101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible

[The_Cosmos]

The Bible's contradictions, though plenty, are hardly relevant to this site's viewership, but u don't care to scrutinize the relevant text, do u?

That's exactly why I decided to comment on here. It's highly hypocritical to analyse and scrutinise the bible but refuse to do the same with your own book. If you feel it's your religion and it should not be up to criticism, then you should respect the religion of the Christians as well. Of course the atheist will criticise both.

 

[Reflect]

Wow, it shows a lot about your nature to just characterise me simply based on my lack of belief in your God.

I will provide a few examples illustrating that much of the wide held Islamic beliefs are based off of local religions. I'm happy for you to research this if you're not convinced.

Jinns - The belief in jinn predates Islam. It was a widely held belief in pre Islamic Arabia.

Salah and Wudu - this was highly influenced from zorosotrianism. I think the prayer schedules were also influenced by them but I'm not sure.

Noah's flood - this predates the Abrahamic faiths. This has its roots in ancient Egypt and it's pagan/polytheistic religions.

There are more. You can dismiss them and say some weird shit to dismiss my claims but it proves one thing...that Islam and it's is definitely not unique (excluding the supposed relationship it has with the other 2 religions).

I would like you to respect me as an individual and show me the same level of decency that I'm showing you and your beliefs. Do not make assumptions about my nature based off of complete ignorance and a few nonsensical characterisations of atheists.

There's no need to try to make it a personal thing I haven't disrespected or assumed anything about you as a person, all I did was assume about the sources you had your info from. You don't like to be stereotyped neither do i, so let's not go down that road.

 

[The_Cosmos]

There's no need to try to make it a personal thing I haven't disrespected or assumed anything about you as a person, all I did was assume about the sources you had your info from. You don't like to be stereotyped neither do i, so let's not go down that road.

Glad we have an understanding. It'll be great now if you address my previous points.

 

[VixR]

That's exactly why I decided to comment on here. It's highly hypocritical to analyse and scrutinise the bible but refuse to do the same with your own book. If you feel it's your religion and it should not be up to criticism, then you should respect the religion of the Christians as well. Of course the atheist will criticise both.

Exactly.

Then again, I just noticed the maker of the thread is the same one that was insisting the earth is flat so...

 

[The_Cosmos]

Exactly.

Then again, I just noticed the maker of the thread is the same one that was insisting the earth is flat so...

I'm still trying to calculate if he's being serious or just trolling.

Religion is awesome /s

 

[Odeg]

How's that more rational than his claim. All claims will ultimately be subjective, unless they are based on some sort of evidence. You're asking why God sent scriptures if He knew they would be corrupted? As you mentioned, a Muslim would answer that from his/her perspective, with the answer being a reflection of the teachings within Islam, whereas you might choose to provide an answer that fits with your preferred ideology or philosophy, so in the end both positions are subjective in their own right. Hope you get my point.

Personally, it really doesn't change anything for me whether or not I know exactly why God sent scriptures/messengers to previous nations and He allowed for them to turn away from His message. I feel it's an irrelevant question that doesn't challenge the argument for belief in God. Asking why God allowed for His scriptures to be destroyed is like asking why God didn't force humanity to believe in his message, it's like asking why do we have free will and why aren't we like angels.

There is slight difference because your position cant stand for logical thinking, despite what position you take you should be able to use reason. Allah sent books he knew would be corrupted and its message being lost. A logical stance would be to protect the scriptures or not send them in vain since allah already was aware of its effect being limited and its message corrupted. I can understand you feel this is irrelevant question but its not and it does not question the existence of God but it does question your belief and its validness. I'm not atheist and dont deny the existence of a God.

 

[The_Cosmos]

There is slight difference because your position cant stand for logical thinking, despite what position you take you should be able to use reason. Allah sent books he knew would be corrupted and its message being lost. A logical stance would be to protect the scriptures or not send them in vain since allah already was aware of its effect being limited and its message corrupted. I can understand you feel this is irrelevant question but its not and it does not question the existence of God but it does question your belief and its validness. I'm not atheist and dont deny the existence of a God.

I would like to add to your point and say that people are still using those "corrupted" books. Is Allah so vain to let his books be corrupted knowing that this will lead people astray and lead people to burn for eternity.


Are you a deist?

 

[Odeg]

I would like to add to your point and say that people are still using those "corrupted" books. Is Allah so vain to let his books be corrupted knowing that this will lead people astray and lead people to burn for eternity.


Are you a deist?

Thats good question. I do share many similiarites with deism but im not subscribing to it. I believe there is a god that created everything and is able to intervene in everything. But its my personal view that humans have not been in contact with God and out of fear of the unknown and arrogance mixed with dellusion humans created religion and ascribed this to god and they did it for various reasons, mostly control and earthly wealth. For example in Ancient Egypt millions built the pyramids in light of better aferlife. But this is my own belief and not something I call absolute facts nor do I expect everyone to believe in what I do. Lakum dinukum waliya dini,

 

[The_Cosmos]

Thats good question. I do share many similiarites with deism but im not subscribing to it. I believe there is a god that created everything and is able to intervene in everything. But its my personal view that humans have not been in contact with God and out of fear of the unknown and arrogance mixed with dellusion humans created religion and ascribed this to god and they did it for various reasons, mostly control and earthly wealth. For example in Ancient Egypt millions built the pyramids in light of better aferlife. But this is my own belief and not something I call absolute facts nor do I expect everyone to believe in what I do. Lakum dinukum waliya dini,

I would say you fit under the definition of a deist very well but I don't want to ascribe to you labels that you don't ascribe to yourself.

Look, I'm good with deists, it's religion which I have my quarrels with. Religion poisons everything. Only religion can make good men do terrible things.

 

[Odeg]

I would say you fit under the definition of a deist very well but I don't want to ascribe to you labels that you don't ascribe to yourself.

Look, I'm good with deists, it's religion which I have my quarrels with. Religion poisons everything. Only religion can make good men do terrible things.

Thank you. The reason I dont subscribe to it is because I believe god is active and can intervene in our world. Deists for the most part dont hold this view. You can correct me if im wrong.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Thank you. The reason I dont subscribe to it is because I believe god is active and can intervene in our world. Deists for the most part dont hold this view. You can correct me if im wrong.

The simple definition of a deist is someone who believes in a God(s) but holds no religion. You can believe God intervenes in your life. Deism is like atheism in the sense that it doesn't have any dogma that you have to follow. The deism you prescribe to you will absolutely be up to you. You may believe that religion gets in the way if ones personal relationship with God or whatever. Simply put, the deism that you prescribe to is completely down to you.

 

[Odeg]

The simple definition of a deist is someone who believes in a God(s) but holds no religion. You can believe God intervenes in your life. Deism is like atheism in the sense that it doesn't have any dogma that you have to follow. The deism you prescribe to you will absolutely be up to you. You may believe that religion gets in the way if ones personal relationship with God or whatever. Simply put, the deism that you prescribe to is completely down to you.

Then I have no problem with this term to describe my perspective.

 

[Reflect]

No, I said that atheism is the LACK of belief in any gods. Please get this right because it's very important you do. Some atheist of course believe with absolute certainty but that does not categorise the majority which lack belief due to evidence.

There is a subtle but significant difference as you mentioned, where positive atheism is the belief that God doesn’t exist and negative atheism simply reflects the lack of belief in God. I won’t deny that your position, as much as it blurs the lines between atheism and agnosticism, makes more sense from a rational perspective than traditional atheism, in spite of that it still offers a fair share of logical inconsistencies.

The problem for positive atheists has always lied in logically defending their absolute doctrine which asserts the non-existence of God. When you look at it, on one hand they would claim empiricism and evidence as superior sources of knowledge (some would even say the only sources) bashing theists for believing in “an unprovable God, while on the other hand “religiously” holding on to a doctrine of non-existence without ever subjecting their own positive assertion (of a Godless universe) to the same level of scrutiny (empirical and objective evidence). To put it simply, theists (muslims, jews, christians etc ) are making positive claims of the existence of “God” and atheists are making positive claims of the non-existence of “a God”, so why is it only the theists that have to prove their claims and not both groups? Rationally and scientifically speaking, nothing comes into existence by itself without an external cause so why should we accept that the entire universe spontaneously popped into existence, shouldn’t we at least have a discussion about it. Why is it, the belief that the universe came into existence by itself without an external cause, is the rational view and therefor shouldn’t be proven? It’s obvious that the atheist approach to this question has been extremely hypocritical, subjective and irrational and not even the least bit justified by the counter-assertion of non-existence being the default position, since this assertion in itself is irrational and unprovable.

So essentially what is evident is that atheism has no positive arguments for its position, the only attempts it has made to justify its position have been through a shifting of the burden of proof to theists, attempts which have all revealed the logical fallacy which positive atheism has tried to build its case on.

This is where negative atheism comes into play!

No, I said that atheism is the LACK of belief in any gods. Please get this right because it's very important you do.

No, what you should’ve written is that the form of atheism which you personally subscribe to is the lack of belief in any gods, which makes you a negative atheist as opposed to a positive one. I hope we got that right.

Where I see the difference between the two positions is that you choose to say, “I don’t have any evidence of God’s existence so therefor I don’t believe in him”, which is a different stance to the outright assertion that God doesn’t exist. So in making a negative argument – you’re not ASSERTING that God doesn’t exist and the universe cannot have an originator – unlike the positive atheist. It could seem as though the negative atheists are making a sneaky attempt of avoiding the problem and run away from the burden of proof.

Atheism is more rational because it takes the position of non-existence until proven otherwise. Think of it as 'innocent until proven guilty' but instead we're focusing on God and his existence.

The problem with this position is best captured by an aphorism, beloved of forensic scientists, that "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.” This means that even if we went along with your presumption that there is no objective evidence to support belief in an originator of the universe, your argument would be logically flawed.

Atheism is more rational because it takes the position of non-existence until proven otherwise. Think of it as 'innocent until proven guilty' but instead we're focusing on God and his existence. When a man is accused of murder, the one who accuses him will have to prove that he is guilty otherwise he's going to be assumed innocent. I'm doing the exact same thing. Also, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim just like the accuser must prove their case.

Well of course it makes sense in the presumption of innocence, that’s because we’re dealing with a totally different entity. When a man is accused of murder he is presumed innocent, because if he truly did commit the crime he would have left tangible evidence, fingerprints, blood stains, eyewitness accounts etc. But can we really apply the same criteria for evidence universally, No! Isn’t evidence and search method contingent on the entity/object which we are investigating and why should we demand that God reveals Himself in a physically/empirically provable fashion before we can accept His existence. It’s foolish and arrogant to presume that God only exists if He is scientifically provable, a big claim with a burden of proof too heavy to carry for even the most fanatic of atheists.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe we have many good arguments which support a belief in God. The point I am raising here, however, is that it’s absurd to demand empirical evidence for His existence.

 

[Reflect]

Most (if not all) scientists agree that since science is based on empiricism it can never prove or disprove the existence of God.

As Amir D. Aczel wrote in a Times article, "Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other."