(August 29, 2009 at 3:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 29, 2009 at 11:52 am)dry land fish Wrote: Oh so if I want to believe a virgin can... blah blah blah regurgitate usual brainless bullshit

You've said all that before DLF and it's as coherent as the rest of your tiny minded crap.

---

(August 29, 2009 at 12:52 pm)Saerules Wrote: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/co..._name.html

Hundreds and hundreds of contradictions are listed there, including some very important ones. And an interesting thing from you're own book:
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Also Fr0do, you appear to have what i like to call: the refusal to discuss syndrome. As you refuse to discuss the rather valid points made by your fellow forum posters, one might be inclined to wonder why you respond to them at all, and even begin to be fascinated as to why you are posting here.

Simply, if you do not intend to be rational, in a place where rationality is held with almost sacred ambition: Either begin to be rational, or go somewhere where irrationality is not taken as an offense (or as a proof of immense stupidity).

The skeptics bible contains erm, let me see..... ZERO proof of contradiction. It's a collection of ignorant bullshit for the small minded to use.

I don't refuse to discuss, and I'm entirely rational. You go find me one contradiction that holds water and I'll answer you. This stuff you quote is more than bullshit, and doesn't deserve a response. You gladly demonstrate your own immense stupidity. Go do as you instruct.

---

@ DogsArse - go read the forum and learn something.

Fr0do... if that is not proof of contradiction (a list of hundreds cited directly from your own personal source of 'non-contradiction')... then may i inquire as to what a contradiction is? It would seem my dictionary is outdated rather too far for my liking. The skeptics annotated bible is exactly what it says it is: a copy of your bible, annotated with queries and attention drawing notices.

The contradictions listed in that site... range from what are simple translation errors, to story-breaking contradictions. You rather evidently do have 'Refusal to Discuss' complex, as you did not discuss any of the material easily known by my link, provided no evidence to how it is ignorant bullshit for the small minded to use, refuse to look at a list of 500+ contradictions (thereby giving you 500% of what you asked for) of which you have answered none of them.

Also, apparently you say it is bullshit when you have neither smelled nor seen it, and that something you have never seen does not deserve a response. You then go from not only the refusal to discuss, to a personal attack upon someone asking you valid questions as to why you are here, which have also been neither discussed, nor answered.

Therefore: i do not believe you are telling me any truths when you say that you do not have Refusal to Discuss Syndrome.

Oh fuck off DLF you halfwit. I couldn't give a shit what you think. Srsly.

(August 29, 2009 at 9:08 pm)dry land fish Wrote: Oh and nature is science...not God.

Nature IS science huh? So which label shall we bin then?

---

(August 30, 2009 at 2:34 am)Giff Wrote: To say that the bible isn't contradicting itself or having homphobic statements and encourage discriminiation is like saying that Mein Kampf isn't a racistic book.

I also think it strange by many christians to say that they believe in science and such. but they still believe that Jesus was God in person and the son of God at the same time, and was born by a virgin.

That is just strange and not making any sence at all. As DLF says, it just sounds like a bad excuse from Mary's side.

Well like Adrian argues, he thinks golliwogs aren't racist just a tool of racist times/ people. The bible was written in times where homosexuality was thought of differently. Personally I'm not homophobic yet I believe the bible to be 100% truth, and accept all of it. How do you explain this?

The bible is principally a book about God. You're missing the point if you try to understand it as science, because it is not that.

---

How about this Saerules. You find anything in the skeptics bible that isn't fully explained in a commentary and I'll take a look at it. It seems brain dead to want to go every point that's already thoroughly explained publicly.
As every verse in the bible is already explained, I suggest you go get hold of a good commentary and fight with that.

(August 30, 2009 at 2:34 am)Giff Wrote: That is just strange and not making any sence at all. As DLF says, it just sounds like a bad excuse from Mary's side.

That reminds me of a quote I either heard of made up (can't remember which):

Christianity - When the world's most gullible man met the world's most mythomaniacal whore.

I, Dotard, am God.

Don't believe it you say?

That is because you have to believe Dotard is God before you can believe Dotard is God.


Same line of bullshit I heard 27 odd years ago when I first began publicly questioning a God's existance and the Bible as it's word to mankind.

You have to believe it before you can believe it.

Frodo's logic is impecable and irrefutable. (insert emoticon with huge eyeroll here)

---

Fr0do,

You claim that 500+ contradictions can be explained away in commentry...umm..back up this asseriton with evidence please!

Please evidence how a purely subjective interpretation on the whole, a purely subjective commentry - can somehow overide all the 500+ literal contradictions in The Bible...when so many others can interpret it diferently.

Please evidence this - and if you don't think it's a subjective matter here, or that Christians virtually have superpowers when it comes to the bible- as you say that only Christians can truly understand it.... - then please evidence that too!

EvF

If Fr0do linked anything for evidence: i'd look into it. I give him 500+, and he says he wants a commentary?! lol

(September 2, 2009 at 9:04 am)Dotard Wrote: I, Dotard, am God.

Don't believe it you say?

That is because you have to believe Dotard is God before you can believe Dotard is God.

But you don't have to believe in God before you can believe in God. You are a strawman Dotard!

(September 2, 2009 at 9:04 am)Dotard Wrote: Same line of bullshit I heard 27 odd years ago when I first began publicly questioning a God's existance and the Bible as it's word to mankind.

You have to believe it before you can believe it.

And nicely knocked down there

---

(September 2, 2009 at 11:37 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You claim that 500+ contradictions can be explained away in commentry...umm..back up this asseriton with evidence please!

You don't know what a commentary is Evie?

It's explanation of every passage of the bible from a consistent POV. Utterly refuting, without trying, absolutely everything in the skeptics laughable misinterpretation.

The biblegateway contains a hell of a lot, usually linked to the KJV translations. Go knock yourself out.

A question of interest i've had for a while now: What is a strawman argument?

(September 2, 2009 at 3:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: A question of interest i've had for a while now: What is a strawman argument?

A strawman argument is where you refute an argument that bears no resemblance to what was argued. In other words, someone constructs an easy to refute argument and claims it is what person X says. The "strawman" analogy is that it is easier to knock down a strawman than an actual man.

Creationists do this all the time by saying that "evolution relies on chance alone" and then proceed to demonstrate (very easily) how unlikely it is that all the parts of the human body could come together in the right place at the right time. Of course, no evolutionary biologist has ever claimed this, making it a strawman argument.

Weird... it doesn't make much sense to me... probably because i don't like debating with things that don't debate back.