Bible contradictions?

[Minimalist]

john 8:7 KJV

A bullshit story which does not appear in any of the earliest extant versions we have of the friggin' "inerrant" bible.

[DeistPaladin]

A classic tu quoque fallacy. (appeal to hypocrisy) I may not use your crimes to excuse my crimes or the crimes of others.

A better answer by Jesus would have been "Don't stone that woman you religious wackjobs! Just because you don't approve of her lifestyle doesn't give you the right to murder her!"

[Phil]

First, Paul says, "Be ready to give an account."

What if "paul" is as phony as the rest of the story?

If?

[Minimalist]

There are holes in that story big enough to drive a tank through, Phil, but the true believers simply accept what they've been told... as they always do.

[Undeceived]

Argument from antiquity;being believed for a long time does not make a thing true.

Agreed, but my key term was "apparent". Before secular science devised evolution as its proof for atheism while using atheism as its premise, people had no reason to believe there wasn't a God. They came to the conclusion on their own--albeit many different types--and no one questioned it because it seemed self-evident. If nearly every culture produced a God that suggests there is something inherent in our human minds that shouts "God!" The argument is not from antiquity, it's the reason for antiquity. It's the root beneath the plant. Why are people so predicated on God to the extent that even atheists create a "god agent" in the Big Bang?

Argument from consensus;that a large number of people believe a thing does not mean it is true.

Consensus alone is not a proof, agreed. My point is, when you hear a consensus, do you dismiss it until 100% proof by way of physical evidence is given? If 2/3 of the world say they know of the aurora borealis because of other peoples' accounts, would you demand they prove it with photographs? Would you say they were wrong until proven right or neutral until proven right? Now, if people's accounts are all that's possible (say cameras don't work in cold weather) wouldn't you then lean towards it being true? Jesus had no photographers in his day, yet people recorded his life and resurrection, and converts in the area spread like wildfire. In the case of the aurora borealis, at the very least you'd say "I don't know" rather than smugly claiming "I know this phenomenon is not real." In the case of Jesus, you could only say "I don't know" on the basis of not wanting to know, because there certainly is enough evidence to know. Great events don't require great evidence to have happened, just for the most stubborn of us to believe. In some ways I have more respect for agnostics, because they admit they don't know rather than claiming they know beyond-a-doubt that Jesus never resurrected. But they suffer from a similar breach of logic when they say "I can't know." How do they know they can't know? They don't, they just assert it. They declare that the spiritual cannot cross over into the physical, but Christians say God is big enough to do just that. He sent is son Jesus into the flesh to live a blameless life and die for sins he never committed. And he elected four writers to record it so that we may have just enough evidence to believe without grudgingly being forced into it.

[Minimalist]

Before secular science devised evolution as its proof for atheism

Oh, FFS, you cannot possibly be that fucking stupid. Admit it, you're just a troll.

[Faith No More]

I think he can be that stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

Try again UD, people have been expressing hard and soft versions of atheism for as long as people have been expressing their belief in god. Apparently, it wasn't quite as apparent as you seem to believe...but why would that surprise you, doesn't surprise me. You can't wrap your head around "no god", but long before you were here atheism was doing it's dirty little deeds, and long after you're gone, "I do not believe" will remain.

[DeistPaladin]

Agreed, but my key term was "apparent". Before secular science devised evolution as its proof for atheism while using atheism as its premise, people had no reason to believe there wasn't a God.

Ugh! Let me be patient and give you a primer on what evolution is and is not so we can even have a coherent discussion.

EVOLUTION IS:

How life changes over time as suited to its environment.

Period. Full stop.

It is used by biologists to explain the variety of life, the similarities found in this variety (common ancestry) and to predict how life will change. In fact, the entire field of biology, from genetics to taxonomy, as it exists today would make no sense except in light of evolution.

Some aspects of evolution you don't need a degree in biology to understand:

1. Why dogs exist. We bred them from wolves. Not sure if this is technically under the umbrella of evolution since this is artificial selection (as opposed to natural selection) but it's still the same concept. Natural selection just takes longer.
2. Why you need new flu shots every year.
3. Why, when you take antibiotics, you need to take them until you've used up the prescription completely. Otherwise, the infection may gain a resistance to the antibiotic.

If ID were true, life would be static. All things in their current form would be as they were at Creation. But we know this isn't true. You can see in the above examples that it isn't true.

WHAT EVOLUTION IS NOT:

1. Evolution is not inherently atheistic. Evolution does not rule out a god or gods. There could, for all we know, be a divine hand in the entire process or one that just tweaks the system now and then. Science is not about proving or disproving God. Some evolutionary biologists are devoutly religious.

2. Evolution is not abiogenesis not does it discuss how life began. It only deals with how life changes.

3. Evolution is not "social-darwinism", eugenics or any other sort of pseudo-scientific racism. Neither does evolution suggest any "superiority" of one group or other, since an advantage in one environment might be a disadvantage in another.

4. Evolution is not a moral code or any other lifestyle guide.

5. Evolution is not a religion.

6. Evolution is not dependent on any one fossil find. The process of peer-review ferrets out frauds and mistakes to process the legitimate finds from those that should be discarded.

7. Evolution is not "devised" for any political, religious or economic purpose, nor does it suit any such purpose, nor is it being promoted by any worldwide conspiracy. Ben Stein's movie is the stuff of tin-foil hat wearers.

Any questions?

Or corrections from those more versed in science than myself?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

1. Why dogs exist. We bred them from wolves.

Oh yeah? Well, if dogs were bred from wolves, why are there still wolves?

HA! Checkmate, atheists!