Sorry for posting so many videos lately. Because it’s summer I have some extra time on my hands, but I start a new position on Monday, so videos and blog posts will slow down after that. In the meantime, I’ve created a video with some of my favorite bible contradictions from my ongoing list of bible contradictions. Feel free to comment on Youtube. Those conversations usually spiral into nasty ad hominem attacks and reductio ad Hitlerum accusations. I love reading through them!
Recent Comments
abc on Contradictions in the Hadith #… ioannes on Bible contradictions #2: What… Elijah on Bible Contradictions #41: Do s… G, de palma on These murderers are now in hea… Lori Bibbee on These murderers are now in hea… -
The Atheist Papers 
Atheists don’t know what the Bible means, therefore they have no way to organize sufficient coherent thinking on the subject matter to be able to come up with a valid contradiction.
I’ve seen many supposed contradictions put forth by atheists and nearly everyone is based on 100% ignorance of what the Bible really means.
In fact, a good rule of thumb is that whatever an atheist says about the Bible, the exact opposite is probably true.
Wrong. Hard data refute your opinion. In a large study of religious knowledge in the US, the Pew Research Religion and Public LIfe Project did a Religious Knowledge Survey and found:
“Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.”
Executive Summary here: http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/
Full report (PDF) here: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2010/09/religious-knowledge-full-report.pdf
Enjoy.
Observer,
The hard data you cite is atheist propaganda.
No one needs studies to determine that this particular post and those like it, are simple frauds.
All the atheist has to do to get the scoop on contradictions is consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church or some other Christian or Jewish Bible authority.
Most of these supposed contradictions were put to bed centuries ago.
Obviously, to many people, there are contradictions in the Bible. Some of those contradictions are as a result of one’s definition of God. If one postulates that the god of the Bible is not the Prime Creator, the contradiction goes away. So very often when an atheist says that they don’t believe in God, it means that they don’t believe in the God of the Bible. However, as it has been said, for those who believe, no proof is necessary and for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.
I’m actually finding it very difficult to follow your argument. Are you arguing several things at once? Contradictions go away if one doesn’t believe in god? How so? Also, atheists don’t just not believe in the god of the bible, we don’t believe in any god. And lastly, if there was evidence (proof is a mathematical word in the sciences, so I won’t use that word), I would gladly accept it. But there is none that has thus far been presented.
Rayan,
In order to understand what the Bible means, you have to understand the intent of the Author, God.
That understanding comes to mankind through Jesus, the most influential man in human history.
You atheists just make things up as you go.
And with regard to the Bible you guys are drive-by, hit and run disasters.
Sorry for the confusion. If anyone is looking for proof, there obviously is none. One cannot prove that God exists and likewise one cannot prove that he doesn’t exist. Further, as the Pascal Wager states, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible.” Interestingly enough,however, deists and atheists have one thing in common – they have faith in their own beliefs. Usually the argument between deists and atheists centers around the deist’s belief in the god of the Bible. The atheist argues that the Bible is full of contradictions (which it is) and therefore the deist’s belief in their God is flawed (which it is). Then, the atheist very often goes on to say that this proves their point that there is no God (which it does not). Hope that clarifies my point.
Chicago,
Recent discoveries in information theory, cosmology and molecular and cellular biology have proven the existence.
Atheism is dead.
Sorry there is no proof. Only theories and conjecture, although as Einstein said,…”I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver….”
Chicago,
You sound like a flat earther.
Atheists will not accept anything as evidence if it disproves atheism.
You simply ignore it.
Yeah you should probably finish that quote instead of ending it with an ellipsis. Einstein said, to finish your quote, “…but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism.” In other words, Einstein’s stance was that the idea of “god” was actual all human knowledge. Pantheism is a form of atheism. Please, try not to quote mine. It might blow up in your face.
Atheism is not the position that there is no god. That’s a straw man. Atheism is a default position. That is, we don’t know. We make no claims. Theists assert they suspect there is a god. But unfortunately many of them then go on to make wild claims, like SOM who claims to know more about the universe than every scientist who’s ever lived.
I’ll say this again because you’re new to my blog. Theology is a form of philosophy, which is not scientific. I’m one of those sciency atheists. I poke fun at religion because it fails every principle of science because it focuses on philosophy and makes ridiculous claims (first thing in the bible, gen. 1:6, for example).
Also, if you want the fastest and most brutal smack down in history, reference Pascal’s Wager on another atheist’s blog. That has been dismantled by every atheist since it was first suggested. I seriously had to restrain myself from doing it now.
Rayan,
You don’t get to make up or redefine the meaning of words.
Atheism is the firm belief that God does not exist. Atheism is pure materialism.
If you don’t know what’s going on, you’re an agnostic.
Gnostic = I have knowledge that god exists.
Agnostic = I have no knowledge that god exists.
Theism = I have belief god exists.
Atheism = H have no belief god exists.
This shouldn’t be that hard. How long have you been “debating” atheists? You should know better!
Rayan,
This is you arguing with yourself in your own words:
Statement 1: “Atheism is not the position that there is no god.”
Statement 2: “I have no belief god exists.”
I have no belief that god exists = Atheism is the firm belief that God does not exist.
Unless of course you’re an Obama Democrat in which case words can mean anything at any time depending on the situation.
Or unless you’re a lawyer writing ObamaCare or EPA regulations.
But I prefer the Bill Clinton philosophy which comes from Aristotle: Keep it simple stupid.
The only thing I can say to this is, you must be Poe. I cannot imagine that you could be that daft. I’m going with Poe. And I congratulate you on your amazing ability to troll an entire blogging community. “I have no belief in god” suddenly equals “I am firm that god does not exist”? Poe. Classic Poe. But you can’t tell me, otherwise it won’t be Poe anymore.
In case you’re not Poe, here’s another one. I have no belief in Brengok. That does not mean I am firm in my belief that Brengok doesn’t exist. He might. You can’t prove he doesn’t.
Ray,
If I had an argument with myself and lost, I suppose I would get a little grouchy too.
I also suppose that it’s only natural for an atheist such as yourself, who lost an argument with yourself, to blame the Christian, call him a name and then insult God by comparing him to “Brengok.”
Calling someone Poe is not name calling. The word Poe is used to describe a person who’s fundamentally religious to a point that it doesn’t seem real. It’s no different from saying “This is too good to be true.”
Rayan,
You just said that calling someone a name isn’t really calling them a name.
That’s another example of you losing an argument with yourself.
The women in your life must find you to be a very easy mark.
Rayan, I’m fascinated by your assertion that pantheism is a form of atheism. Also your definition of atheism as being not having a belief that any god exists is interesting.
Taking the atheism definition first, I’m not sure I understand. I can take two somewhat different meanings from it.
1. I see no evidence that god exists, so it is not possible to believe in god, however not seeing evidence is not proof of god’s nonexistence.
2. I see no evidence that god exists, so anyone who believes god exists is living in cloud cuckoo land.
My experience has been that atheists argue from the second point of view: that there is no god, so I’m a little confused by your comment about pantheism. As I understand it, pantheism is:
1. a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.
If god and the universe are one and the same, then surely that is accepting the existence of god, and is in contradiction to your definition of an atheist.
For what it’s worth, I seem to have beliefs that are aligned with both definitions of pantheism, as does the religious group I associate with. But I’ve never thought of myself a pantheist or atheist – more of a very liberal Christian.
Sigh. Fucking facepalm. There are so many things wrong with your statement. I seriously don’t know where to begin. How do we begin cleaning up flight 17? I guess one piece at a time.
1. No atheist argues from that perspective. Not a single one. No atheist argues there is no god. People make that statement in jest quite often. I’ll cede that point. But saying there is no god is just as illogical as saying there is a god.
2. Pantheism is the statement that human beings’ understanding of the word god is actually a naturalistic statement, which encompasses the natural universe as described by our observations. It’s not the Futurama version of god. It’s not saying god is the universe. It’s saying what theists say is god is actually defined by natural laws. In this case natural laws equal the theist god. But that in no way implies that god exists. It’s quite the opposite. We’re saying we can explain the things you call god with science
3. There’s no contradiction there. What you call god, I call nature. I don’t believe in god, but I accept what the evidence suggests about natural phenomena.
No offense to you, but I am a stickler for intellectual honesty. It’s probably the most important thing in the world to me.
Thank you Rayan. Intellectual honestly is important to me too. I wasn’t trying to make any statement so I don’t understand the need for the facepalm or reference to MH17. Your comments were confusing to me, and all I was trying to do was get a clarification. In no way was I making any claim on what atheists believe or don’t believe. The definition of pantheism I quoted was one I found on line, and I was trying to match my interpretation of that definition with my interpretation of your definition without success. I’m the first to acknowledge that I sometimes have difficulty comprehending subtleties of language.
While your definition of pantheism seems to be at variance with how I interpret the Wikipedia description, I’m not in disagreement with your first sentence under point 2. I have no idea what you mean by the futurama version of god, so I’m not sure how I should interpret the sentences that follow. The last sentence under point 2 is also somewhat confusing. I’m not sure what god has to do with anything that can be explained by science. Whatever god might or might not be has nothing to do with (has no influence over) natural laws.
Under point 3, you say that you accept what the evidence suggests about natural phenomena. I wouldn’t expect anything else. I do the same. I get the impression that you think I attribute some sort of magical powers to god. That I do not. I don’t even claim that god exists.
Finally, I get the impression that your reaction to my comment was influenced by the content of the last paragraph. Would your reaction have been different if I had not included it?