Biblical Contradictions

[achilles12604]

Ok. I looked over the last few pages of topics and I couldn't find one dedicated to this discussion (much to my surprise). Therefore I am starting it.


What are the biblical contradictions which the atheists keep refering to and what are the answers by apologists.

Ready, set . . . GO!

[Easyrider]

A "well developed" doctrine cannot logically support any more than one or two different interpretations. The Bible leaves room for THOUSANDS.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is (according to your very own Rhodes Scholar).

And with a mentality like that, no wonder so many people are screwed up.

p.s. There's probably thousands of interpretations of the United States Constitution also, which is much more recent and documented by Federalist Papers, etc. So, maybe it's not the document, but the people themselves.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Micatala,

I would certainly allow that these are possible explanations. However, many people come to believe in God without having any prior 'wish' to do so, or any wish to have 'mystical experiences' or any prior wish to think of God having particular attributes. If this is wishful thinking or imagination it is certainly a very strange form of both. It also does not explain how their can be deep similarities between experiences of people of widely different cultures and views.

For a person with little knowledge of the mechanics of the world we live in, a belief in the supernatural is almost the default position.

History demonstrates this very well. Close to 100% of ancient people probably believed in a God of some form or another. However, as scientific knowledge has increased, this view has dramatically declined. More and more people are realizing that there are much better explanations for the way things are than this magical man in the sky.

Rational knowledge is religion's worst enemy. In the comming centuries, religion will continue to lose it's influence. It is all part of our progression as a species.

I think you are being too hard on some of the cultures mentioned above. The Greeks ignorant? The culture that produced Plato, Euclid , Archimedes, Aristotle, et. al. ignorant?

All civilizations are ignorant to some extent.

Modern society is just less ignorant.

Still, belief in God is more the norm than otherwise. Still, many learned people share that belief. I would agree that there are some differences on the specifics and the nature of the beliefs between the 'learned' and the 'less learned'.

Let us expand on this point a bit.

In what areas of the world is a belief in a God most prevalent? Third world nations, where there is little to no education system.

How many scientists (those whose very job, unlike other professions, is simply "to know") still believe in God? One or two?

Is there something to be said about the fact that college graduates are much less likely to believe in God than high school dropouts?


As I said, knowledge is religion's worst enemy.

Many, if not most, modern theists would think of science and religion as speaking to two different realms of existence. There would be some variation in opinion on whether or how much overlap there is between these realms. My personal opinion is to keep them rather separate.

Religon and science are not two seperate entities. Science, by definition, is "to know". The purpose of religon is the same.

The difference between the two is that religion relies on faith and myth as it's source of knowledge. Science observes and tests variables to form a provable conclusion.

Since humans, by nature, cannot stand not knowing, we have invented religion as a supplement for what science has yet to answer. However, the goal of both is one and the same, regardless.

I believe Einstein recognized that science had not the capacity to advance man's moral thinking, and that this advance would be dearly necessary for us to avoid cataclysmic, self-inflicted disaster.

Humanism

People are endowed with a certain quality that lets us make independent moral judgements. This quality is called reason.

I intend to live a moral life without subjecting myself to the incoherent ramblings of a millenium-old book of prophey, and dare any of you to try to tell me I can't.

I can understand a person thinking religion is 'unreasonable.' However unreasonable it is, it is also quite useful. How many great achievements of history would never have been accomplished but for faith in God?

Everything.

Until someone proves otherwise, there is no God. When people gradually begin to realize this, they will realize that all human accomplishments were achieved solely by our own means.

Humans, and humans alone have the power to make a positive influence in our world. Religion demeans human ability because it asserts that our means of accomplishment are subject solely to the power and authority of a supernatural god.

Stop giving God the credit for your accomplishments. That credit belongs to us: the people.

I hope that when people realize this, it will empower us to achieve even more than we have supposedly achieved under the power of God. The only limits to human accomplishment are the limits we subject upon ourselves; specifically, those that assert that we are hopelessly "sinful".

[wizanda]

Just for your Info ......

Muslim = Sanskrit means those who fight against religion and them selfs...Quran it self says they are against faith.

Al-Islam = means I bow to the way of peace


Two seperate things in a fixed Quran as you will find on my site without all them extra brackets added in old English...wonder where they came from to make it paint as if none truth to begin with??? and make us fight?

[Cathar1950]

A "well developed" doctrine cannot logically support any more than one or two different interpretations. The Bible leaves room for THOUSANDS.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is (according to your very own Rhodes Scholar).

And with a mentality like that, no wonder so many people are screwed up.

p.s. There's probably thousands of interpretations of the United States Constitution also, which is much more recent and documented by Federalist Papers, etc. So, maybe it's not the document, but the people themselves.

It seems that a well-developed doctrine by definition would not open to interpretations, as it would be an interpretation. You are correct; the bible has room for many interpretations and doctrines. There is no biblical doctrine just various doctrines are developed from biblical interpretations. It would be no great feat to find a number of opinions and interpretation on any given book in the bible as well as conflicting ideas in the collection of writings. Anyone that sees a consistent theme is largely projecting with a preconceived view.

I am curious as to what an obvious uncalled for reference to Clinton has to do with The Persnickety Platypus comment? I mean this is old news about the desire some had to know the details of the presidents sex life that so fascinated the sexually repressed hypocritical Republicans and his ability to defend himself in a way that made his accusers look stupid petty and more perverted then his sexual foreplay and the expensive investigation and rather large erotica produced as a report. Is it some kind of ploy to take the heat off the recent republican sex scandal? I have seen them already blaming Democrats. I think you comments are inappropriate and off base as well as off topic.
You hardly seem qualified to judge anyone mentality or how screwed up someone is that alone a whole group of people that you are trying to label with your innuendos and trifling comments..

Like the bible the constitution and federalist papers are open to interpretation and even amendments and ratifications.
Like the bible they are human creations and subject to human interpretations. How is blaming the people themselves require a bible that is perfect and without error or contradictions?
This seems like a rather poor attempt to say nothing as a defense of the undeniable with pure rhetoric and an obvious tacky apologetic ruse. Is that another of your famous victories and refutations?
Clinton was also your President and "very own Rhodes Scholar" too just as Bush is our President and very own non-scholar. Should we start going over Bush's not so intellegent statements. There is a site that has all ove his rather stupid remarks and ideas he has presented to Americans. Should we make a list and compare?

[samuelbb7]

Howdy Goat Sorry for taking so long to answer.

You really, really, really need to read up on human behavior and the evolution of cultures as much as you read up on scripture and listen to your local scriptural mouthpiece. YES, humans care for each other. YES, humans are altruistic. YES, atheist humans are altruistic. I started another thread that asked (paraphrasing) "Would you, as a Christian, rather have your local pastor or a local atheist friend standing next to you if a train was about to hit your kid? Who do you think would be most likely to save the child while risking his own life?" The answer says a lot about your pre-understanding of atheists and their mindset.

Actually Atheists come in all different characters. Some are nice people and some I would not trust to take care of a cat. It depends on the person. A person's philosophy does not always tell what kind of person they are.

Some humans care for others some do not. My personal experience says that most people do not care. Have you ever heard of Kitty Genovese who over fifty people let die because they did not care to call 911. I have no idea of their philsophies. I read Discover magazine and used to read Psychology Today. As for which would save my child. I know of one atheist who would have tried and two who would not have cared. Again it depends on the person.

This is absolute Bunk with a capital B. There are plenty of studies done in this area. My personal experience: My cousin is on his deathbed because he decided Jesus was more qualified than medical professionals to treat his alcohol and cocaine habit.

Sorry about your cousin. I never meant to imply that professional help should not be also taken. But I have know some who got professional help and still lost everything. So it is not foolproof either.

I will not go on about anyone. True some who are so called Christian leader are an embarrassment to Christianity. True the worst enemies of Christianity is not atheists but false Christians. That I cannot argue with.

But as for myself I was on the way to being an alcoholic like many members in my family but I have up drinking Everclear and all alcohol in one day and had not had a drink in over thirty years.

[samuelbb7]

Dear The Persnickety Platypus

I belive that idea was first advance in the 1700. Today we have in the United States more religious people not less.

What we also have is the rebirth of paganism. Which increase in knowledge should make totally obsolete. Wicca is on the increase as well as druids.

True many in France are more atheistic. But still most have more a type of hinduism etc. It seems that more knowledge is only proving that humans are irrationally religious period.

Except a small group of enlightened citizens as yourself.

[micatala]

History demonstrates this very well. Close to 100% of ancient people probably believed in a God of some form or another. However, as scientific knowledge has increased, this view has dramatically declined. More and more people are realizing that there are much better explanations for the way things are than this magical man in the sky.

Rational knowledge is religion's worst enemy. In the comming centuries, religion will continue to lose it's influence. It is all part of our progression as a species.

I would agree with some of this. As I noted in the "science and faith: can't we all just get along" thread in the Science and Religion forum, religion has retreated in the face of science when religion has made scientific claims.

The problem I have with your analysis is that it is overly-simplistic (IMV). It equates religion with 'unreason'. It assumes supernatural explanations for physical phenomena is inherent in all religious belief. It also seems to say that science will eventually be able to explain "everything."

Now, I am a proponent of science, and science has clearly shown great capacity to explain a great many things. It is conceivable that many things which we currently might think are unexplainable within the realm of science may actually not be so. However, even some scientists are not necessarily so opimistic. If you have time, consider reading, for example, John Horgan's The End of Science.

I would agree certain aspects of religion will 'lose their influence', and that religious thought will need to adapt as a result. However, I think history shows that 'extreme rationalism' if you will also has its pitfalls. Many during the Age of Enlightenment believed that humanity was on the brink of solving all of its problems through science and reason. This idea proved to be way to optimistic. Romanticism in literature and the arts and 'general outlook' arose as a reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment. We are rational beings, yes, but we are more than simply rational beings.

Yes, we progress as a species, but this does not necessarily mean we will progress without religious thought and belief.

I intend to live a moral life without subjecting myself to the incoherent ramblings of a millenium-old book of prophey, and dare any of you to try to tell me I can't.

THere is no need for the dare. I certainly have no wish to tell you what you can or cannot believe. I am simply speaking for the viewpoint that relgious faith can be valuable and useful, that it is not necessarily 'irrational' to such an extent that it must deny basic scientific truths, and that I expect that it will continue to be part of the human experience for many people far into the future, even as it adapts to our expanding knowledge base.

You mention humanism. As you citation notes, humanism can be either secular or religious. The idea of the 'basic dignity and worth of all humans' certainly is not new to humanism, and is a central part of many religions, including Christianity.

It is entirely compatible with naturalism (and therefore atheism), but doesn't strictly require either of these, and is compatible with some religions.

I can understand a person thinking religion is 'unreasonable.' However unreasonable it is, it is also quite useful. How many great achievements of history would never have been accomplished but for faith in God?

Everything.

Until someone proves otherwise, there is no God. When people gradually begin to realize this, they will realize that all human accomplishments were achieved solely by our own means.

Until someone proves that God does not exist, God will remain a tenable belief. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But be that as it may.

Could 'all' the accomplishments of people of faith have been done without God? Perhaps. I would point out that God's existence and faith in God are not the same thing. If you want to tell me that God does not exist and that this faith is misplaced in a fictional being, that is fine. However, you have a long way to go to show that accomplishments like those of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, John Paul II, many in the polish solidarity movement etc., etc., could have occurred without the faith that these people had in God. Whatever you think of God, this faith is absolutely observable and has observable effects. It cannot be simply dismissed as being fictional.

If you want to attempt to give a scientific explanation for it, fine, but the fact remains based on the testimony of these individuals and millions if not billions of others, that religious faith has allowed them to accomplish things that they would otherwise not have been able to accomplish, and arguably would not have gotten accomplished, at least at that time, as a result.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Easyrider,

There's probably thousands of interpretations of the United States Constitution also, which is much more recent and documented by Federalist Papers, etc. So, maybe it's not the document, but the people themselves.

Was the constitution supposedly authored/inspired by a perfect supernatural being?

Samuel,

I belive that idea was first advance in the 1700. Today we have in the United States more religious people not less.

The US is the one exeption to the rule.

As a rule of thumb, the more industrialized a nation becomes, the less religious. Education and faith are inversely correlated.



(The Pew Global Attitudes Project)

Needless to say, the wealthier a nation, the higher the level of education. And as this survey demonstrates, the more educated a population, the less religious.

As more and more nations begin to leave the third world, global education is likely to climb steadily upward. What are the implications of this trend? What can we logically assume will become of religion in the comming centuries?

Sooner or later the Jesus fad will die out. When this occurs, our race will be left completely unhindered in our aspirations towards positive human goals. Hallelujah.

The problem I have with your analysis is that it is overly-simplistic (IMV). It equates religion with 'unreason'. It assumes supernatural explanations for physical phenomena is inherent in all religious belief. It also seems to say that science will eventually be able to explain "everything."

Now, I am a proponent of science, and science has clearly shown great capacity to explain a great many things. It is conceivable that many things which we currently might think are unexplainable within the realm of science may actually not be so. However, even some scientists are not necessarily so opimistic. If you have time, consider reading, for example, John Horgan's The End of Science.

We cannot presume that science will come to an 'end' until it actually reaches that supposed end. Looking at modern science, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that science cannot ever answer even the most basic of philosophic questions (Who are we, how did we get here, why are we here).

In fact, it has all ready made great headway into these particular questions.

"Who are we?" Homo sapians, or more litterally, a complex conglomeration of interacting cells.

"How did we get here?" Through successive genetic mutations stemming from a single common anscestor, occurring over millions of generations, culminating into our current evolutionary form.

"Why are we here"? Well, for one, to pass on our genes, as is the ultimate goal of every organism.


Granted, there are many aspects of these questions with remain to be answered. But do you think that people hundreds of years ago ever would have imagined that human knowledge could possibly expand to it's current extent?

I think that there are many grave accomplishments ahead of us yet.

However, I think history shows that 'extreme rationalism' if you will also has its pitfalls. Many during the Age of Enlightenment believed that humanity was on the brink of solving all of its problems through science and reason. This idea proved to be way to optimistic.

Not too optimistic. Just premature.

You mention humanism. As you citation notes, humanism can be either secular or religious. The idea of the 'basic dignity and worth of all humans' certainly is not new to humanism, and is a central part of many religions, including Christianity.

In my view, no major religion currently in practice (with the possible exeption of Buddhism) affirms this idea.

Christianity asserts that humans are hopelessly "sinful", justified solely by this random Jesus fellow. Hindu doctrine refuses to affirm each individual's potential sovereignty, alleging that those born into lowly castes can never amount to anything greater.

Religion (in general) is demeaning to humans. Why should we have to share (and even completely forsake) our individual glory in favor of a God? Couldn't human society's be much more productive without religion constantly sucking away what little self-esteem we allow ourselves?

Until someone proves that God does not exist, God will remain a tenable belief. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This holds the same for Santa Claus, leprechauns, and the tooth fairy.

We can't completely rule out the existance of such beings. Yet, as there is absolutely no evidence attesting to their existance, is it reasonable for us to actually consider them possibilitys?

Remember, I am agnostic. I leave room for the possibility that there could be a God. But I don't actually lend any creedence to this possibility, just as I don't go around thinking that someday I may run into a leprechaun on the street.

Could 'all' the accomplishments of people of faith have been done without God?

Absolutely.

King. Gandhi. Mandela. Tutu. All the men you mentioned accomplished great things, fought for great causes, and had great faith in God.

But take these men's faith in God completely out of the equation. What are you left with? The same causes they were fighting for to begin with.

The fact that these people had faith in God is completely arbitrary. Whether or not Martin Luther was a devout Christian, African Americans were still undergoing great social stress. Are you telling me that he wouldn't have cared about the black man's plight if he was not a Christian?

Likewise, many athiestic people have achieved great things for mankind. Are you going to tell me that this was due to their athiesm?

Take away these men's faith, and their passions and principles still remain. If any of them had chosen not to subscribe to a particular religion, their legacy would remain just as it is today.

There is absolutely nothing that God can supposedly do for us that we can't do for ourselves. Ever since I have come to this conclusion, my Sunday mornings have been much more productive.

[micatala]

There's probably thousands of interpretations of the United States Constitution also, which is much more recent and documented by Federalist Papers, etc. So, maybe it's not the document, but the people themselves.

Was the constitution supposedly authored/inspired by a perfect supernatural being?

I think at least some of the developers would have said yes. It does say "we are endowed by our creators with certain unalienable rights" after all.


You still have yet to provide anything other than 'it must be so' statements to support the idea that anything inspired by a perfect God must be perfect. The constitution and the Bible were written by people. I have given arguments why the Bible actually should have errors. I don't recall that you have addressed these.

Not to refute your graph, but I did notice it seems to only include about 35 countries. I believe there are somewhere around 200 altogether.

I would also note that many Christians might say this is to be predicted. Having wealth might lead one to value the wealth more than other matters, including religion. This is certainly discussed in the Bible.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

You still have yet to provide anything other than 'it must be so' statements to support the idea that anything inspired by a perfect God must be perfect.

What else would you like me to provide?

A perfect being cannot create anything which is imperfect. By definition.

Therefore, the only way the Bible could have come from God is if he is in fact imperfect himself. In which case, he could not be rightfully classified as a "god" in the first place.

I see no alternative explanation.

The constitution and the Bible were written by people. I have given arguments why the Bible actually should have errors. I don't recall that you have addressed these.

I agree with this part. The Bible should have errors, because it was written by erroneous people.

But there was absolutely no God in the equation, for the reasons stated previously.

Not to refute your graph, but I did notice it seems to only include about 35 countries. I believe there are somewhere around 200 altogether.

44 countries were included in the survey, hand picked based on region, ethnicity, ect to represent a cross section of global attitudes. A global survey would not have been feasible (many governments refuse to allow such polls).

If Pew wanted to present a biased view on the matter, they would not have included Vietnam, which is the single country (besides the US) which completely violates my generalization.