Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The bible is internally consistent

bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 3:24:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

Came here to list some of the inconsistencies and contradictions in Bible, but it seems we are on the same side here haha.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 3:47:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 3:24:19 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

Came here to list some of the inconsistencies and contradictions in Bible, but it seems we are on the same side here haha.

I had the same reason for visiting this page.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 4:13:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 3:47:08 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/18/2014 3:24:19 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

Came here to list some of the inconsistencies and contradictions in Bible, but it seems we are on the same side here haha.

I had the same reason for visiting this page.

Yeah sorry when I made the title i meant to put a question mark at the end.
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 5:22:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

Please recount the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Specifically who came to rape who, then where Lot went to tell whom the city was going to be destroyed.

If Lot's sons in laws were depicted as the account told, they would be blind and bumbling around the door, as they too were mentioned as all the men, young and old, who came to the house. I bet they would have been uber cool with Lot offering up their soon to be wives as a tool for group sex, too.

When thinking of these few men to save the City, were his own sons-in-law not thought of? Or were they just convienient plot devices?

Or is this one of those stories where looking at it with a critical eye is frowned upon because its allegorical to some extent?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 5:45:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

HAHAHAHAHA
Good one!!!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 6:12:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

See thats the game christians will play, they want to bring it down to one inconsistency and then come up with some ridiculous excuse for why it may not be an inconsistency. You never want to deal with the actual statistical improbability that all your cockamamie excuses are all true. See the problem you have is not 1 single inconsistency, but the sheer number of excuses you have to make to keep it inerrant. Even if we grant each individual inconsistency 90% odds of being resolved with your excuses, that means a mere 7 would make it less like then likely that the bible is inerrant. Yet we have 100s if not thousands, making the bibles inerrancy a statistical impossibility. Sorry game over you lose if you really think the bible is internally consistent i actually suggest you open your mind and start reading it. Perhaps do some horizontal readings where you read the same story in different parts of the bible and list the events and orders and compare. It will enlighten you to how many dependencies there are to be worked out.
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 8:39:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 6:12:03 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:

I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

See thats the game christians will play, they want to bring it down to one inconsistency and then come up with some ridiculous excuse for why it may not be an inconsistency.

You made the thread Sir. Would you prefer to list 5?

You never want to deal with the actual statistical improbability that all your cockamamie excuses are all true.

Probably because as King, you have declared all our responses to be "excuses" and "cockamamie" to boot. It must be nice to just announce all your opponents points as invalid without so much as a grain of logical argumentation. I don't know if I could handle such power. It would go to my head. How do you remain grounded?

And talking about statistical improbabilities, do you believe evolution?

See the problem you have is not 1 single inconsistency, but the sheer number of excuses you have to make to keep it inerrant.

A single error would make it inerrant. And if there were so many, it would be easy for you to list one.

Even if we grant each individual inconsistency 90% odds of being resolved with your excuses, that means a mere 7 would make it less like then likely that the bible is inerrant.

So your claim is not that there is any one inconsistency in the Bible but that the likelihood of all the explanations being true is statistically 0? That's new one. The Bible is statistically unlikely to be true. Sounds a lot less sure than your first claim where you made a dare.

Yet we have 100s if not thousands, making the bibles inerrancy a statistical impossibility. Sorry game over you lose if you really think the bible is internally consistent i actually suggest you open your mind and start reading it.

lol. Amazing. This doofus has declared the debate over and that I've lost before he has had to defend one single claim he's spouted!

Why are you here if you don't wish to debate? But since you have declared yourself winner of this non-debate, have fun with your non-crown. Is it circle-jerk time atheists?

Perhaps do some horizontal readings where you read the same story in different parts of the bible and list the events and orders and compare. It will enlighten you to how many dependencies there are to be worked out.

Thank you for telling me what to do. If I may give you a suggestion also? Stupidity and militancy don't go well together. You must actually win an argument before you declare yourself the winner. You may feel good simply calling yourself the winner, but you look like a right idiot to the Gentle Readers. People tend not to side with those who appear to be idiots.

Atheist - Christians will never address the inconsistencies in the Bible. I dare a Christian to address them.
Theist - I dare. List one inconsistency.
Atheist - >>>Rants<<<<

SCMike, I don't know you, but you have my sympathy.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:15:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 8:39:34 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 6:12:03 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:

I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

See thats the game christians will play, they want to bring it down to one inconsistency and then come up with some ridiculous excuse for why it may not be an inconsistency.

You made the thread Sir. Would you prefer to list 5?

You never want to deal with the actual statistical improbability that all your cockamamie excuses are all true.

Probably because as King, you have declared all our responses to be "excuses" and "cockamamie" to boot. It must be nice to just announce all your opponents points as invalid without so much as a grain of logical argumentation. I don't know if I could handle such power. It would go to my head. How do you remain grounded?

And talking about statistical improbabilities, do you believe evolution?

See the problem you have is not 1 single inconsistency, but the sheer number of excuses you have to make to keep it inerrant.

A single error would make it inerrant. And if there were so many, it would be easy for you to list one.

Even if we grant each individual inconsistency 90% odds of being resolved with your excuses, that means a mere 7 would make it less like then likely that the bible is inerrant.

So your claim is not that there is any one inconsistency in the Bible but that the likelihood of all the explanations being true is statistically 0? That's new one. The Bible is statistically unlikely to be true. Sounds a lot less sure than your first claim where you made a dare.

Yet we have 100s if not thousands, making the bibles inerrancy a statistical impossibility. Sorry game over you lose if you really think the bible is internally consistent i actually suggest you open your mind and start reading it.

lol. Amazing. This doofus has declared the debate over and that I've lost before he has had to defend one single claim he's spouted!

Why are you here if you don't wish to debate? But since you have declared yourself winner of this non-debate, have fun with your non-crown. Is it circle-jerk time atheists?

Perhaps do some horizontal readings where you read the same story in different parts of the bible and list the events and orders and compare. It will enlighten you to how many dependencies there are to be worked out.

Thank you for telling me what to do. If I may give you a suggestion also? Stupidity and militancy don't go well together. You must actually win an argument before you declare yourself the winner. You may feel good simply calling yourself the winner, but you look like a right idiot to the Gentle Readers. People tend not to side with those who appear to be idiots.

Atheist - Christians will never address the inconsistencies in the Bible. I dare a Christian to address them.
Theist - I dare. List one inconsistency.
Atheist - >>>Rants<<<<

SCMike, I don't know you, but you have my sympathy.

The debate is over, there is no way you can maintain that hte bible is inerrant. Its a ridiculous position.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:22:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 8:39:34 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 6:12:03 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:

I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

See thats the game christians will play, they want to bring it down to one inconsistency and then come up with some ridiculous excuse for why it may not be an inconsistency.

You made the thread Sir. Would you prefer to list 5?

You never want to deal with the actual statistical improbability that all your cockamamie excuses are all true.

Probably because as King, you have declared all our responses to be "excuses" and "cockamamie" to boot. It must be nice to just announce all your opponents points as invalid without so much as a grain of logical argumentation. I don't know if I could handle such power. It would go to my head. How do you remain grounded?

And talking about statistical improbabilities, do you believe evolution?

See the problem you have is not 1 single inconsistency, but the sheer number of excuses you have to make to keep it inerrant.

A single error would make it inerrant. And if there were so many, it would be easy for you to list one.

Even if we grant each individual inconsistency 90% odds of being resolved with your excuses, that means a mere 7 would make it less like then likely that the bible is inerrant.

So your claim is not that there is any one inconsistency in the Bible but that the likelihood of all the explanations being true is statistically 0? That's new one. The Bible is statistically unlikely to be true. Sounds a lot less sure than your first claim where you made a dare.

Yet we have 100s if not thousands, making the bibles inerrancy a statistical impossibility. Sorry game over you lose if you really think the bible is internally consistent i actually suggest you open your mind and start reading it.

lol. Amazing. This doofus has declared the debate over and that I've lost before he has had to defend one single claim he's spouted!

Why are you here if you don't wish to debate? But since you have declared yourself winner of this non-debate, have fun with your non-crown. Is it circle-jerk time atheists?

Perhaps do some horizontal readings where you read the same story in different parts of the bible and list the events and orders and compare. It will enlighten you to how many dependencies there are to be worked out.

Thank you for telling me what to do. If I may give you a suggestion also? Stupidity and militancy don't go well together. You must actually win an argument before you declare yourself the winner. You may feel good simply calling yourself the winner, but you look like a right idiot to the Gentle Readers. People tend not to side with those who appear to be idiots.

Atheist - Christians will never address the inconsistencies in the Bible. I dare a Christian to address them.
Theist - I dare. List one inconsistency.
Atheist - >>>Rants<<<<

SCMike, I don't know you, but you have my sympathy.

Not a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations. Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.

Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:

X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.

Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.

Now in reality the average percentage I have given of 90% chance for each error being resolved is quite generous. Lets look at just a few of these errors. In Matthew Judas hangs himself, while in Acts he falls headlong ripping his bowels out. Now there have been attempts to say that he hung himself and then fell and his bowels were ripped out that way. Yet, how likely is it that the author of Acts, who is the one historian among gospel writers(also authored Paul), would leave out a crucial detail such as he hung himself. This is important because Acts and Matthew were not written to be combined and its possible a author claiming to be writing a complete account could forget this detail, but not likely, therefore putting the true odds below 50%. Yet, we have the problem of Matthew claims Judas threw the reward into the temple and the priests bought the field of blood with it. Acts on the other hand claims that Judas bought the field of blood with the reward. There is an attempt to reconcile this by saying that the priests bought the field in Judas' name, again for the same reason possible but not likely. So again well below 50%. Another example is that the bible claims Moses and Aaron are 5th generation descendants of Jacob, while Joshua their contemporary is a 13th generation descendant. The only rationalization I have heard for this is generation can be of different lengths, but for this much of a discrepancy the generation between Jacob and Moses (and Aaron) must have all been on the short end, the one between Jacob and Joshua must have all been on the long end. Again strictly possible, but not likely, so odds far below 50%. We also have the the error with Matthew claiming Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BCE. Yet, Luke claims jesus was born during the governorship of Quirinius which was 6 CE. Since Matthew has Herod kill all the 2 year olds or under we can assume that Jesus was born more then 10 years apart in these stories. Now its possible as some christians postulate that Quirinius had a earlier governorship, but not likely since through historians of the time like Tactus and Josephus, we have a very good record of who was governor of syria: Sentius Saturninus from 9-6 BCE and Quintilus Varus from 6 to 4 BCE and we also know what Quirinius was up to at that time: He was in Asia Minor between 12 and 6 BCE, where he fought the war against the Homonadenses. He was the governor of Pamphylia-Galatia between 6 to 1 BCE. So again not very likely. So again we can safely say these odds are below 50% So with these it would take a mere 4 at 50% odds for the christian only to have a 6.25 chance of be
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:26:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
previous post has an error the author of acts authored Luke, not Pauls letters, but as a christian I would somehow come up with a ridiculous excuse for why that isn't an error.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:37:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The errors are in your lack of understanding and prejudice against God. Large sums of money have been offered as a reward to anybody who can prove error in the Bible.
Those challenges are brushed under the carpet and forgotten about, while people who pretend to be scholarly throw out accusations againt God and His Word without accepting reasonable explanations of things which may appear as contradictory to people who approach God from the error of their own hearts and minds. Those people, like yourself, will reject truth, twist meanings, exagerate wordings which differ in different places wiithout investigating the context or the meanins of the differing wordings. When a truly non-biased approach is taken, the Bible cannot be shown to be contradictory to itself.

People like you hate the Bible because is says you are a sinner who deserves to die an burn in Hell and you need God's forgiveness or you will fry like an eternal sausage in Hell. You think you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell simply because you are not there now, and in your pride you defy God and put on a show of how brave you are and how unafraid of death you are. The Bible says God will laugh at people like you. And you probably will try to twist that against God as a accusation to say He is not good and He is not loving. God loves you. He will let you go your own way if you want to, even though He knows your own way is taking you forever away from Him into Hell.

The mind that is twisted againt God in reality is simple. In expresion, that mind seems complicated and puts on a wild dance of self expression, but it's really very simple. All who hate God love death. You obviously hate God and show it by your hatred of His Word. His Word will stand forever. You wil fall. You can fall before Him and trust Him to save you from death through the blood He paid to buy you back from Hell when He took your place as Jesus Christ in the cross, or you can pay for your own defiance of God in Hell. You are trying to shortchange God, but He won't let you escape in death.
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:43:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 9:22:43 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:39:34 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Not a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations.

That is because the atheist has not presented certain contradiction, just a possible one. You proceed as if any claimed contradiction by the atheist is in fact an actual contradiction. If your premise includes your conclusion, you argument is a fallacy.

Then you keep the supposed "contradiction" and use it as a "stat" to show that the bible could not possibly dismiss all those "contradictions". You wouldn't need such dishonest argumentation if you thought your argument was sound.

Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.

Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:

X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.

Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.

I doubt you are capable of understanding how stupid this argument really is. Suffice it to say that your argument needs to pretend that every atheist charge of contradiction is valid. That Christianity is hurt by every claim of contradiction by the atheist.

From my experience, 60 percent of the claims are just atheists with poor reading comprehension. Another 20 percent are just atheist unwilling to accept any evidence that supports the Bible no matter how stupid they have to be in order to reject the evidence. And 20 percent are just too dim-witted to see that their argument is illogical.

You're in the last 20%
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:47:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 9:43:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:22:43 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:39:34 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Not a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations.

That is because the atheist has not presented certain contradiction, just a possible one. You proceed as if any claimed contradiction by the atheist is in fact an actual contradiction. If your premise includes your conclusion, you argument is a fallacy.

Then you keep the supposed "contradiction" and use it as a "stat" to show that the bible could not possibly dismiss all those "contradictions". You wouldn't need such dishonest argumentation if you thought your argument was sound.

Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.

Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:

X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.

Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.

I doubt you are capable of understanding how stupid this argument really is. Suffice it to say that your argument needs to pretend that every atheist charge of contradiction is valid. That Christianity is hurt by every claim of contradiction by the atheist.

From my experience, 60 percent of the claims are just atheists with poor reading comprehension. Another 20 percent are just atheist unwilling to accept any evidence that supports the Bible no matter how stupid they have to be in order to reject the evidence. And 20 percent are just too dim-witted to see that their argument is illogical.

You're in the last 20%

No what we have to conclude here is you aren't the brightest crayon in the box, you may be dark brown. I mean seriously I have granted you a 90% chance that any given excuse you give for the bible is correct, and thats not good enough for you. You instead insist im being the stubborn one who won't accept anything of the bible when I have given myself only a 10% chance on being right on any bible subject, Go F yourself if thats the way you are going to enter this discussion.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:49:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 9:43:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:22:43 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 8:39:34 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Not a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations.

That is because the atheist has not presented certain contradiction, just a possible one. You proceed as if any claimed contradiction by the atheist is in fact an actual contradiction. If your premise includes your conclusion, you argument is a fallacy.

Then you keep the supposed "contradiction" and use it as a "stat" to show that the bible could not possibly dismiss all those "contradictions". You wouldn't need such dishonest argumentation if you thought your argument was sound.

Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.

Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:

X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.

Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.

I doubt you are capable of understanding how stupid this argument really is. Suffice it to say that your argument needs to pretend that every atheist charge of contradiction is valid. That Christianity is hurt by every claim of contradiction by the atheist.

From my experience, 60 percent of the claims are just atheists with poor reading comprehension. Another 20 percent are just atheist unwilling to accept any evidence that supports the Bible no matter how stupid they have to be in order to reject the evidence. And 20 percent are just too dim-witted to see that their argument is illogical.

You're in the last 20%
By the way the funniest thing you say is about reading comprehension. Seriously a person who thinks a story about a zombie born savior is a truth tale, wants to talk about reading comprehension, seriously?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 12:46:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
-clears his throat, refers to a previous reply-
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 12:15:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 9:47:18 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:43:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Not a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations.

That is because the atheist has not presented certain contradiction, just a possible one. You proceed as if any claimed contradiction by the atheist is in fact an actual contradiction. If your premise includes your conclusion, you argument is a fallacy.

Then you keep the supposed "contradiction" and use it as a "stat" to show that the bible could not possibly dismiss all those "contradictions". You wouldn't need such dishonest argumentation if you thought your argument was sound.

Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.

Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:

X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.

Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.

I doubt you are capable of understanding how stupid this argument really is. Suffice it to say that your argument needs to pretend that every atheist charge of contradiction is valid. That Christianity is hurt by every claim of contradiction by the atheist.

From my experience, 60 percent of the claims are just atheists with poor reading comprehension. Another 20 percent are just atheist unwilling to accept any evidence that supports the Bible no matter how stupid they have to be in order to reject the evidence. And 20 percent are just too dim-witted to see that their argument is illogical.

You're in the last 20%

I mean seriously I have granted you a 90% chance that any given excuse you give for the bible is correct,

There is no need for stupidity. You don't get to decide that my responses are "excuses". Nor will we start the convo off with the assumption that the Bible needs "excuses. You will have to actually win your points through logical debate, not assume them due to some weird belief that you're the referee and we are playing on your court.

You cannot begin the convo assuming your bias is reality. That is lazy. If you cannot argue your claims, they will be thrown out.

... and thats not good enough for you. You instead insist im being the stubborn one who won't accept anything of the bible when I have given myself only a 10% chance on being right on any bible subject,

You don't get to divide up the chances. Who died and made you Umpire? My claim is that the Bible is 100% right. Why in the world would I agree to your lazy "grant" that 90% is correct? You haven't proven even 0.1% wrong and you want to get gifted with 10%. You will have to earn it slick.

Go F yourself if thats the way you are going to enter this discussion.

Sure. Vulgarity. Did you notice how you entered the convo? Of course not, because you're a militant atheist and you only see the poo of others. You have no argument. You are here to preach to the choir and have them stroke your fragile ego.

Have fun doing that. The Gentle Reader will see that when you were challenged, you had nothing other than hot air.

By the way the funniest thing you say is about reading comprehension.

If you don't take it seriously, it will never improve.

Seriously a person who thinks a story about a zombie born savior is a truth tale, wants to talk about reading comprehension, seriously?

Reading comp has nothing to do with whether a story is fiction or fact. An idiot will misunderstand fiction just as easily as fact. Your writing and your thinking show that you have never been inside of a university, much less inside of a critical thinking course.

So here is some help for you. It is really stupid to declare your claim is correct before the debate, it is even more stupid to assume your opponent accepts your claim as correct before debate.

When you're out of your comfortable atheist womb and in what is sometimes called the real world, you will have to win your arguments with reasoned debate. You may not like that, but that is how the real world operates.

You can always crawl back into your womb. In there, you're smart.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 2:59:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 12:15:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:47:18 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:43:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Not a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations.

That is because the atheist has not presented certain contradiction, just a possible one. You proceed as if any claimed contradiction by the atheist is in fact an actual contradiction. If your premise includes your conclusion, you argument is a fallacy.

Then you keep the supposed "contradiction" and use it as a "stat" to show that the bible could not possibly dismiss all those "contradictions". You wouldn't need such dishonest argumentation if you thought your argument was sound.

Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.

Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:

X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.

Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.

I doubt you are capable of understanding how stupid this argument really is. Suffice it to say that your argument needs to pretend that every atheist charge of contradiction is valid. That Christianity is hurt by every claim of contradiction by the atheist.

From my experience, 60 percent of the claims are just atheists with poor reading comprehension. Another 20 percent are just atheist unwilling to accept any evidence that supports the Bible no matter how stupid they have to be in order to reject the evidence. And 20 percent are just too dim-witted to see that their argument is illogical.

You're in the last 20%

I mean seriously I have granted you a 90% chance that any given excuse you give for the bible is correct,

There is no need for stupidity. You don't get to decide that my responses are "excuses". Nor will we start the convo off with the assumption that the Bible needs "excuses. You will have to actually win your points through logical debate, not assume them due to some weird belief that you're the referee and we are playing on your court.

You cannot begin the convo assuming your bias is reality. That is lazy. If you cannot argue your claims, they will be thrown out.

... and thats not good enough for you. You instead insist im being the stubborn one who won't accept anything of the bible when I have given myself only a 10% chance on being right on any bible subject,

You don't get to divide up the chances. Who died and made you Umpire? My claim is that the Bible is 100% right. Why in the world would I agree to your lazy "grant" that 90% is correct? You haven't proven even 0.1% wrong and you want to get gifted with 10%. You will have to earn it slick.

Go F yourself if thats the way you are going to enter this discussion.

Sure. Vulgarity. Did you notice how you entered the convo? Of course not, because you're a militant atheist and you only see the poo of others. You have no argument. You are here to preach to the choir and have them stroke your fragile ego.

Have fun doing that. The Gentle Reader will see that when you were challenged, you had nothing other than hot air.

By the way the funniest thing you say is about reading comprehension.

If you don't take it seriously, it will never improve.

Seriously a person who thinks a story about a zombie born savior is a truth tale, wants to talk about reading comprehension, seriously?

Reading comp has nothing to do with whether a story is fiction or fact. An idiot will misunderstand fiction just as easily as fact. Your writing and your thinking show that you have never been inside of a university, much less inside of a critical thinking course.

So here is some help for you. It is really stupid to declare your claim is correct before the debate, it is even more stupid to assume your opponent accepts your claim as correct before debate.

When you're out of your comfortable atheist womb and in what is sometimes called the real world, you will have to win your arguments with reasoned debate. You may not like that, but that is how the real world operates.

You can always crawl back into your womb. In there, you're smart.

No the problem is there is no debate to be had, the postion the bible is inerrant is the intellectual equivalent of flat earth, you just need to learn this.
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 5:08:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 2:59:16 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/22/2014 12:15:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:47:18 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:43:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Not a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations.

That is because the atheist has not presented certain contradiction, just a possible one. You proceed as if any claimed contradiction by the atheist is in fact an actual contradiction. If your premise includes your conclusion, you argument is a fallacy.

Then you keep the supposed "contradiction" and use it as a "stat" to show that the bible could not possibly dismiss all those "contradictions". You wouldn't need such dishonest argumentation if you thought your argument was sound.

Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.

Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:

X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.

Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.

I doubt you are capable of understanding how stupid this argument really is. Suffice it to say that your argument needs to pretend that every atheist charge of contradiction is valid. That Christianity is hurt by every claim of contradiction by the atheist.

From my experience, 60 percent of the claims are just atheists with poor reading comprehension. Another 20 percent are just atheist unwilling to accept any evidence that supports the Bible no matter how stupid they have to be in order to reject the evidence. And 20 percent are just too dim-witted to see that their argument is illogical.

You're in the last 20%

I mean seriously I have granted you a 90% chance that any given excuse you give for the bible is correct,

There is no need for stupidity. You don't get to decide that my responses are "excuses". Nor will we start the convo off with the assumption that the Bible needs "excuses. You will have to actually win your points through logical debate, not assume them due to some weird belief that you're the referee and we are playing on your court.

You cannot begin the convo assuming your bias is reality. That is lazy. If you cannot argue your claims, they will be thrown out.

... and thats not good enough for you. You instead insist im being the stubborn one who won't accept anything of the bible when I have given myself only a 10% chance on being right on any bible subject,

You don't get to divide up the chances. Who died and made you Umpire? My claim is that the Bible is 100% right. Why in the world would I agree to your lazy "grant" that 90% is correct? You haven't proven even 0.1% wrong and you want to get gifted with 10%. You will have to earn it slick.

Go F yourself if thats the way you are going to enter this discussion.

Sure. Vulgarity. Did you notice how you entered the convo? Of course not, because you're a militant atheist and you only see the poo of others. You have no argument. You are here to preach to the choir and have them stroke your fragile ego.

Have fun doing that. The Gentle Reader will see that when you were challenged, you had nothing other than hot air.

By the way the funniest thing you say is about reading comprehension.

If you don't take it seriously, it will never improve.

Seriously a person who thinks a story about a zombie born savior is a truth tale, wants to talk about reading comprehension, seriously?

Reading comp has nothing to do with whether a story is fiction or fact. An idiot will misunderstand fiction just as easily as fact. Your writing and your thinking show that you have never been inside of a university, much less inside of a critical thinking course.

So here is some help for you. It is really stupid to declare your claim is correct before the debate, it is even more stupid to assume your opponent accepts your claim as correct before debate.

When you're out of your comfortable atheist womb and in what is sometimes called the real world, you will have to win your arguments with reasoned debate. You may not like that, but that is how the real world operates.

You can always crawl back into your womb. In there, you're smart.

No the problem is there is no debate to be had, the postion the bible is inerrant is the intellectual equivalent of flat earth, you just need to learn this.

Yes, you keep repeating this, but if you'd check, you'll find that this is a debate site, not an atheist soapbox. Support your claims. Answer those who challenge your arguments with questions, don't run or dodge.

We already know what you believe, you've stated it numerous times. What we need now is logical arguments showing why we should consider what you believe to be true and correct. Any idiot can say that the belief that the bible is inerrant is the intellectual equivalent of flat earth." But can you demonstrate that with a logical argument? Can you defend that claim when theists throw questions at you?

My guess is that you cannot. Worse, my guess is that you don't wish to, even if you could. And that places you in the category of "any idiot", spouting off pseudo-science gibberish he's gotten off some random atheist website.
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 5:28:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 5:22:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:

I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

Please recount the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I will not. If you have a claim, state it. Tell me your claim. I will not assume you make the same claim as bebil10. That way when I beat you into reality, you won't be able to duck into the old, "I didn't make that claim, it was bebil10!"

Specifically who came to rape who, then where Lot went to tell whom the city was going to be destroyed.

Tell me your claim. If you claim an error, inconsistency or contradiction, state it plainly. I will not do your work for you.

If Lot's sons in laws were depicted as the account told, they would be blind and bumbling around the door, as they too were mentioned as all the men, young and old, who came to the house.

Are you sure you want to assert this? Ok, I will give you a way out, please tell me the location (book/chapter/verse) of the verses you are claiming a contradiction.

I bet they would have been uber cool with Lot offering up their soon to be wives as a tool for group sex, too.

If you could keep your atheist rants all in one place, that would be great. That way I can focus on your claim without having to wade through ill-informed emotional opinions. Your opinions don't interest me.

When thinking of these few men to save the City, were his own sons-in-law not thought of? Or were they just convienient plot devices?

Please make your questions clear. Your musings have no place here. Your atheist slant and spin on the passage is of no interest and does not support your argument. Make a logical claim. What is your problem with the sons-in law?

Or is this one of those stories where looking at it with a critical eye is frowned upon because its allegorical to some extent?

Dude, reality does not reside between your ears. Keep in mind that just because you think something, does not mean it is reality. So state the passage location, say clearly what your claim is, and then I will show you that ignorance is a poor vehicle for condemnation.

Deal?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 5:39:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 5:28:45 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:22:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:

I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

Please recount the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I will not. If you have a claim, state it. Tell me your claim. I will not assume you make the same claim as bebil10. That way when I beat you into reality, you won't be able to duck into the old, "I didn't make that claim, it was bebil10!"

So.... you are not familiar with that tale, then?

Specifically who came to rape who, then where Lot went to tell whom the city was going to be destroyed.

Tell me your claim. If you claim an error, inconsistency or contradiction, state it plainly. I will not do your work for you.

So... then you are not familiar with that tale?

If Lot's sons in laws were depicted as the account told, they would be blind and bumbling around the door, as they too were mentioned as all the men, young and old, who came to the house.

Are you sure you want to assert this? Ok, I will give you a way out, please tell me the location (book/chapter/verse) of the verses you are claiming a contradiction.

So... you ARE familiar with the story, just being argumentative.

I bet they would have been uber cool with Lot offering up their soon to be wives as a tool for group sex, too.

If you could keep your atheist rants all in one place, that would be great. That way I can focus on your claim without having to wade through ill-informed emotional opinions. Your opinions don't interest me.

Good thing Lot offering up his daughters to the mob is scriptural, then.

When thinking of these few men to save the City, were his own sons-in-law not thought of? Or were they just convienient plot devices?

Please make your questions clear. Your musings have no place here. Your atheist slant and spin on the passage is of no interest and does not support your argument. Make a logical claim. What is your problem with the sons-in law?

No, sir, you seem to have this backwards. I know how this is going to go down, you are going to read the story, I will have obvious questions about who was mentioned, why they were mentioned in one part of the tale, and completely forgotten about in other parts, and you will invent reason outside of the scripture as to why the scripture is plainly consistent, even though its obviously not.

Or is this one of those stories where looking at it with a critical eye is frowned upon because its allegorical to some extent?

Dude, reality does not reside between your ears.

Or infront of my eyes when reading the Bible.

Keep in mind that just because you think something, does not mean it is reality. So state the passage location, say clearly what your claim is, and then I will show you that ignorance is a poor vehicle for condemnation.

Deal?

Says the guy whom needs to be told how to find the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I am sure since we are both making use of the same resources for this particular story, there is no reason to mince words on what you want: to be spoon fed. Find it, read it, invent your excuses, and be done with it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 5:55:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 6:48:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 5:55:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.



Lolz. Nice.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 8:19:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 5:39:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/23/2014 5:28:45 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:22:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:

I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

Please recount the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I will not. If you have a claim, state it. Tell me your claim. I will not assume you make the same claim as bebil10. That way when I beat you into reality, you won't be able to duck into the old, "I didn't make that claim, it was bebil10!"

So.... you are not familiar with that tale, then?

The Bible often has multiple renditions of a story. I want to nail you down on a passage so you can't wiggle later. You're making the claim of an inconsistency in the Bible, do I need to wrestle the place you claim is inconsistent out of you? Why?

Specifically who came to rape who, then where Lot went to tell whom the city was going to be destroyed.

Tell me your claim. If you claim an error, inconsistency or contradiction, state it plainly. I will not do your work for you.

So... then you are not familiar with that tale?

When you're ready, you will tell me. Until then, just like bebil10, hot air.

If Lot's sons in laws were depicted as the account told, they would be blind and bumbling around the door, as they too were mentioned as all the men, young and old, who came to the house.

Are you sure you want to assert this? Ok, I will give you a way out, please tell me the location (book/chapter/verse) of the verses you are claiming a contradiction.

So... you ARE familiar with the story, just being argumentative.

You are dense if you think I will begin to defend against a claim of contradiction in the Bible without getting the claimant to state exactly where his claim is. If you don't know where it is, simply say so.

I bet they would have been uber cool with Lot offering up their soon to be wives as a tool for group sex, too.

If you could keep your atheist rants all in one place, that would be great. That way I can focus on your claim without having to wade through ill-informed emotional opinions. Your opinions don't interest me.

Good thing Lot offering up his daughters to the mob is scriptural, then.

Yes, but whether it would be "uber cool" or not isn't. In one place please.

When thinking of these few men to save the City, were his own sons-in-law not thought of? Or were they just convienient plot devices?

Please make your questions clear. Your musings have no place here. Your atheist slant and spin on the passage is of no interest and does not support your argument. Make a logical claim. What is your problem with the sons-in law?

No, sir, you seem to have this backwards. I know how this is going to go down, you are going to read the story, I will have obvious questions about who was mentioned, why they were mentioned in one part of the tale, and completely forgotten about in other parts, and you will invent reason outside of the scripture as to why the scripture is plainly consistent, even though its obviously not.

When you are ready to list where your claim is, we will get to it.

Or is this one of those stories where looking at it with a critical eye is frowned upon because its allegorical to some extent?

Dude, reality does not reside between your ears.

Or infront of my eyes when reading the Bible.

The Bible is reality. You're right about that.

Keep in mind that just because you think something, does not mean it is reality. So state the passage location, say clearly what your claim is, and then I will show you that ignorance is a poor vehicle for condemnation.

Deal?

Says the guy whom needs to be told how to find the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

You made the claim. You tell us where it is. I won't do your work for you.

I am sure since we are both making use of the same resources for this particular story, there is no reason to mince words on what you want: to be spoon fed. Find it, read it, invent your excuses, and be done with it.

lol. You don't know where it is. You got it from an atheist website and swallowed it whole. Why are you embarrassed to tell us you don't know where it is? No one expects you to know the Bible. (You should if you're going to claim it contains error)

Not to worry, we will take it on faith that it's in there somewhere. We trust you.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 8:35:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 8:19:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/23/2014 5:39:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/23/2014 5:28:45 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:22:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:

I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.

Please recount the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I will not. If you have a claim, state it. Tell me your claim. I will not assume you make the same claim as bebil10. That way when I beat you into reality, you won't be able to duck into the old, "I didn't make that claim, it was bebil10!"

So.... you are not familiar with that tale, then?

The Bible often has multiple renditions of a story. I want to nail you down on a passage so you can't wiggle later. You're making the claim of an inconsistency in the Bible, do I need to wrestle the place you claim is inconsistent out of you? Why?

Were it a passage, you might actually have a point. Considering its the story, from the Lord asking Lot about worthy people, all the way until his daughter's were impregnated by dear old dad in the cave. Cause he is such a worthy guy.

Specifically who came to rape who, then where Lot went to tell whom the city was going to be destroyed.

Tell me your claim. If you claim an error, inconsistency or contradiction, state it plainly. I will not do your work for you.

So... then you are not familiar with that tale?

When you're ready, you will tell me. Until then, just like bebil10, hot air.

The story of S and G. Do you think its consistent? That Lots sons in laws were both not worth to be mentioned, but worthy of being saved, and some how not blinded for showing up at Lots door when all the men both young and old came from all quarters of the city to engage in some angel anal?

If Lot's sons in laws were depicted as the account told, they would be blind and bumbling around the door, as they too were mentioned as all the men, young and old, who came to the house.

Are you sure you want to assert this? Ok, I will give you a way out, please tell me the location (book/chapter/verse) of the verses you are claiming a contradiction.

So... you ARE familiar with the story, just being argumentative.

You are dense if you think I will begin to defend against a claim of contradiction in the Bible without getting the claimant to state exactly where his claim is. If you don't know where it is, simply say so.

If you don't know the story, just say so. Seriously, go back, read up, and lets talk about some possible plot holes and devices.

I bet they would have been uber cool with Lot offering up their soon to be wives as a tool for group sex, too.

If you could keep your atheist rants all in one place, that would be great. That way I can focus on your claim without having to wade through ill-informed emotional opinions. Your opinions don't interest me.

Good thing Lot offering up his daughters to the mob is scriptural, then.

Yes, but whether it would be "uber cool" or not isn't. In one place please.

Fair enough.

When thinking of these few men to save the City, were his own sons-in-law not thought of? Or were they just convienient plot devices?

Please make your questions clear. Your musings have no place here. Your atheist slant and spin on the passage is of no interest and does not support your argument. Make a logical claim. What is your problem with the sons-in law?

No, sir, you seem to have this backwards. I know how this is going to go down, you are going to read the story, I will have obvious questions about who was mentioned, why they were mentioned in one part of the tale, and completely forgotten about in other parts, and you will invent reason outside of the scripture as to why the scripture is plainly consistent, even though its obviously not.

When you are ready to list where your claim is, we will get to it.

Then go read the story, its a bit more than 8K characters.

Or is this one of those stories where looking at it with a critical eye is frowned upon because its allegorical to some extent?

Dude, reality does not reside between your ears.

Or infront of my eyes when reading the Bible.

The Bible is reality. You're right about that.

Keep in mind that just because you think something, does not mean it is reality. So state the passage location, say clearly what your claim is, and then I will show you that ignorance is a poor vehicle for condemnation.

Deal?

Says the guy whom needs to be told how to find the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

You made the claim. You tell us where it is. I won't do your work for you.

And its pretty easily found in the story of S and G. Please tell me you are either a) ignorant of what I am referring to or b) just being argumentative because you would prefer not to read it.

I am sure since we are both making use of the same resources for this particular story, there is no reason to mince words on what you want: to be spoon fed. Find it, read it, invent your excuses, and be done with it.

lol. You don't know where it is. You got it from an atheist website and swallowed it whole. Why are you embarrassed to tell us you don't know where it is? No one expects you to know the Bible. (You should if you're going to claim it contains error)

yes, of course, the 'vague' references to specific aspects of the tale reveal that indeed, I am just making something up.

Not to worry, we will take it on faith that it's in there somewhere. We trust you.

That, by far, is the most reasoned and rational thing you have brought to the table. But, seriously, there is no reason to take my word for it. Start with Gen 18:32, when you hit Chapter 20, lets have a pow wow.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 9:31:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 5:55:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:05:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:24:42 PM, bebil10 wrote:
I saw SCMike make this claim. I don't even begin to fathom how any Christian could make such a ridiculous claim. The bible being inerrant and internally consistent is beyond any doubt proven false. SCMike or any other christians dare to take me up on this.

I dare. List one inconsistency.



lol, the video reminds me of a creationist video where one speaker said that because an animal in a herd who died from disease was one of the fittest, the evolutionary idea of "survival of the fittest" was wrong.

Of course, it's equivocation of the word "fittest" just like the first question in the video is equivocation on the word "anger". They pretend that "anger" can mean only one thing and if the Bible uses it in any different context, then a contradiction exists. This tactic works as long as two conditions pertain. The listener must not be familiar with the Bible, and he must be intellectually sub par.

Logic like this is either used by the dishonest to fool the intellectually challenged, or by the intellectually challenged to convinced other similarly challenged individuals.

This is why videos like this are not worrisome, they will appeal only to the already convinced, or to very poor thinkers. And this is also why atheists have remained a tiny fraction of the population.

Watching atheist chuckle over this is like watching hillbillies chuckle over how fake the moon landings were.
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 9:43:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 8:35:45 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/23/2014 8:19:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Start with Gen 18:32, when you hit Chapter 20, lets have a pow wow.

Thanks. That wasn't so hard was it? You needed the time to find where the passage was. No problem. Now, that I have the passage, tell me your problem or ask a question.

For communications sake, let your questions be clean. Assuming stupidity along with your question will only frustrate you. For example, asking why Lot's sons were not also struck blind and bumbling around the door outside is dumb. Why assume they were outside? Other than to give your lame argument purchase that is. So keep your unwarranted assumptions (spin) to a minimum.

Second, life is too short for me to pretend that your credulity is what makes a story credible. Telling me that the story is not how you would have written it, or that something seems off, is not a charge worth my time. Come with logic, not opinions.

So, other than hot air, what do you have?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 10:00:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 9:43:24 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/23/2014 8:35:45 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/23/2014 8:19:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Start with Gen 18:32, when you hit Chapter 20, lets have a pow wow.

Thanks. That wasn't so hard was it? You needed the time to find where the passage was. No problem. Now, that I have the passage, tell me your problem or ask a question.

Did you read alllllllll the way?

For communications sake, let your questions be clean. Assuming stupidity along with your question will only frustrate you. For example, asking why Lot's sons were not also struck blind and bumbling around the door outside is dumb. Why assume they were outside?

Nope, you didn't. I assume they were outside because, ya know, scripture sort of demanded it. All the men. Young and old. From all corners. These are not words I am tossing out because they sound cool.

Other than to give your lame argument purchase that is. So keep your unwarranted assumptions (spin) to a minimum.

Unwarranted assumptions/scriptures as written, same difference.

Second, life is too short for me to pretend that your credulity is what makes a story credible. Telling me that the story is not how you would have written it, or that something seems off, is not a charge worth my time. Come with logic, not opinions.

So, then we agree, we need to take it as written, right? No room for spin, literally, just the words on the page. If thats the case, you could have saved us a LOT of time and just nodded and said 'Yeah, some of it doesn't add up as written', but that opens up the Bible to... well, tons of criticism.

So, other than hot air, what do you have?

-sigh- you didn't actually read it, did you?

Rather than list out exactly what makes this particular story obviously inconsistent, lets play a new game: when the Bible continues to make exception like this (or more specifically, you feel the need to), where do we know to not call it a problem of story telling as opposed to, well, you know, OBVIOUS inconsistency?

This was literally the first story that popped into my head, can I assume future deflections will also revolve around some sort of equally deliberate vaguery of perception and story telling?

Here is my 'spin', feel free to ignore it. Might as well keep the trend alive:That being Lot can not recognize his daughters when drunk, his daughters hauled off a cask of wine to a cave, their husbands didn't know them and they were virgins, said sons in laws were just casually forgotten when the men came out to have sex with the new comers, and apparently just as easily forgotten about when Lot was thought of regarding saving the town in general.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 11:57:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 10:00:05 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/23/2014 9:43:24 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Start with Gen 18:32, when you hit Chapter 20, lets have a pow wow.

Thanks. That wasn't so hard was it? You needed the time to find where the passage was. No problem. Now, that I have the passage, tell me your problem or ask a question.

Did you read alllllllll the way?

Sure I did.

For communications sake, let your questions be clean. Assuming stupidity along with your question will only frustrate you. For example, asking why Lot's sons were not also struck blind and bumbling around the door outside is dumb. Why assume they were outside?

Nope, you didn't. I assume they were outside because, ya know, scripture sort of demanded it.

It's not scripture demanding it, it's you. And you're demanding it because you're biased and not very bright.

All the men. Young and old. From all corners. These are not words I am tossing out because they sound cool.

I love it when an atheist is wrong but doesn't know it yet so he's cocky. Let's go to the script ok?

Gen 19:4 - But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

Lot and his family were not "of the city". They were visitors there and were not considered men of the city. Observe what the men of the city said to Lot,

Gen 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge:

Even the men of the city did not consider Lot and his family to be "of the city".

Now besides this obvious fact in the texts, only a blithering idiot or a retchingly dishonest person would claim that when the story said "All the men of the city" it included the sons of Lot. That is simply blindingly stupid. Why don't you think it included Lot also? Was he not also a man? lol.

It was night and Lot and his family are inside the house. The men of the city come and demand the two angels inside. Why would Lot's sons be outside? Why would they be demanding the men even if they were outside? But no, the only way you can concoct an "inconsistency" is to abandon common sense and be dazzlingly stupid.

Sorry, I know you probably aren't stupid. You simply swallowed whole the stupidity you got from the atheist website. You don't know the Bible and your bias caused you to believe what you were told without question. But you do have some responsibility for the stupidity though.

Other than to give your lame argument purchase that is. So keep your unwarranted assumptions (spin) to a minimum.

Unwarranted assumptions/scriptures as written, same difference.

Yes. I like the as "written part." If you go back a little ways, to Genesis 13 and 14, you will see the story of how Lot came to be in Sodom, where he left, and why he left his home.

Second, life is too short for me to pretend that your credulity is what makes a story credible. Telling me that the story is not how you would have written it, or that something seems off, is not a charge worth my time. Come with logic, not opinions.

So, then we agree, we need to take it as written, right? No room for spin, literally, just the words on the page. If thats the case, you could have saved us a LOT of time and just nodded and said 'Yeah, some of it doesn't add up as written', but that opens up the Bible to... well, tons of criticism.

We just opened up the Bible AS WRITTEN and we found that your criticism of it is borne of ignorance. Pick any place in the Bible and I will show you that in every case, you either have been misled, or you are assuming the most ridiculous and asinine interpretation possible to make your claim of inconsistency work.

So, other than hot air, what do you have?

-sigh- you didn't actually read it, did you?

You're the one who not only missed "men OF THE CITY" but had the ridiculous idea that Lot's sons would come out of the house, and then start beating on the door to get back in at the men.

Rather than list out exactly what makes this particular story obviously inconsistent, lets play a new game:

Sure. You can't list what makes this story inconsistent, so we'll play another game. Let me guess, you'll next be unable to list why another story is inconsistent.

...when the Bible continues to make exception like this (or more specifically, you feel the need to), where do we know to not call it a problem of story telling as opposed to, well, you know, OBVIOUS inconsistency?

This is how I know I can beat you. Neither you, bebil10, or the troll acted as if you even needed to hear my side. All of you are so convinced of your case you behaved as if it should be obvious to even me that I did not need to say anything. My experience has shown me that dogmatism like that almost always springs from ignorance.

This was literally the first story that popped into my head, can I assume future deflections will also revolve around some sort of equally deliberate vaguery of perception and story telling?

See? You have not yet read my post and you are ready to pretend vaguery of perception and story telling is a fact. Sometimes I wish I had more of a challenge.

Here is my 'spin', feel free to ignore it. Might as well keep the trend alive:That being Lot can not recognize his daughters when drunk, his daughters hauled off a cask of wine to a cave, their husbands didn't know them and they were virgins, said sons in laws were just casually forgotten when the men came out to have sex with the new comers, and apparently just as easily forgotten about when Lot was thought of regarding saving the town in general.

Thanks for the spin. Hope it brings you comfort. I will stick to common sense and what the texts actually say, if you don't mind.