The Bible contradicts itself

Most of these claims are blatantly spurious. We must recognize, however, that truth is complex.

I was told early in my schooling that water conducts electricity. ‘That’s why,’ declared my teacher, ‘you should be careful about water on laundry floors.’ Years later I was taught that water does not conduct electricity, it is only the impurities in water that allow conduction. Still later I learnt that water does conduct electricity, it is just that it does not conduct it very much. Truth is indeed complex, and in the Bible God has entrusted us with spiritual truth in all its complexity.

You religitards are truly amazing in the depths of your stupidity.  You speak of truth in such a fashion that you use a set of examples that are derived from EXPERIMENT.  Yet NO EXPERIMENT WHATSOEVER has ever determined the existence of this "god".

Back to your "Bibble", friend.  Critical thinking is NOT your forte.  I'm sure they make Bibbles now with pull-out sections that you can color in with your crayons.  I mean, if they don't, then they should.

RedCream you're missing the point again.

With an act of God there are two levels of explanation, only one of which science can contribute to. Consider, for instance, when Jesus told a man to stretch out his withered hand and it immediately healed. (Luke 6:6,10) Scientists might describe what took place within that man’s hand in terms of multiplication of cells, suddenly improved blood flow, etc. Such an explanation, though accurate, would miss an entire dimension to this event: the hand was restored at Jesus’ word.

It is as if science lets us examine a masterpiece with an electron microscope (and such a view can be of value), whereas the Bible empowers us to see the big picture, enabling us to grasp the divine meaning and purpose of that masterpiece we call life.

>>3
There aren't two levels of explanation.  Your example of the hand shows that you can't even comprehend that one of those levels is complete bullshit.  There simply isn't any evidence of what happened to that hand.  You may as well assert that since Stephen King wrote about a strange cemetery that restored life to those buried in it, then it existed.  But no such cemetery exists.

Similarly, there were no miracles performed.  Once we brought the cameras and other recording devices out, nothing miraculous has ever occurred to be captured by these devices.  The explanation for that is simple and true:  There are no miracles.  Those were just fictional stories told to control people's behavior.

The presence of a universe-spanning being should be easy to detect and prove, yet there's no evidence whatsoever.  So that being also doesn't exist.

You need to get your nose out of your Bibble and into a book on logic.

GO REDCREAM BEET THAT CHRISTIANS ASS!!

your right to, i like how >>3 tried to say there two levels of explanation of god, one is  conventional the other is BS

The problem with the second level is that it is not testable.  There is no way to refute it, because it's not observable.

It's like if I said "well gravity is really caused by small gnomes you can't in any way observe, and they push you in exactly the same direction that the scientific model of gravity says, but the scientific model of gravity leaves out the main point - that gnomes are pushing us."

You can't prove me wrong, and it doesn't matter, because, pragmatically speaking, we're saying the same thing.

>>6
This second level you speak of.  You claim it's not observable.  If that's true, then how do you even know about it?

NEVER FORGET THE HEROES THAT GAVE THEIR TIME AND THEIR LIVES TO DIE FOR THE GREATER CAUSE OF MAKING THE PLEASURE OF BEING CUMMED INSIDE A GOOGLE MEME. YOUR SACRIFICE WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN.

NVR FGT

>>7 um.. exactly.  It's a matter of faith, not science, because science requires something to be testable - to be observable.

You can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you right, so from a practical standpoint, arguing about it is just rhetoric, and essentially an excercise in pointlessness.

Why do people keep asking for proof of God?  God is everywhere.

>>10
Prove it.

You can't observe String Theory, yet scientists try to prove it's a fundamental part of reality by coming up with answers as to why it doesn't not exist.

>>11

God is a function of existence.  You are the one making a claim "God doesn't exist"  The burden of proof is on you.

>>12
"String Theory" isn't even a theory.  It's the absolute worst example of science starting from a conclusion and trying like hell to arrive at premises to support it.  ST is a joke.  TRY AGAIN.

>>13
Commonly experienced reality contains ZERO instances of a divinity.  So, you are the one making the extraordinary claim.  The burden of proof is most certainly upon you.

>>14

Such skeptical viewpoints are certainly in the minority.  They are based on the scientifically indefensible premise there simply must not be a God and that anybody who believes otherwise must be wrong. 

Atheism is akin to denying that the Earth goes around the sun. Yes  a Godless universe is a more comforting worldview.  Yes it makes us feel more special.  Yes you can live without God in your life.

But there are so many scientific anomalies that point to a God existing, including death (Eukaryotes die but not prokaryotes).

>>15
You have to provide clear evidence of what's allegedly a universe-spanning, Human-interested being.  You have to PROVE all these allegations.

And the first thing to do is provide the observations you made in the first place that show divinity.  (I'll wait, since there are NO such observations.  Such a being would by its very nature provide huge amounts of evidence, and since there's NONE, the only rational conclusion is that such a being just doesn't exist.)

>>16
I don't think anyone has to PROVE anything to you or anyone else....
If you don't want to accept the beliefs of others THEN DON'T AND SHUT THE FUCK UP, NIGGERTOE!

...by the way, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, and all the rest, hate you...

>>17
The toothfairy hates him as well.

It is humans that created God.

>>17
I don't mind if you have your stupid little story of the Big Sky Jew to keep you warm at night.  Just keep your delusions out of the public policy arena.  As long as you religitards keep making religion a reason to set state policy, I'm going to keep demanding that you children produce EVIDENCE for your Space Alien Overseer.

Stop bullshitting yourself. These are morals being pushed, not religion, and morality doesn't require evidence of an OverJew.

>>21
Those morals are almost always associated with the "god" word.  Stop taking the religion angle, and I'll stop my demands that you provide proof for this Skybeard.

>>22

you have no evidence for your claim.  GTFO

The.... Bible? THE Bible? Contradicts itself? Le gasp! Stop the fucking presses!

And here I've been criticizing their religion for imposing beliefs on people based on a text written and altered over the course of two thousand years, by people who wanted to capitalize on the faith of the masses for the benefit of a privileged few. And now I find out that not only is the system corrupt, but their BOOK, which for the longest time only a chosen few people could actually read, is inconsistent!?

I think I just shat bricks.

>>17
But God is love, right? Or is that only for the people who read his/her/its books?

If I were some bearded guy who lived alone for eternity on the brink of nothing, and I shat out some entertainment over the course of seven days I'd be pretty fucking pleased with myself, and by extension the little dots I've created.

I don't think I'd be too concerned with what they believed or even what they did to each other, I'd regard them fondly simply because they were there and I made them.

Here's an admittedly broad observation: Why do anti-religious people always have such fervent responses to any talk of pro-religious conversation? By way of example:

>>1
Tried to display a logical argument for a belief or contested philosophical issue

>>2
>>5
Couldn't go through a single sentence without profanity, name-calling, or CRUISE CONTROL.

Yes I understand historical tensions between the religious (particularly Christians) and virtually every other group in the world. But, I'll take the bait here and ask: Why the immediate hostility? Does that win debates, or something?