Conflicting statements in the bible

[Tex]

The future is hypothetical. I do not choose to deal in hypotheticals.

Ah, but you do. From post #73, "If you mean insisting upon physical evidence that is what all rational people do."

You have made a statement concerning all rational people. You have seen all rational people? Have you done the sufficient tests on all of those people? And, what about those rational people who do not exist yet? We must include "all".

Perhaps you just mean those rational people that you've observed. Have you observed every action that they have ever done? Perhaps they don't demand physical evidence for claims when you're not watching. However, what I'm certain you mean in this statement is, "It is rational to insist physical evidence for claims". For this claim, I insist physical data. This makes me rational, yes?

2) What physical evidence told you that "true things are determined by inspecting the physical evidence"?

The success of the method of inspection. Data collection is physical evidence. Don't try telling a cop with radar that it is not.

You've looked at all true things?!?!?!? This is a rather large claim you're making. May I see the physical evidence? I'm rational.

If you're the cop, the radar may say I was speeding, but you are saying I always drive above the speed limit. You're claim does not match your data.

3) I'm not trying to prove a deity here. I'm trying to show you that absolute reliance on physical evidence is childish. However, I do find it kind of worrying you view death and pain without sympathy.

When you come up with something which shows it is childish you be sure to post it. Rather "It is incredible anyone would deliberately confuse "simply exist" with the simplest explanation of the available physical evidence." is not quite adult and statements regarding the possible reasons you posted that, should I add childish to the possible reasons?

I don't have enough sympathy to go around for the (7Billion/average life span in days)* who die every day. It has always been a true statement that funerals are for the living. I have no idea how to invoke sympathy for strangers. That sounds more like a gal thing particularly if very young.

Is the only virtue selfishness? Have you no consideration for the other?

If there is a train headed toward a baby on a track, and you have the option to change the train's direction, is changing the direction of the train good or bad?

I know of no way to change the direction of a train but to run it off the rails. That would likely kill more people but you can add more criteria for this silly test question. Again it sounds like a gal thing.

There is a switch that changes rails. Changing the train's direction hurts no one. Do not pretend you have never heard this situation before, and answer the question. Is changing the train's direction good or bad?

I thought rational people demanded physical evidence? Perhaps A_Nony_Mouse is wrong in his assertion that physical evidence is needed in everything everywhere?

There are two ways of looking at what you posted. One is as a premise in regard to evidence. The other is as I answered regarding the implication of physical having to be a tangible object when data about things is also physical.

Both your possible weasels have now been answered.

Neither have been answered. I find both to lead into absurdity.

[Statler Waldorf]

Well said but it looks to me he is claiming Rube Goldberg reasoning trumps a bullshit call.

Rube Goldberg reasoning? Saying that two verses could be describing two different battles is hardly “Rube Goldberg Reasoning”. If you’re asking Christians to give up one of their central doctrines (the infallibility of scripture) you’d better present some actual internal contradictions in that source, to date I haven’t seen anything presented that even comes close to being a contradiction. You’re going to have to do better.

The future is hypothetical. I do not choose to deal in hypotheticals.

So since you do not deal with the future science is now impossible since we cannot assume that what we observe taking place today will repeat under identical conditions in the future?

[Cinjin]

---

A: "The simplest explanation is always the most likely."
T: Why does the universe just "simply exist"?
A: Because that's simple.
T: But it's irrational.
A: You're just too dumb to understand. Why do you "engage in contortions" and revel in the "belief of the believers".
T: That doesn't actually answer my objection.
A: You never made one; you're just dumb.
T: The universe "simply existing" is irrational. Therefore, the claim "the universe exists because it's simple" is irrational.
A: You're so dumb. Your God is evil.
T: That's a red herring, sir. I'd like if you'd address my question.
A: Can't answer me? I think that means you concede. I'll take this as a win.
T: This isn't a contest, and you changed the subject. Talk about the matter at hand.
A: I win. Give me my trophy.
T: I think you're a troll.
A: I should receive laurel and food for life.
A: I am so awesome. No one can beat me.
A: I will probably say that in reality, this conversation is flipped and T stands for Tard.
A: I'm a genius. I connected that T and tard start with the same letter.
A: Where is T? He probably ran away scared.
A: ...
A: Hello?
A: I need to find someone else to give me attention...

---

What does this bit of ridiculous propaganda have to do with the OP regarding biblical contradictions?

---

It doesn't matter what the Babbly book says,

Yes, we all know that you do not care what scripture actually says; your assertion that it has contradictions without possessing even a basic working knowledge of Biblical theology or hermeneutics makes that quite apparent.

You're real big on this 'assertion' thing aren't you. Everybody else is guilty of making baseless assertions while you yourself are the poster-child for finger pointing and blatant hypocrisy. I was a faithful member of a fundamental Baptist church for 18 years. I attended Bob Jones University for 2 years and I was instructed and tutored in Evangelism for one year. You yourself make the baseless assertion that I don't even have a basic working knowledge of Biblical theology. Quite the miserable christian fail. Luckily you clearly have the ability to interpret the Bible any way you please and your shitty behavior and your dirty hypocrisy can all be justified at any time.

oh and by the way. Which one of you is right? Is it you Tex? Is your church the right interpreters or should I go with those True Christians down in Westboro? How bout the Ku Klux Klan? Do they have it right? What a pathetic joke of god you all serve.

People disagreeing about what the correct interpretation of scripture is only proves what we already knew (and what scripture teaches), namely that people are fallible.

Yes, but supposedly your god is not fallible and yet he can't seem to overcome the abundant typos and miss-translations. "Hey, our god is all-powerful and lives inside every single person who accepts him. Oddly, enough ... yeah ... he can't seem to keep the very people he lives inside of from screwing up his divine words."

I studied this horse shit for well-over three decades and the plain truth is, one has to close his eyes and ears, and fight to accept the stupidity that is the Bible.


As for that ridiculous remark about me being rude (from the rudest people on these forums): I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.

[Ryantology]

What physical evidence has told you all rational people that exist now and will exist in the future demand physical evidence?

What physical evidence has told you that physical evidence is required for truth?

What physical evidence says that the events in Boston were a travesty? (People died and were injured) What physical evidence says that dying and being injured is bad? (People don't like being injured and dead) What physical evidence says that majority opinion demands a subsequent ethic?

I have no doubt you clicked that Submit Post button feeling extremely clever. The problem with these questions is, you rely entirely on physical evidence just as we do. You justify your beliefs on two things: a book, and neurochemical reactions you interpret, in your profound ignorance, as communication from a god.

You ask us to make certain confirmations of the veracity of physical evidence, but this is dishonest. We'll accept your claims of the supernatural the moment you can conclusively demonstrate that they are real to anybody but yourself. Don't try to turn it back around on us. You're still the one making extraordinary claims you cannot demonstrate to be true. You are still full of shit until you can prove otherwise.

[Minimalist]

According to Martyr he was a procurator, I am going to take his word over yours,

Typical of your type, Waldork. One xtian asshole gets something wrong and you have your lips surgically attached to his ass because he was one of you. Well, it was a xtian forger who got the Tacitus comment about Pilate being a procurator ( he was a praefect) wrong, too. But you are just an asshole and hardly worth bothering about. For the atheist types... and other intelligent people here then...

What Waldork knows about is xtian fairy tales. He doesn't know shit about the Roman colonial administrative system...and neither did that fuckhead Justin. In fact, the first praefect of Judaea was a man named Coponius. Coponius reported to Quirinius, the Imperial Legate in Syria. But I understand that Waldork doesn't want facts. Facts fuck up his fairy tales. So he can just shove jesus up his ass and leave the adults to discuss things he doesn't understand.

[Tex]

[quote='Tex' pid='436650' dateline='1366922588']

---

A: "The simplest explanation is always the most likely."
T: Why does the universe just "simply exist"?
A: Because that's simple.
T: But it's irrational.
A: You're just too dumb to understand. Why do you "engage in contortions" and revel in the "belief of the believers".
T: That doesn't actually answer my objection.
A: You never made one; you're just dumb.
T: The universe "simply existing" is irrational. Therefore, the claim "the universe exists because it's simple" is irrational.
A: You're so dumb. Your God is evil.
T: That's a red herring, sir. I'd like if you'd address my question.
A: Can't answer me? I think that means you concede. I'll take this as a win.
T: This isn't a contest, and you changed the subject. Talk about the matter at hand.
A: I win. Give me my trophy.
T: I think you're a troll.
A: I should receive laurel and food for life.
A: I am so awesome. No one can beat me.
A: I will probably say that in reality, this conversation is flipped and T stands for Tard.
A: I'm a genius. I connected that T and tard start with the same letter.
A: Where is T? He probably ran away scared.
A: ...
A: Hello?
A: I need to find someone else to give me attention...

---

What does this bit of ridiculous propaganda have to do with the OP regarding biblical contradictions?[/quote[]

I was making fun of Nony and Ryan. That is how they are argue. I find it ridiculous.

I have no doubt you clicked that Submit Post button feeling extremely clever. The problem with these questions is, you rely entirely on physical evidence just as we do. You justify your beliefs on two things: a book, and neurochemical reactions you interpret, in your profound ignorance, as communication from a god.

You ask us to make certain confirmations of the veracity of physical evidence, but this is dishonest. We'll accept your claims of the supernatural the moment you can conclusively demonstrate that they are real to anybody but yourself. Don't try to turn it back around on us. You're still the one making extraordinary claims you cannot demonstrate to be true. You are still full of shit until you can prove otherwise.

I do not "rely" on them to make all claims, as you and Nony do. I am showing the absurdity of the claim, "Physical evidence is the base of all rational claims". The claim itself then would require physical evidence in order to be rational.

If the claim were real, we'd probably would never trust each other and starve to death. All husbands would have to get blood tests on their children so that they may have physical evidence to say "this is my child". All food would need to be tested for poison because you don't have any physical evidence that it's poison-free. Most of the time, we just go by trust. Physical evidence is there to back up the trust, but the large majority of the time the physical evidence doesn't even matter. Think of the Flat Earth Society. You think they would care what evidence was brought to them? They have no trust in us, so they do not trust our evidence. The evidence is moot.

I use physical evidence, yes, but not entirely, and you don't either. And when you demanded evidence from me, Ryan, I gave you it. The only time I couldn't was when you demanded the impossible. The point of the post was to show that physical evidence is not everything nor even necessary.

Also, insults don't actually make your argument better. I hope at least makes you feel better when you do it though.

@Minimalist

I'm glad you're so sure of yourself. I hope it makes you feel better.

[Tonus]

If the claim were real, we'd probably would never trust each other and starve to death. All husbands would have to get blood tests on their children so that they may have physical evidence to say "this is my child". All food would need to be tested for poison because you don't have any physical evidence that it's poison-free. Most of the time, we just go by trust. Physical evidence is there to back up the trust, but the large majority of the time the physical evidence doesn't even matter. Think of the Flat Earth Society. You think they would care what evidence was brought to them? They have no trust in us, so they do not trust our evidence. The evidence is moot.

I would assume that the bolded part is Mouse's point.

[Tex]

But the evidence isn't required. I've given examples and then they demand physical evidence when the topic is immateriality...

[Ryantology]

The only time I couldn't was when you demanded the impossible.

This is your fault, for claiming the impossible, not mine for demanding that you justify the impossible.

[Tex]

I proved it possible, then you demanded that you see an immaterial organ. That is ridiculous.