night. ...but... The Moon does not shine; it merely reflects sunlight. Without sunlight, we would only be aware of the Moon because it passes in front of distant stars, 'twinkling' them. Surely, the creator would have known that! Also, insects have 6 legs. (See the creation myth and the Noah's Ark myth.) Conclusion. Even one contradiction and one error prove that, "the Bible does not contradict itself and does not contain any errors", is a false statement, so I'll end there, but there are plenty more where they came from. If anyone would like more, let me know. ---------- Post added 06-09-2014 at 10:38 ---------- it means knowing his presence around me and answering prayers not always in the way I wanted but always for the best John... "14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." "15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." Whatsoever, any thing and what ye will. Not "What god thinks is best." If god knows everything (...omniscient...), he already knows what you want, and if he is going to do what he thinks is best anyhow, why bother praying in the first place? ---------- Post added 06-09-2014 at 10:46 ---------- fair enough. Because I don't see why gods should be any more consistent than the rest of us. Then why call them gods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Redwhine, I wouldn't even bother. The only real truth that can be taken from that book is the fact that people will believe any old nonsense when they are desperate and delusional enough to do so. The Bible is full of contradiction and error. And it isn't historically or scientifically sound. If people can be as delusional as these people in this day and age, just imagine what they would have been like in the day and age when those books were put together. It really is a waste of time arguing the Bible. Religious apologists need to provide real tangible evidence for the supernatural. If they can't do that, then they are just as delusional as the people in that video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Redwhine, I wouldn't even bother. "And if perchance I have offended Think but this and all is mended: We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time, For all the chance you'll change your mind." (Tim Minchin - at the end of his beat poem, Storm.) (N.B. Contains a few swear words. Perhaps N.S.F.W. ) Christopher Hitchens was once asked in an interview (...can't find it on YouTube just now...) why he spent his life arguing against religion and religious apologists. His response was that it wasn't his (whole) life, but that the 2 or 3 evenings a week were what he looked forward to. He realised that professional apologists were not going to publicly admit defeat, but it was worth it to reach the mass of undecided and curious people in the audience. If it was good enough for the Hitch, then it's good enough for me! ---------- Post added 06-09-2014 at 12:54 ---------- If people can be as delusional as these people in this day and age, just imagine what they would have been like in the day and age when those books were put together. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Something that we can all measure and observe - that exists in reality whether we exist or not. Something that is evident to us all, like gravity. What is 'reality'? Regardless, you didn't address my point; how do we know that 'God' is quantifiable by means of the scientific process. Do you simple assume that all things are quantifiable by means of the scientific process? If there is no objective tangible evidence supporting its existence, there is no good reason to ask the question "How do we know that God is something that can be subject and queried through our own human rational process." Objective tangible evidence; is something that is part and parcel of the human rational process. We are talking about something that may not be subject to that process; so logicality it makes sense to determine if it is or is not, before we consider is there tangible (presumably physical) evidence to support it's existence. But then you may as well be asking what is smod or snidge. It's still a nonsense question unless you have something tangible, that's evident to us all, to base it on. Otherwise smod or snidge is just going to be completely subjective - and that's something we see all the time with God and gods(theists do not have a uniform concept of God, its attributes, its needs, it commands; it's all entirely subjective). If God did exist, men in silly hats and other costumes wouldn't be needed to tell us about their subjective God or their subjective God's whims. Something as vast and unlimited as God would be evident to us all. Not at all. Smod and snide are just made up words that have no meaning for anyone. In contrast, the word 'God' does have meaning, it points to something. Also, you are *still* talking about God in terms of either existing or not existing; you are perhaps doing this because your awareness is so completely focused in to rational pathways, that you cannot at this time, conceive of any other state. People have imagined countless beings - either because of ignorance, fear or simply for the fun of it. People don't pull stuff out of their asses just for the hell of it. Before human beings had evolved to use language; before we had a word for 'smod or snidge', where then, was 'smod or snidge'? You didn't answer my question; I'll repeat for you: Before human beings had evolved to use language; before we had a word 'God', where then, was 'God'? IMO, it's a complete waste of time discussing God's existence if such a being has no objective and tangible evidence for its existence. You may as well be discussing smod, snidge and the tooth fairy. IMO, it's a complete waste of time discussing God with atheists who hold on to erroneous misconceptions of what God means. You may as well be discussing smod, snidge and the tooth fairy. ---------- Post added 06-09-2014 at 13:23 ---------- religion and religious apologists What's a religious apologist? Presumably a person who is apologising for being religious? Also, is there such a thing as an atheist apologist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 "And if perchance I have offended Think but this and all is mended: We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time, For all the chance you'll change your mind." (Tim Minchin - at the end of his beat poem, Storm.) (N.B. Contains a few swear words. Perhaps N.S.F.W. ) Christopher Hitchens was once asked in an interview (...can't find it on YouTube just now...) why he spent his life arguing against religion and religious apologists. His response was that it wasn't his (whole) life, but that the 2 or 3 evenings a week were what he looked forward to. He realised that professional apologists were not going to publicly admit defeat, but it was worth it to reach the mass of undecided and curious people in the audience. If it was good enough for the Hitch, then it's good enough for me! Suppose you are right. It's just that I use to argue all the Bible nitty gritties, and all I got back was smoke, mirrors and terrible rationalisations trying to justify its content. And it all became very circular: it's true because Bible says so. Now I think cut to the chase: provide current scientific evidence for the supernatural. At most they'll provide a photo of a cracker or cloud that looks like something - or some story, that's fill of holes, about them or someone else being miraculously healed. Their "evidence" always end up being anecdotal - or mistakenly and delusionally attributed to the "divine" - just like in this video with the aphids urinating on the devout. If the religious can't provide anything worthy of taking seriously today, why on earth should we take anything seriously that the religious had to say in the past; when they lived in times of greater ignorance and desperation - and coincidentally greater "miracles." Today, of course, their "divine interventions" are reduced to crackers because they are crackers - just like their ancestors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 What's a religious apologist? Feeling lazy? It took me 10 seconds to Google this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics Presumably a person who is apologising for being religious? :hihi: Not really. (...but they should. They really should!) :hihi: Also, is there such a thing as an atheist apologist?Atheists don't have a holy book to defend. They lack belief in god/God/gods, is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Thank you redwhine. Atheists don't have a holy book to defend. They lack belief in god/God/gods, is all. They have a theological position to defend. Are you not defending atheism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Thank you redwhine. You're welcome. They have a theological position to defend. Are you not defending atheism? No. I attack theism. :hihi: Here, Pat Condell sums up what I believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 how do we know that 'God' is quantifiable by means of the scientific process. I'm glad you put "God" is quotes mate, because I doubt its existence too. So what do you mean by God and what are its attributes, if any (if it has no attributes then I have no reason to take the God claim seriously). If it does have attributes, how do you know they are its attributes and not the attributes of something else, something completely natural as opposed to supernatural(an attribute given for God) - and how do you expect me to know you aren't pulling those attributes out of your backside if I'm not permitted to use my rational process to assess whether those claims are true of not. God is usually described as a supernatural being that, supernaturally, intervenes in peoples' lives - yet there is no available objective and tangible evidence to support those claims (such claims always turn out to be terribly flawed - just like the claims made by teeny and her sister or in the aphid video I've previously posted.) ...We are talking about something that may not be subject to that process[rational process] At the moment, as far as I can tell, you are talking about a nothing - not something. That aside, if "God" can't be discerned through rational process, but "can be" discerned through irrational process, then you may as well be pulling stuff out of your backside. You may as well be talking about snod & snidge and giving them attributes, attributes that can't be quantified, while expecting everyone to take you seriously. Smod and snide are just made up words that have no meaning for anyone. In contrast, the word 'God' does have meaning, it points to something. Words have usage, and the word God is given to a claimed supernatural being that believers claim exists without providing anything of substance that can qualify its existence. Ask them to substantiate it's existence and it's the same old smoke and mirrors: "you are perhaps doing this because your awareness is so completely focused in to rational pathways, that you cannot at this time, conceive of any other state." or "We are talking about something that may not be subject to that process[rational process]." Storm, ad-infinitum: It does get tiring... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.