Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
No that's untrue, you re the one using semantics not me, but here are the standard dictionary definitions.
1. a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
2. a situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
3. the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
Again you seem to not know what contradiction means, as intent is irrelevant, though it's amusing to see your rationalisation become so desperate you're now implying you know what individual biblical authors intended, yet their own texts contradict each other. Thoug all of that is irrelevant of course as here is yet again an unequivocal biblical contradiction...
Exodus 33:20 New International Version (NIV)
20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
Which is unequivocally contradicted here:
Exodus 33:11
English Standard Version
11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
Genesis 32:30
English Standard Version
30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
QED
@ Lion IRC
"Both my statements about Robert Menzies are true albeit 'contradictory' by your definition of what a contradiction is."
Which reveals where you come from, displaying complete ignorance on the Australian parliamentary procedure. An elected official can serve as many times as the voters offer support. There was just one Sir Robert Menzies, he served two separate terms.
If those two statements about Menzies were in the bible you would be labelling them contradictory.
Also, you don't know me from a bar of soap.
I met Dame Pattie Menzies in person - at a Liberal Party, members only, fund raiser.
I think I have a basic understanding of Australian politics.
@ Lion IRC
"If those two statements about Menzies were in the bible you would be labelling them contradictory."
Not at all, there is zero conflict for the statements ...
"Robert Menzies was Prime Minister of Australia from 1949 to 1966
Robert Menzies was Prime Minister of Australia from 1931 to 1941"
Hmm, once again, another indicator. Someone attempting to redefine commonly known terms. I have seen that before too. I just love the study of behaviors, it is so much fun.
@Lion IRC
Can you (or anyone) demonstrate/evidence these claims in any way?
No? Then what other explanations you got? You do realize you might as well be arguing for the existence of (harry potter) Dumbledore, and then pointing out lord of the rings gandalf is wrong, but dumbledore is real, then arguing over which person played dumbledore, (several) but all the while instead of it being widely accepted it is just a fictional story, here, theist of a particular religion are trying to pass off a similar story, except its 2000+ year old highly edited, translated, and heavily plagiarized (in both directions) story as... the ultimate truth and reality. Where meanwhile there is a 1000 different currently popular version of this idea, with another 10,000 more less popular slightly different to very different version of the same idea.
Now you're changing the topic.
It was about whether there are contradictions in the bible.
Now you're on to demanding evidence.
If we were discussing Harry Potter storyline continuity errors and I started to veer off into a (hand waving) derail about Harry Potter being fictional, that would be like knocking over the chess pieces in the middle of a game.
In the interests of staying on topic, can't you manage a simple bit of arguendo - for arguments sake - and just stick to the alleged contradictions?
@Lion IRC
I guess, trying to compare one human created book to another to further conversation on your holy book and its contradictions is too big of a leap for you. How convenient for you and your argument. I tried to dumb it down to something we can all understand.
Oh I thought you were the one demanding evidence for contradictions in the bible. I also did not demand, I asked a simple question do you have any demonstrable evidence. A question, signified by a question mark at the end of the sentence.
That is the point, do you consider harry potter to be fictional? If so, why? Just simply because the author said it was fictional? So 1 person saying if a book is fictional or not decides the matter for you? And that person is still alive! You could feasibly even go ask her. The various versions of the bible/other holy books has zero accountability even in this way.
And why does it feel like knocking over chess pieces to you? I asked a question and you compare me to being a brat that likes to ruin chess games mid match?
Sure. I even posted about genesis and the word "day." Of which I have not seen any rebuttal/response from you. It seems you are more interested in making me look bad then actually responding to my points. Do not worry, I am not upset, this is predictable behavior, I have been here for years, you so far, like the 100's of other religious apologist, trolls, etc that swing by here, bring absolutely nothing new to the table so far. All I seen from years on these boards and ones like it is more confirmation that religious apologist have nothing new.
All I seen so far is: (paraphrased:) "my god idea is above any criticism or reproach," no matter how reasonable, logical or evidenced the criticism is. No matter if there is huge contradictions in the written format. Additionally I have never heard or seen any religious person actually have demonstrable evidence for any of their god ideas. Instead just a big hole that theist like to tip around, typically trying to reverse the burden of proof. Which, when examined in even a cursory manner is just insane. Like I often say: "You owe me 1 million dollars, prove me wrong."
@LogicFTW
You say you "posted about genesis and the word "day."
And "have not seen any rebuttal/response from you."
I can't find the post to which you're referring. Was it a question to me? In this thread?
Can you give me the link to that post or ask the question again?
@Lion IRC
It is very possible I did not address the question to you, if true, I apologize. So I will formally ask you now:
Genesis 1 describes "god" creating the universe in 6 days with 1 day of rest. There are many slight variations of genesis over the years, but it seems most of the popular ones today, talk about sun/light being done on day 2 or 3. - 1 contradiction already, but not even the biggest.) How can there be a "day" without light? (our sun.)
For 10's of thousands of years (far before people could even make/print books) people well understood the term "day." (In whatever language they used back then.) I can only assume you agree with me. The word day, is a VERY well understood concept, and probably the first form of "time" as measurement. We have many biological systems even with our own body that recognizes day/night cycle even if we did not have a word for it.
And these are the words that the writers/editors/translators of genesis used. I have heard many theist apologist argue that we should not take the word "day" literally in genesis.
Really? The word day? If such a simple, widely recognized and used concept of a day cannot be taken literally, what can? How do we take anything at all in genesis or any other book about god that leans on genesis seriously? If the authors are free to use words quite contrary to the accepted definition of the word where does it stop? Why use the word day to describe, when we are talking on time scale of billions of years?
And if we were to take "day" in genesis literally, you open up a million and one additional contradictions. First among them, (in my mind) an all powerful god creates the universe in 6 earth rotations? It sort of made sense at the time the authors first penned genesis, when people thought the earth was the center of the solar system, and our solar system at the center of the universe and we did not know the universe was ~13.7 billion years old.
These days we know better. All actual observable data/evidence points to earth not being the center of the solar system, nor the center of the universe. Observable repeatable test results show our planet is 4.53 billion years old. And it took 4.52 billion years for earth to even remotely be hospitable for early humans.
Then of course, an old favorite of mine: an all powerful all knowing god that can create the universe in 6 earth rotations, needs 1 earth rotation of rest?
Finally the biggest contradiction that applies to any god idea I ever heard:
Genesis (or really any holy book that describes a god idea) reads exactly how I expect people who wrote genesis at the time, with all the limitations of HUMAN knowledge at the time it was written. It most certainly does NOT sound like an all powerful and knowing entity detailing to us mere mortals to write down, how it all got created. I can easily see humans making the mistake 2000 years ago to say: "6 days," but an all powerful and knowing god entity? Even humans should be embarrassed by this huge mistake, let alone a supposed all powerful and all knowing "god."
Once we eliminate genesis as any sort of factual accounting of creation, what are you left with? How did we come to be? Where did this god idea come from besides collective human imagination? To me it all falls down like a house of cards once you remove genesis as any sort of accurate recounting of how the universe and ourselves came to be.
@Lion IRC
Discrepancies and contradictions are to be expected between different writers, in different places and times concerning single events and especially for divine proclamations, but how would you account for the discrepancies of the single writer, Luke?
In his gospel he insists that Jesus was born before Herod's death which occurred in 4BC while it was the census ordered by the Roman governor of Syria Quirinius in 6CE that forced Joseph to take pregnant Mary to Bethlehem? This leaves a more than ten year gap between Jesus's birth and his parents arrival to the place of his birth.
Then for a puzzling display of contradictory reporting, in his Acts, Luke relates three varying accounts of Paul's Damascene conversion with three different sets of actions and outcomes. Luke could only have heard the story from Paul himself. How is it that there are three different reports by the one author of the single event from a single source?
Many apologists struggle with doubtful re-interpretations of Luke's words concerning Qurinius's census but then elsewhere in Acts defend Luke's impeccable reportage of the names and titles of Roman and Jewish administrators as evidence of his skill as a historian. There is no question that when it comes to historical and geographical matters, Luke is usually correct and is supported by independent historians, such as Josephus, but when it comes to religious claims, like the date of Jesus's birthday and the specifics of Paul's miraculous conversion that accuracy is replaced with the vagueness and vagaries usually associated with spiritual enthusiasms.
This is not the divinely inspired, inerrant word of a god, it's the usual dubious, sometimes messy witness of eager religious acolytes detemined to convince others to believe.
The census wasn't ordered by Quirinius, it was ordered by Quirinius' boss.
And its not a very specific or useful time stamp because it's duration from start to finish may very well have taken a decade or more.
Also see my post about the Australian Prime Minister whose time in office covered varying periods of time. Quirinius may have been the effective, de facto Governor of Syria well before the official 6AD date.
That scenario gives us huge leeway to reconcile the timeline.
As for Acts and Paul's conversion, could you please cite the two conflicting verses on which you base your claim. Thanks.
@ Lion IRC
If by Quirinius's boss, you mean Augustus Caesar, there was never any empire-wide census ordered by Augustus, ever. Even theist biblical scholars agree this was one of Luke's furphies.
Quirinus was already the nominated governor of Syria in the north, when Augustus Caesar had Herod Archelaus, Herod the Great's son and successor in 4BC, deposed in 6AD, after which Quirinius had the province of Judea in the south added to his control.
These dates are not mere speculations or vague timestamps but specifically recorded dates marking start and finish of Archelaus's rule as a client king of the Empire. Apologists have long tried to imply Quirinius's involvement in the affairs of Archelaus's kingship but client kingdoms were not taxed by the Empire, that was a part of Roman law to ensure compliance of client states and the Romans were noted for their adherence to their laws. The notion that Quirinius was a some sort of defacto governor before 6AD has been passed off as a clumsy attempt to preserve the supposed inerrancy of the bible.
In any case, as part of Quirinius's duties for this new acquistion of Judea for the Empire, was the conduct of a census in order to estimate the amount taxes that might be garnered from the as yet untaxed (by the Romans) provence of Judea. The hostile reaction of the Jews in the form of an uprising suggests it was a new tax that the priesthood insisted the people should pay.
And as Galilee was already under the governance of Syria, and not Judea, Joseph was not even required to go anywhere, his taxes were already going to Syria.
Further, no Roman census anywhere in the Empire required people to return to their place of birth. How was that to be policed or monitored in that age?
The basis of the Empire was 'pax romana'. How would the Roman peace be served if the entire population started moving around getting to their supposed ancestral homes temporarily and then returning to their current homes and places of work? Think of the disruption to the economy! Ironically such a measure would skew any possiblility of a heathy revenue. The whole census idea was an invention of Luke's to help support the "messiah from Bethlehem, city of David" prophecy and nothing more.
I'll get back to you about Paul's Damascene conversion. Its a complicated tangle to explain with so many contradictions and omissions associated with the three versions and more and requires more time than I currently have to explain properly from scratch. Much on my plate in RL until the weekend, I will try to respond by then.
Perhaps you might like to have a read of the three instances yourself.
I am somewhat surprised you are not already familiar with this or know where to look for them, after all this guy was absolutely fundamental to the rise of the upstart Jewish heresy that became the mainsteam dominant religion for the next 2000 years. It would be well worth your reading.
So have a geezer at these three references: Acts 9:3-8, Acts 22:6-11, and Acts 26:13-19 and see what you make of it.
Catch you later, sport.
Oh BTW there is no disputation that Sir Robert Menzies was elected Prime Minister of Australia twice. There has never been any suggestion that his two terms ever conformed to any definition of a contradiction. I know you only used it as an some sort of strangled example but its neither effective nor relevant.
And it wasn't all that long ago. I remember him as PM when I was a young teenager...well ok it was some time ago but its certainly not beyond living memory.
So Lion IRC, we have a biblical passage stating unequivocally that no one has ever seen god face to face, as they could not survive. Then several biblical passages claiming different people saw god face to face.
You seem unwilling to accept this is clearly a contradiction. While I'm not surprised, I can never quite work out what theists imagine atheists make of such an obviously dishonest and biased response.
You've offered straw man fallacies, rhetoric, and facile analogies, and of course tried to redefine the dictionary, all pretty much what we have come to expect from theists who will do any amount of mental gymnastics to avoid conceding a point that was lost from the very first.
The bible is contradictory....
Everybody! Sing along now! (To the tune of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight")
He's a whacko-he's a whacko
He's a whacko-he's a whacko
He's a whacko-he's a whacko
He's a whacko-he's a whacko
In the A-R
The mighty A-R
The Lion has no bite.
In the A-R
The mighty A-R
The Lion has no biiiite....
Oh, heeeeeee-ee-ee-ee-ee...
He-done-run-awaaaay...
Yeah, heeeeeee-ee-ee-ee-ee...
He-done-run-awaaaaay...
Or this perhaps sums up the blinkered approach quite nicely...
https://youtu.be/ysFrt3V7nvI
I thought this was a debate thread/forum.
@Lion IRC
It is a debate forum, but when someone continues to insist there are no contradictions in the bible after this....
Exodus 33:20 New International Version (NIV)
20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
Which is unequivocally contradicted here:
Exodus 33:11
English Standard Version
11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
Genesis 32:30
English Standard Version
30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel,7 saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
QED
You have to wonder whether it's worth trying to debate anything. As it is so unequivocally a contradiction, that to deny it, or ignore it with semantics, makes debate rather pointless.
Do you accept these passages contradict each other, yes or no?
If yes then you must rationally accept the bible has at least one contradiction.
Given you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity, or anything supernatural, this surely is a point it is asinine for you to continue to deny.
The bible also uses the expression 'hand' of God.
Moses speaking to God face to face is a similar anthropomorphism, but note how Moses later asks to see His real face. Why would Moses ask that if he had already seen the literal, physical face of God?
No, the text makes it clear that Moses understands he has not actually seen God. And God further points out to Moses that it's not possible for living mortal humans to truly see Him. (See what I wrote about being able to see part of the universe but not THE universe.
All you've done his highlight yet another contradiction, so well done. I also note you've comlpletely ignored the other example which slso amply demonstrates a biblical contradiction.
Though fair play to you, to claim face to face doesn't actually mean face to face is as asinine a piece of evasion as I've seen from a biblical apologist. Again this kind of dishonest semantics speaks for itself, but given you earlier falsely accused me of semantics, this provided another belly laugh.
Nonsense, the truth is this text simply contradicts the earlier text, and you are determined to ignore it with the usual rhetoric, and the most fantastically dishonest rationlslisations.
Again you have ignored the other text unequivocally saying people saw god face to face, which again illustrates clearly the level of your dishonesty here.
So to recap...face to face means just that in one text, but is arbitrarily and inexplicably dismissed as meaning something else in two others? You can literally believe anything if you're prepared to deal in semantics as dishonest as that, and clearly you are.
Exodus 33:11
English Standard Version
11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
Genesis 32:30
English Standard Version
30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
QED
I think we're done, as any further discourse seems futile when you're prepared to deny any facts at will, rather than have an honest discussion.
@ Lion IRC
"I thought this was a debate thread/forum."
Yes it is.
Someone offers a proposition or makes an assertion, and it will be critically examined, not just accepted. That is the first step in any healthy debate, to separate the wheat from the chaff.
*Speaking in my best Canadian accent*
Sorry.
lIL kITTY: When you gonna start? Inane and unsubstantiated assertions are not a part of any debate.
EVERYONE ELSE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fn36l_z3WY
More from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Well I didn’t mean for this to turn into a debate.
I appreciate everyone’s answers and help.
Lion IRC.
Even when I was a believer it was difficult to think critically..
Our rational mind as believers has been toxified.
Now the genealogy is a clear cut example of a contradiction.
Judas not only dying twice but two different ways as well as even in context of both deaths he either bought the field or others did.
Why are there two creation accounts in genesis 1-2?
Hi Italianish,
1. Sarcasm and belittling: - there is a fair amount of that here. They have vacuous egos and are trying to artificially inflate their ego with such talk. Really they have nothing to offer. In my experience here there are about a half dozen atheists here who exhibit some reasonableness. The rest are triflers who have no sincere desire to know anything of value.
2.a I'm a theist and I don't believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant. Inerrancy of the Bible is a Fundamentalist Christian myth that tries to make it a Paper Pope. You don't have to believe in an infallible Bible to be a theist.
2.b The Bible is not a science book. It is stories, and poems, and prose written by people who are sincere theists. It should be interpreted as literature is interpreted.
3.a Atheists have, willy nilly, their own faith. Their faith is that there is a natural scientific explanation for everything. they demand of theists that the theist prove the existence of God, but they decline to prove their own faith. Ask them to give a natural scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and they twist, turn, and weasel to get out of it. they do that because there is no natural scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, there is only their faith that such an explanation is forthcoming despite the fact that the origin of the universe is beyond the horizons of science.
3.b There is no conflict between science and theism. God created all the natural processes and science studies the natural process God created. hence it isn't possible for science to be in conflict with belief in a creator God.
4. If atheism appeals to you, so be it. Just be a good one. Part of being a good one is acknowledging it is a faith in, and worship of, nature and science.
@ Apollo
1) Sadly, there can be animosity. But I can speak only for myself, atheists do not have a central authority or dogma.
2) In his letter to Castelli, Galileo stated "the Bible was an authority on faith and morals, not on science."
3.a) I respectfully disagree. Atheism is just one thing, a lack of belief in the god claim. Apollo, I am taken back by this post, because in #1 you commented on poor behaviors by atheists, yet you knowingly and falsely misrepresented atheism. If you preach good manners, I expect you to set the example. Be honest and moral, or fuck off.
On the origins of this universe, the scientific explanation is the one I find most appealing, rational, and built on evidence. Yes, there are gaps in our knowledge, and yes, many times you will hear "we don't know". But that is being honest with our ignorance instead of just making up shit.
Do you know why "Dark Energy" was the label applied to the currently unknown process that is accelerating the expansion of the universe? It is not evil or Darth Vader kind of crap, the word "Dark" is used to point out our current ignorance on this topic.
3.b) Sadly, a quick search in Google will reveal many, many conflicts between science and some of the nonsense spewed out of the bible.
Genesis 30:37-39
37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.
4) I am an atheist, fuck off with your false claims of it being a faith.
@Apollo Re: "2.a I'm a theist and I don't believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant."
Uh-Oh!!! I believe between you and our stoic Mr. Lion, one of you is not a TRUE Christian. Because in case you missed it, our lovely Lion is a super-duper-devout fully-faithful fan of god, and he has gone on record saying the bible is ABSOLUTELY true and is in NO WAY errant. His bible is PERFECT. So, how are we ever going to solve this dilemma??? Because if you two self-proclaimed gospel gobblers cannot even agree between yourselves what your PERFECT god wants you to know, then how are we godless heathens suppose to determine which of you we should follow? ... *tapping lips with index finger*... Hmmm... Thumb wrestling, maybe? Best of two out of three wins?...Ummmm, how about a faith contest? Whoever can prove he has the most faith wins... *scratching head*.... Oh, I know! You and Lion can compete in a spelling bee! That should be fair. Cool! I'll go grab my dictionary.
(And you theists wonder why we atheists are so lost and confused and wandering cold and lonely in the dark wilderness?)
@Tin Re: faith match between our current favorite theists.
I think a dance contest would be best. It would show which would truly humble himself before Gawd.
I don't think either would do particularly well with anything having to do with a dictionary, so that is out.
I would love it if we could set up a thread that only the two of them could use, titled "Is the bible inerrant?" and then just sit back and watch the fireworks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm-SKWB93lI
@Apollo specifically...” there is no natural scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, there is only their faith that such an explanation is forthcoming ”
...confidence is a better word choice. Confident that one may, in the future be forthcoming- maybe, maybe not.
Faith is that “something outside time/space with an identifiable persona, infinitely wise and all powerful” created it. No explanation for “its” existence is necessary.
Now excuse me, I’ve got a sun to worship. If I don’t do it, it may not rise tomorrow...
Now that was fucking hilarious, deliberate?
Pages