Boy o' boy I just left this thread for a day and look what I see. Tons of replies. I think there's no use discussing this anymore. Between atheists and religious people it would be like convincing the atheists that God exists, and on the other hand it would be like convincing the religious people that God doesn't exist. Between religious people, it would not be useful too. It's very predictable that people tend to defend his/her own religion no matter how it is. Regarding Joan d'Arc, I guess those who sentenced her to death were just envy her because God talked to her, instead of talking to them. Cheers!
see for yourself. axeman has not demonstrated "ANY" Biblical contradictions but rather demonstrated his lack of understanding about the art and science of Biblical interpretation. "hermeneutics"
what i find most amusing about these debates is not the disagreement- intelligent people have the right to disagree and do so all the time. the funny part is how so many atheists on this board assume that theists are intellectually dishonest and then strain their arms patting themselves on the back for pointing it out. think about it: to say "there are hundreds of contradictions, you must be blind not to see them" is to assume the theist is either stupid, unable to conduct even a cursory rational assessment of his beliefs, or unwilling to even consider the possiblity of an alternative argument. the ridiculous smugness with which such charges are implied is a bit like a mosquito floating down the river on his back with a hardon yelling "raise the drawbridge!" i think it's ironic that the assumption of intellectual dishonesty actually stems from intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who criticize. i mean after all, it doesn't take a whole lot of logic to recognize there is a third possibility: Hmmm, it appears to me the bible is full of holes, yet there are intelligent people who believe in it who are also capable of open mindedness and rational argument. how can this be? either a) all those seemingly intelligent people are really quite stupid or "brainwashed" or b) perhaps, just perhaps, there are stronger responses to my criticisms that i haven't considered. am i only scratching the surface here? maybe i should do some more reading and find out. If you think you won your argument because you wrestled with a strawman, you deserve little respect. If you brag to others about winning your argument with a strawman, you deserve even less respect. A real desire for understanding will translate into a desire to go up against the best the other side has to offer. If I'm going to seek out challenges to my theism, I'll look to hear what guys like Bertrand Russell have to say, not posters on a message board who wouldn't know espistemology if it smacked them on the face. Going back to the contradictions, obviously a message board does not provide the space nor the attention span to provide a real answer. But consider a few things: As I said before, no one gets a free ride on the metaphysics train. There is no complete belief system that is without tension in certain areas which could be construed as contradiction rightly or wrongly on the part of the critic. None. Agnosticism does not count either, because permanent agnositicism is little more than acceptance of ignorance. (and Yet I don't know any agnostics who ACT as if they are ignorant. They all seem to operate on the basis of moral codes and in support of virtues that are supposed to mean something, even if they have not a whit why.) Balance can also be misconstrued as contradiction by a sloppy mind. A random walk professor corners a trader and says "Hey! I was reading one of your trading books and it said that traders have to be willing to take risk and avoid risk at the same time. How does that make sense? Isn't the need to embrace risk and shun risk simultaneously a contradiction?" The trader looks puzzled and says "umm, no, you actually just don't understand the deeper point..." Random walk professor waves him off and says "Ha! I knew you would try to come back with some mumbo jumbo- face it, the idea of 'trading' is full of holes..." Reality is complex and any explanation that sought to explain such without mystery and tension would be inadequate. The need for balance between opposite but vital concepts creates tension in itself. In some sense a complex truth is like a molecule. Consider water: two hydrogen molecules, one oxygen. Without the proper balance, you don't have water. In the same sense, certain truths cannot be understood independent from their juxtaposition and adjacence to other key truths. Certain principles look unbalanced when they are presented without support of other principles intrinsic to correct understanding. A belief system without tension would be about as illuminating as a Dick and Jane primer. There is no unassailable position from which to throw down criticism without exposing your own beliefs to much criticism in return. Going back to the poll I posted on how people validate their morality- as best I know only specul8r answered so far. Anyone else care to step up and be intellectually honest- and expose themselves to serious flaws intrinsic to their line of reasoning? Those who think theism is 'silly' don't recognize that it is perhaps more 'silly' to hold to beliefs that are internally contradictory when it comes to morality and virtue. A negative position is not an actual stance, and everyone has an actual stance underneath the posturing whether they recognize it or not. It's easy to lob bombs at anything. It's much harder to actually articulate what you believe personally, and to explain your rationale and reasoning for such. Reaction to apparent contradiction is usually determined by higher order beliefs- which may in themselves be justified or not justified at all. Scientists come across apparent contradictions all the time in their work, many of which have not yet been solved. Quantum physics is crawling with 'em. So do they assume quantum physics is dumb and anyone who believes it is stupid? No- they move forward on the logical assumption that the contradictions represent flaws in their reasoning as it currently stands, and they seek to expand their knowledge to resolve the apparent contradiction. They don't throw out quantum physics, they recognize that the flaw is in their current thinking process and they seek to correct their understanding. Why do they do this? Because they have a higher level belief that the laws of the universe are ultimately logical, ordered and discernible- inherently infallible if you would. Is this belief any less steeped in mystery than a belief that a Christian would have in regards to scripture? Scientists have many rational arguments for their beliefs- so do intelligent Christians. The idea that the universe is ultimately rational, logical and ordered cannot be found within science itself- it is essentially a metaphysical belief. The idea that knowledge is accessible, reliable and valid is a metaphysical proposition as well. How can the scientific method validate the validity of the scientific method? It can't. If a believe in science supports any philosophical notions, one of them should be that there is an objective standard we can move toward. I believe in the usefulness and efficacy and value of science, but I also don't believe that's where the buck stops. For those of you guys who do think it stops there, may I politely suggest you are showing your naivete because it can't stop there- science makes no claim on epistemology or metaphysics by definition, and no thinking person is without some realized application of both. Last point before I go: winning an argument with a neophyte in and of itself really doesn't prove anything, because the truth of the matter in question is independent of the quality of debate. It's possible to hold a correct position for the wrong reasons. It's possible to be right and still lose. And it's possible to completely thrash your opponent and still be wrong. I don't consider those who disagree with me to be lightweights by default, or intellectually dishonest by default- (though I am consistently surprised by the intellectual dishonesty I see in some). To assume the same of myself- or of the theistic position in general- is incredibly naive and shows both undue pride and copious ignorance. Read some real books, put aside the soundbite thinking. Disagreement is fine and good, just please: step up the quality of your game.
Lmaoooooooooo.... know what is really funny about this? The biblical contradictions I posted came from a PREACHER!! I guess he doesnt have a clue either You see.... that's how religion works. Anytime you find a problem in the bible, its the HUMANS fault for misinterpreting it. Anytime religion causes bloodshed, it's not religions fault its the humans. Anytime evil occurs in the world, its not gods fault, its the humans. Simply redefining EVERYTHING to never be gods fault, or religions fault, is simply faulty reasoning. Now this begs the question.... what is the RIGHT interpretation? Funny how NO ONE can agree, not even the religious people. If we follow this line of reasoning, the bible is completely WORTHLESS due to its extreme ambiguity. How can anyone believe in a book that effectively says NOTHING?? And why is YOUR interpretation ANY BETTER than mine??? The contradictions seem pretty damn blatant and obvious. You must be the only person on earth who knows how to perfectly interpret the bible, and everyone ELSE is completely wrong Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.......... Such nonsense. peace axeman
darkhorse, i appreciate your reasoned and most excellent response to my question. however, you response does not directly answer my question--- how do people who believe in the inerrancy of the bible answer the contradictions listed by axeman ? can you direct me to a source for the answer if this is not a good format for you. thanks, surfer
AAAaaaahh another elegantly written post by Darkhorse which acclompishes nothing more than dodging the issue and attempting to imply that scientific thought and religious thought are actually somehow on the same level. "Hmmm, it appears to me the bible is full of holes, yet there are intelligent people who believe in it who are also capable of open mindedness and rational argument. how can this be? either a) all those seemingly intelligent people are really quite stupid or "brainwashed" or b) perhaps, just perhaps, there are stronger responses to my criticisms that i haven't considered. am i only scratching the surface here? maybe i should do some more reading and find out. " Nice either/or fallacy. Your artificially limiting the choices here. There are many other choices as well. For example: c) These are intelligent people who have deeply ingrained feel good beliefs implanted in them from childhood which are part of their culture which they refuse to drop, even though they contradict their intellectual side. d) These are intelligent people with an evolutionary mechanism built-in to prevent them from acknowledging their own final death without an afterlife, which prevents extreme depression (Yes, this is a real hypothesis I have researched ) The fact is... it may very well be a valid case that intelligent people can have "areas" of belief which they have no expertise in. I think this is quite obvious in fact. Im an expert in computer science but a complete idiot when it comes to art history for example. Using your logic, this makes me an idiot. Fact is... you can over all be quite intelligent, and completely clueless when it comes to silly god beliefs, so lets not pretend some complex explaination which leads to the fact that there is a better reason is REQUIRED. It is not. The obvious may in fact be true. The bible is a bunch of silly fables which SOME really intelligent people still choose to believe. After weighing the evidence and researching the bible this is the BEST reason I have come across. Going back to the contradictions, obviously a message board does not provide the space nor the attention span to provide a real answer. And here we have the typical Darkhorse dodge Oh.... I just dont have time or space to prove this to you. Whatever The rest of your post is nothing more than a lame attempt to bring the quality of biblical thought to the same level as modern scientific thought. Let's not pretend here. I might as well compare Little red riding hood and the theory of relativity Oh wait...thats too smug for you isnt it? Does this alone somehow invalidate what I said? Of course it doesnt, but you sure seem to think it does. peace axeman
Exactly. The typical darkhorse dodge. He is only seems capable of writing extremely elegant, well written replies which do a beautiful job of MASKING the fact that he didnt answer a thing peace axeman