how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2016, 03:16 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(04-02-2016 02:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Well--is that your favorite, then? Of course, I didn't ask you.

Favorite? Why would I have a favorite? What would having a favorite have to do with falsifying the claim you made regarding that particular absurdity?
Try to stay on track, sonny.

Quote:I know you know enough about Earth's past to understand that 99% of species are no longer with us and that new discoveries are made all the time. I know you know enough about physics and the universe and cosmology to know that up to 11 dimensions are postulated to exist...

I know enough to see that there is no evidence of 'other dimensions' in the sense you are trying to force. In string theory, those dimensions are tightly curled and not accessible.

There is no evidence of anything even remotely like seven-headed dragons, so you are whistling in the wind, sonny.

You responded to my post to Robby but (surprise) did not actually read the post. I asked him to pick a favorite, eg, the best one in his opinion.

I didn't say there was a seven-headed dragon fossil in a museum. I suggested that, as usual, atheists are in the box on everything from God to the awesomely diverse nature of the fossil record.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2016, 04:09 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(04-02-2016 03:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-02-2016 02:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Favorite? Why would I have a favorite? What would having a favorite have to do with falsifying the claim you made regarding that particular absurdity?
Try to stay on track, sonny.


I know enough to see that there is no evidence of 'other dimensions' in the sense you are trying to force. In string theory, those dimensions are tightly curled and not accessible.

There is no evidence of anything even remotely like seven-headed dragons, so you are whistling in the wind, sonny.

You responded to my post to Robby but (surprise) did not actually read the post. I asked him to pick a favorite, eg, the best one in his opinion.

And as I already said, I wasn't responding to that, but to your claim that the first thing on that website is somehow wrong.

Quote:I didn't say there was a seven-headed dragon fossil in a museum. I suggested that, as usual, atheists are in the box on everything from God to the awesomely diverse nature of the fossil record.

I didn't say there should be. What you miss is that there is no evidence of anything even remotely like that which shows that there are no evolutionary antecedents or descendants. Where would it have come from? Where are its progeny?

No, you claim that it is not a scientific absurdity and I have shown you why it is.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-02-2016, 04:21 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
But man the fun part is reading it and laughing, time after time. ANd what better reference for your family than direct from the Babble itself. My approach has been to ask my brother to help me understand this when compared with that. As in "Hey brother did you ever notice that Joseph who was thought to be the father of Jesus had 2 different fathers? Isn't that a miracle right up there with Mary having a baby while still a virgin?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2016, 06:34 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(03-02-2016 02:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...And? How many thousands of posts here describe the atheist's rejection of the 66 books of the Bible by posting the first contradiction they've seen online--not having bothered to investigate further by posing questions to the "contradiction"? I looked at the first one and tested the assumptions via questioning the hypothesis.

I am fairly certian that number is 0. But seeing as you made the claim, please provide ONE POST, just one post where someone does this (and I mean the ENTIRE bible, not just the particular claim). You claim there are thousands, please supply one. Good luck.

(03-02-2016 02:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are attempting to shift the burden of proof, of course. The very first post was a contradiction when I investigated that site and if you have a favorite one from that site, pick... and post... I'll shred.

You calling him out as shifting the burden of proof os totally laughable. The real question is: "why should we believe it in the first place?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2016, 08:02 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
I like this site too. Marshal Brain logically refutes hundreds of claims made by Christians.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

"Why hast thou forsaken me, o deity whose existence I doubt..." - Dr. Sheldon Cooper
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2016, 06:06 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(03-02-2016 02:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(03-02-2016 11:37 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Don't go digging any deeper in that site. You might find an actual contradiction that you can't so easily dismiss. You and Alpha Male both are really good at picking out the first contradiction on the site that you can dismiss, while ignoring the other several hundred.

...And? How many thousands of posts here describe the atheist's rejection of the 66 books of the Bible by posting the first contradiction they've seen online--not having bothered to investigate further by posing questions to the "contradiction"? I looked at the first one and tested the assumptions via questioning the hypothesis.

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof, of course. The very first post was a contradiction when I investigated that site and if you have a favorite one from that site, pick... and post... I'll shred.

66 books? What is this sound basis for making it just these 66 books that mean something? Why is there no book of Enoch? Why is the book of Revelation accepted. Why no 65 books, why not 70 books? why have you accepted such a curated collection chosen by committees.

Why does the Gospel of John count as it's totally different in many ways from the other 3 gospels and far more aggressive and mystical in characterization of Jesus.. Yet the gospel of Judas or Gospel of Thomas don't count? Those aren't "real" like John.

This is a case for how to use the bible against itself.. it's an arbitrary human decided core that people here like Q think is the end all be all collection of these 66 books as he says. But people all across the globe in other areas see it differently. Had he been from Ethiopia or other northern African christian origins he wouldn't think it's THOSE 66 books. If he was an eastern orthodox he would see it differently too. Even the catholic and "protestant" 10 commandments are altered from eachother.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ClydeLee's post
05-02-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(04-02-2016 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2016 03:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You responded to my post to Robby but (surprise) did not actually read the post. I asked him to pick a favorite, eg, the best one in his opinion.

And as I already said, I wasn't responding to that, but to your claim that the first thing on that website is somehow wrong.

Quote:I didn't say there was a seven-headed dragon fossil in a museum. I suggested that, as usual, atheists are in the box on everything from God to the awesomely diverse nature of the fossil record.

I didn't say there should be. What you miss is that there is no evidence of anything even remotely like that which shows that there are no evolutionary antecedents or descendants. Where would it have come from? Where are its progeny?

No, you claim that it is not a scientific absurdity and I have shown you why it is.

Talk about "straining a gnat". I was being gracious to try to get you out of that atheist box. Did the scriptures say the Dragon was on the Earth or in Heaven? Is it a scientific absurdity that there is life similar to, yet unlike Earth's on other planets?

Or is it that you feel the Hubble has sufficiently mapped the universe already? Drinking Beverage

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2016, 01:40 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(04-02-2016 04:21 PM)DerFish Wrote:  But man the fun part is reading it and laughing, time after time. ANd what better reference for your family than direct from the Babble itself. My approach has been to ask my brother to help me understand this when compared with that. As in "Hey brother did you ever notice that Joseph who was thought to be the father of Jesus had 2 different fathers? Isn't that a miracle right up there with Mary having a baby while still a virgin?

There were no in-laws in ancient Israel. One of his fathers is Joseph's natural father, the other is Mary's. Mary's line is traced back for obvious reasons.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2016, 01:41 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(04-02-2016 06:34 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(03-02-2016 02:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...And? How many thousands of posts here describe the atheist's rejection of the 66 books of the Bible by posting the first contradiction they've seen online--not having bothered to investigate further by posing questions to the "contradiction"? I looked at the first one and tested the assumptions via questioning the hypothesis.

I am fairly certian that number is 0. But seeing as you made the claim, please provide ONE POST, just one post where someone does this (and I mean the ENTIRE bible, not just the particular claim). You claim there are thousands, please supply one. Good luck.

(03-02-2016 02:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are attempting to shift the burden of proof, of course. The very first post was a contradiction when I investigated that site and if you have a favorite one from that site, pick... and post... I'll shred.

You calling him out as shifting the burden of proof os totally laughable. The real question is: "why should we believe it in the first place?

If you are unaware that there are numerous posts spanning the breadth of this forum where people write, "Yes, the Bible is so wrong. Just consider this one contradiction as evidence of its idiocy..." then I can recommend an oculist.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2016, 01:43 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(05-02-2016 06:06 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(03-02-2016 02:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...And? How many thousands of posts here describe the atheist's rejection of the 66 books of the Bible by posting the first contradiction they've seen online--not having bothered to investigate further by posing questions to the "contradiction"? I looked at the first one and tested the assumptions via questioning the hypothesis.

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof, of course. The very first post was a contradiction when I investigated that site and if you have a favorite one from that site, pick... and post... I'll shred.

66 books? What is this sound basis for making it just these 66 books that mean something? Why is there no book of Enoch? Why is the book of Revelation accepted. Why no 65 books, why not 70 books? why have you accepted such a curated collection chosen by committees.

Why does the Gospel of John count as it's totally different in many ways from the other 3 gospels and far more aggressive and mystical in characterization of Jesus.. Yet the gospel of Judas or Gospel of Thomas don't count? Those aren't "real" like John.

This is a case for how to use the bible against itself.. it's an arbitrary human decided core that people here like Q think is the end all be all collection of these 66 books as he says. But people all across the globe in other areas see it differently. Had he been from Ethiopia or other northern African christian origins he wouldn't think it's THOSE 66 books. If he was an eastern orthodox he would see it differently too. Even the catholic and "protestant" 10 commandments are altered from eachother.

What you have posted is mostly a case for how to use apocrypha against the Bible, not the Bible against itself. And the comparison helps the Bible shine. The apocrypha:

1. Was rejected by Jews as well as Christians

2. Says things like "The wisdom of my grandfather..." when the Bible says, "Here the Word of the Lord..."

Etc.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: