The Bible's Greatest Contradiction

Isn't it a gigantic leap of faith to believe that the bible is actually evidence that god exists ? And yes, I have seen stuff that has gone into researching this topic, including posts on here. Still not enough proof even for me that first thing, there aren't contradictions and second, that its proof that god exists.

Strafio, I have huge respect for ppl that believe in god. Its their choice. Sad thing is, and this I have discovered numerous times, that its not always the case the other way around. We constantly have to defend ourselves why we don't believe in god and even if it becomes clear why we don't, people still don't like it. So believe me, if you think I'm arrogant concerning what I believe what does that make anyone believing in god ? At least I don't try to shove down my belief in everyones throats and respect them for their choices, which even applies to aikimac.

Christian

 

I'm not the one who snubs believing things on faith!
(although reading the rest of this topic it might be that I've just misunderstood you on a large number of things. If you really do respect theistic beliefs and are just wound up by a couple of nutcases who didn't respect yours then I apologise. Although I'm not the only who gets this impression - something about the words you use... )

So have I but I consider I know enough to judge other's beliefs.
It's not enough proof for you, so it's fair enough that you don't believe, but it sounds like you assume that nobody else should either.

If someone reckons that you should believe in God and that you ought to believe then they'd have to back it with quite an impressive proof (which probably isn't even possible).

Hmmm... Your posts on here always seemed to come across kind of harsh against beliefs in God. Perhaps you were thinking of particular believers who'd hassled you?

Anyone can be arrogant in their beliefs. It's not a believers vs non-believers battle. I've met arrogant Christians and consider them in the same way.

Not sure I understood this? Did you say that you respect Aikimacs beliefs or that he shoves belief down peoples throats? I'll assume the former.
Maybe you do respect theistic beliefs but it doesn't always seem so the way you talk about them. Remember when people used to say that you sound so angry when you post? It's something like that. Perhaps you'd like to drop a little sweetner into your wording?

 

Strafio, lets put it this way, I've met and had to deal with some incredible nutcases when it comes to religions but do you think if I really was that nasty and completley 100 % anti-religious I would have defended islamic ppl in this country when we had those strong reactions during the London Bombing threads ? And to be honest, I do often see it the other way around, whenever I go on these threads I see Christians trying to shove their belief down non-Christians throats as if its a sin to be a non-Christian. That shows alot of disrespect, don't you think ? And concerning proof that god exists: That was my whole point Strafio and I also believe its homers. You can't prove god exists, nobody can but you also can't ask ppl to believe in something based on pure faith.

In my case nobody will be able to present me with proof. I once told a friend of mine:"If anyone ever wants me to believe that god exists he better present him to me." Its how I'm...but believe me, I respect ppl that have a belief in god as much as I respect anyone because I generally respect ppl. It only becomes an anti reaction if said person tries to convince me I'm wrong NOT to believe or makes it look as if I'm someone stupid because of it. Its sad that often the once who aren't linked to god by believing in him have more respect for ppl than the once that do.

Christian

 

I think it’s better to ask him to explain why God is the best explanation. Although they should technically have evidence for their belief in God, it’s not totally fair to demand them to prove God because I know they simply can’t. It would be the ‘argument from silence’ fallacy: “if you cannot prove me wrong, I’m right.” I won’t do that. The problem is, religious people do, which they use as an excuse for not explaining what they say is real.

Because faith leads people to think its ok to just believe something, just because they believe it, which leads people to argue, fight and potentially kill for an unproven, faith based/reasoned position, and only that, which is especially the clear with Islam, where thousands and thoudends of innocent people are being killed simply because of faith. Inaddition, people also argue creationism should be taught as science when it isn’t (and potentially harming future science), and that homosexuality is wrong etc.

 

Of course, because the claim which argues for the scientifically impossible is a lot more real

 

If I were to think from aiki’s like of thinking and reasoning everything would make sense, and I wouldn’t be questioning anything. That is what I’m arguing against, so it would be hypocritical of me to do it. Instead, I’m being sceptical as any view which can stand up to critical thinking deserves to be held onto. The way to get the best results is to start with a blank page, and work with all the information at hand, all the while having a critical mind. This method will result in the best explanation. What you don’t want to do is have a preconceived explanation which you are attached to and try to use it to explain what you’re exploring because all you will end up doing is fitting everything around that preconceived notion, not matter how incorrect it may be.

I’ve shown, with good reason (many times) why I doubt the argument. One of the main flaws in aiki’s argument is that it is not parsimonious; its not been proven, or at the very last, shown to be the best explanation over all the others. Another is there are many inconsistencies and contradiction. Also, it doesn’t have to be proven wrong in order show it is likely a flawed explanation.

I’ve asked him before, but I ask again. Aiki, do you see your beliefs as simply faith based (subjective) or actual truth (objective)?

That just means you need some more understanding in maths When I say it should be apparent to anyone, it should speak for itself. If you need to have faith in it before it ‘works’ and means anything, it’s not any good. You don’t need faith for maths, just knowledge and understand.

But it is still not evidence/proof/explanation. Sure, there can be [specific] evidence within it to strengthen your belief and understanding in it, a lot of things have that, but it is separate to the evidence and explanations what made you believe in the first place. For example, Zen Buddhism requires a very deep understanding (which I don’t completely have) for it to make complete sense and an even further understanding to reach enlightenment (which most never get), but that is separate to explaining/evidencing it to someone for them to have enough understanding to see what it is, how it work, why it works and so on.

But I have done this, many times.

I have listed various other hypotheses to explain an empty tomb. I have show why his reasoning/arguments are not valid, logical and sound. You can’t evidence an unproven assumption with another an unproven assumption, which itself is based on another unproven assumption and then claim it a valid true argument. Example: Aiki keeps saying that the proof he must use to answer the questions is something I’ve questioned/rejected for very good reasons, which is exactly my point. You need to evidence/prove/explain the first claim, before it can then be used to evidence the next; otherwise the flaws in it will keep being inherited. And if you cannot explain the flaws, then it’s a bad argument/evidence. Simple as that.

 

When did I do that? All I have showed is why I think this arguments and reasoning has flaws.

I know this was directed to thepunisher, but i am NOT against the idea of a creator (I'm athiest-agnostic.) I've just never heard a credible argument. I just don't see reason to actually believe in it, especially a specific God. If i were to believe in a God of any sort it would be a deist type god because i don't believe anyone can attribute specific concepts and ideas to one god and say they are right, when other gods have different attributes.

 

I agree. I think the many hard to believe elements/impossible of the Bible are simply symbolic and up to personal interpretation. Take it as literal and real, well then it's simply bs!

 

That was actually the point I was trying to make with using fairy tales as expamples when I put that down Homer. As you said the stories in it are meant symbolicly and are meant to teach something just like "Witwe Bolte" (not sure what the english Name for this fairy tale is ?)teaches us about the bad of being greedy.

But it goes too far if someone takes the stories as real and even if it might give an historic account of jewish ppl it doesn't have to mean the ppl in it were necessarily real to start with. And it goes beyond my imagination that someone would actually believe that everything in the bible is the answer to anything on this planet.

Christian

 

Actually, the scenario you just described above I can actually imagine a whole lot easier than some ppl deciding:"Oh, I've seen god, lets write a book about him !" And then ask god to supply 603 commandments to use for it. That sounds absolutley ridiculous. And concerning what happened aikimac, you yourself should admit, have as much a clue as anyone on here. Because you weren't there when it happened, you are just basing it on the faith you have in the bible. So quit throwing hissy fits.

Aikimac, the only person falling on "deaf ears" is you. And this post really proves it. The only person not opening himself is you. You know what my reaction to your post is ? Anger !:bang: Another person who can't see past his own views but accuses others of not opening themselves to his. Which actually homer has been doing the whole time. Like you said: Whatever !

I guess that word is the easiest answer for anything.

Christian

 

I think we should all have a go in the chat one day soon. It would make things a lot easier and maybe a little more can get accomplished? Anyone for it?

 

Someone that answers his posts using evidence from the bible and expects ppl to believe his information simply based on his faith in the bible shouldn't tell me or ask me about what academic background I possess aikimac. And to be honest, in order to answer posts on here you can do as much research as you want, in the end it only comes down to one thing: Do you want ppl to believe in something that you have no prove off or can you respect that they maybe don't see the same thing as you ?

Christian

 

Dude, that really made no sense. You can't ask a religious question and not expect to get answers from the Bible from that religious person, I think that is what Aikimac is trying to get across. Do you expect him to invent something to use? And do you have any proof in what you are believing at the moment? Sure fire, hard, concrete evidence that cannot be disputed? No? Well then why do you act as if you do and Aikimac is the only one who is acting out of beliefs? He should respect the person's ability to choose what they believe, and that they do so (which from what I have seen . . he does) but he does not have to respect the belief that they have. It is open to criticism as well as our belief is.

 

Well, if thats the case than why is he making sure that homer can't ask questions about the bible then unless he first shows that he understands that god has to exist for it to be there. No, he doesn't ! The bible is a manuscript, believing in god is a faith. The first has nothing to do with the other.

And yes, you're right you can't ask a question about religion and not expect to use the bible to be used to answer but at the same time if you can't move yourself out of the reach of a bible and put yourself into the atheists point-of-view when you answer, you shouldn't bother answering either. Because your answer will be clouded by your belief. And asking me about my academic background is completley irrelevant to this conversation here. I have a Communications degree, so ?

Christian

 

Well, it will all work out in the end : P. So nobody thinks we should all get together for a big chat on all this stuff? Or does everybody hate eachother that much?

Punisher, the academic thing does make sense. If you want an example of why knowing from what something came, and the details about it before you should argue it . . . hit up my evolution thread.

 

I’m sorry, when did you give me the evidence; evidence that didn't require faith and unproven assumptions?

Anyway, to save time and get this part over with, what is the evidence? Cite any source you like. My reply will obviouly depend on your answer.

What did happen then?

As for history, the Bible is a real book, so of course there are going to be a element of history (geography etc) in it, but to take it literal and as truth is missing the point. If you do that though, you then of course need to explain it, especially the inconsistencies in it.

That usually happens when someone proclaims accurate truth, and others question it and ask for good explanations but don’t get them.

What if the question is: “how do you know God exists?”
If they put their belief down to faith, fair enough. If they say it’s an accurate belief – thus bringing it into objective reality – they need to use objective reasoning and explanations.

Also, I asked a question which people believe to be fact, because of that it becomes more that just a theological question.