Proof that God does not exist...

[Nathan Struth]

People just don't know, or care for the matter....apathy + ignorance = non-existence

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: zauhiyq Several times through huh? Well lets pack it up. The bible also says god dwells in darkness, creates evil and does evil things. God blew his top and killed fish in the sea because he was angry at man. God lies. and there are certainly all kinds of contradictions in the bible and we can deal with them one by one if you like.

Sorry, but I couldn't see that part either. God creates men with free will. God did not create evil, nor did he actualize the potentiality of evil. God simply gave people free will to make the decisions they want. Free will without the potentiality of evil is not free will.

God never lied. Last I checked, that part wasn't there.

What fish? And anyways, why would you even care for fish. I never saw that either.

[Fonceai]

How can God have created good but not evil?

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: iahag I pose to you this question, when did the human species consider god? Why is it only at this time they considered it?

You're talking prebiblical know. Sumerian doctrine when they were speaking akkadian in the mesopetamia region. Where they chartered the direction they saw beings come from the sky. They referred to it as Orion which is a six star constillation. The bible translates it as Heaven straight from the greek word, "Orinoes." The Rossette stone, Gigamesh Epic and plenty other titles you may have never heard of are prebiblical stories which is where the bible gets it stories from today. When you hear people say cain and abel married their sisters. It's not because they try and use reason, it's actually in prebiblical text where Adam and Eve had 21 children 11 women and 10 guys. Adam and Eve had parents and these parents were subjected to comply with visitors who made a mistake on earth and when their El, God or leader found out about it, he order that particular team to raise the group they experimented on. Adam and Eve's children went to the mines except for Cain and Abel and all the ones you hear about such as their grandchildren. These beings were known as Anunnaqi. Anu=the leader,
nn=50, qi=eart. It meant those beings who came to earth in groups of 50. Anunnaqi became known as Elohim or Eloh (the one in Charge) or Allah.
There is so much to this story and it is why Zachariah Stitchin was X-ed. He was or is a Jewish scholar who would translate these prebiblical text into books and tell the story. He's a black sheep in the scholar world. All of his books tell it all. So what you know of God is what people have told you. You don't have the resources to go deeper. So when you ask when did the human species consider god, you step into an ignorance that has been bred for you and many others to never understand. But times are changing, people can see that the Aramic letters have no capitlaization or lowers case, so when scholars say the God vs god is a difference, one for man and one for God, we see the scholars we making a determination different from the way the Aramics or Hebrews did. Scholars introduced to you that God was not a man-being. Then they introduce the creation for who created everything idea to you when the story has nothing to do with a heaven and earth being created, but beings who crashed into earth and made home in the earth and on the surface. This has been considered for a long time, you just don't know about it.

Quote by: iahag Going through that school? You calling me stupid buddy? Im currently studying at degree level at one of the best unis - for my subject - in the world. Oh right, you mean american school . The place where religion is slowly being mandated

When I say school, I mean the season in which it takes us to go through things and learn. Racism is a school, but some never learn. Anger can be a school and learning how to control it is a school passed. All sorts of behaviors and beliefs are schools. Religion is a school. Unfortunately some people stay in that school a life time.

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: Aeris If you are going to be discussing the etymology of a word, you might as well discuss the whole line. True, θεός (theos) originally meant the Greek gods. Why? Because Greeks were the only ones who spoke Greek and of course their word would apply to their Gods. An atheist was one who did not believe in the Greek gods. But as the Mediterranean world became Hellenized, people began to use θεός to refer to a god - a general diety. Thus atheist evolved to mean "You don't believe in my God." It was difficult for anyone of that era to believe that a God didn't exist. Even Middle Platonists and Stoics believe in the νους (nous) and the λόγος (logos) and that to become closer to God (this should be read as: to come to a greater understanding of the divine λόγος) one would have to study. It wasn't until the mid-1500s that "atheist" came to mean "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." So, in essence you are right. But you are also entirely disregarding the evolution of language. Many words today have retained their original meaning, but at the same time many haven't. In modern times we must use modern defintions. We have a rich language - if you mean something other than the modern use of the word, describe the idea. But if you say "atheist" to someone, expect that they will think the modern defintion - because that is what the word means. Its really quite interesting.

Okay guy pay attention to check my other replies. There, I provide the stories or answers you asked of me.

But to your quote. You know you did a lot of talikng right? Etemology bull. What I shared was basic and most important. Why should a mature minded person care about why or how people decide to use Theos as God or Gods other than Greek Gods? It's a mistake. More to the point, aramic is not translated from greek. When Jesus was on the cross, he didn't say, "Thoes, Thoes, lama ....... God, God why forsake,....he said Eli, Eli.

We go back to the root of things and leave out innovation and senseless accepted connections. The way to get back to how we were even tricked without knowing is to use each word as a step. Who is God? Why not who is Elohim? I'll tell you why, because most are too sick with silly general christian doctrine to even find the drive to review and get pass contradiction such as monotheistism vs Poly and understand that reference is king. When the Reverend says anything in a religious tone, the question should be what is the foundation in which you speak? And it's not in english. While one may not speak the language, they can still come to certain realizations concerning history and place the trail. If your Reverend has not been there, you can bet you will be mislead. A sincere person who believes will have his heart follow to be that which is at most. So he will want to call on the closest name to God, speak the language and refer to the prophets by their true names like yeshua and not Jesus, yonah, etc. There is not Jew. And the story unfolds a very ugly picture. So frightening that you just want to return to a simple life and forget how much of a mess man can make of things, given a very long time.

[Chris the Chees]

The burden of proof is on you. Saying "God doesn't exist" is a positive assertion... you're asserting the truth of God's non-existence.

No it is not.

It is a negative assertation. It is the rejection of an existing theory, not the presentation of a posertive one. It is the burden of the thiest to back up their claims, not the burden of the athiest to disprove them.

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Sorry, but I couldn't see that part either. God creates men with free will. God did not create evil, nor did he actualize the potentiality of evil. God simply gave people free will to make the decisions they want. Free will without the potentiality of evil is not free will. God never lied. Last I checked, that part wasn't there. What fish? And anyways, why would you even care for fish. I never saw that either.

Well, this I will tell you. IT would be bad time spent trying to inform you because you started off claiming you know the bible well. You are not ready yet. There are people here who are ready to get down to the real deal and that's who I aim to chat with.

Read the story in Genesis chp 6. My point was everything died. Fish live in water, why did they have to die?

If darkness is considered evil or bad, in the beginning, when God was in the darkness, does that mean he was evil or bad?
Proverb 4:19, 1kings 8:12, John 3:19, Jude 13, psalms 18:11, 97:2

*The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not what they stumble.
*The spake solomon, the lord said the he would dwell in the thick darkness.
*He made darkness his secret place, his pavilion roun about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.

(Isn't the devil's nickname the prince of darkness?)

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and creat darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the lord do all these things.

In Jeremiah God is sooo creative he has to frame evil against you (18:11)
In Ezekiel God admitted he gave you statutes that were not good. (20:25)
Then in Amos God says if there is trouble or evil in the city, don't even worry about it because he is the one who has done it. (3:6)

Genesis 1:1-2 ....I the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

later in verse 3 God says let there be light.

Before I go on, let me just say in all fairness I think you should know the things that could be said about the bible. Then our debate can go a lot deeper. So lets start over.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Chris the Chees It is a negative assertation. It is the rejection of an existing theory, not the presentation of a posertive one. It is the burden of the thiest to back up their claims, not the burden of the athiest to disprove them.

This is the distinction made between Anti-Theism and Atheism that so many people dislike. Both are the same conclusion, but from different reasoning.

What it falls to is WHY you say God doesn't exist.

If you say "I don't believe in God because I am Atheist; Theists have no proof" then you are making an Argument From Ignorance and incorrectly directly the Burden Of Proof.

If you say "I don't believe in God because I am Anti-Theist; Theists have no proof" then you are countering an existing claim."

This is so embarassingly simple.

Show to me how "God doesn't exist" is a counter-claim.

It isn't.

Why?

Because you don't reference the positive claim. It stands on its own.

If you cite the Theist claim as your reason, you are making an Anti-Theist argument. Whether you agree or not, that is the technical term for your line of reasoning.

I'm going through this again with Zhavric on another message board; I can consistently shut him down by reducing this all to literal, technical terminology that is incredibly simple.

[underbear1]

I notice the original post in this thread says nothing about which diety he is refering to, Judeo-Christian God, Vishnu, Buddha, Zeus? Dieties are a dime a dozen, I think it might be helpful to narrow the field by defining which God the author wants disproved?

[zauhiyq]

there's nothing really left to say after what I posted huh?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: zauhiyq Well, this I will tell you. IT would be bad time spent trying to inform you because you started off claiming you know the bible well. You are not ready yet. There are people here who are ready to get down to the real deal and that's who I aim to chat with. Read the story in Genesis chp 6. My point was everything died. Fish live in water, why did they have to die? If darkness is considered evil or bad, in the beginning, when God was in the darkness, does that mean he was evil or bad? Proverb 4:19, 1kings 8:12, John 3:19, Jude 13, psalms 18:11, 97:2 *The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not what they stumble. *The spake solomon, the lord said the he would dwell in the thick darkness. *He made darkness his secret place, his pavilion roun about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. (Isn't the devil's nickname the prince of darkness?) Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and creat darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the lord do all these things. In Jeremiah God is sooo creative he has to frame evil against you (18:11) In Ezekiel God admitted he gave you statutes that were not good. (20:25) Then in Amos God says if there is trouble or evil in the city, don't even worry about it because he is the one who has done it. (3:6) Genesis 1:1-2 ....I the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. later in verse 3 God says let there be light. Before I go on, let me just say in all fairness I think you should know the things that could be said about the bible. Then our debate can go a lot deeper. So lets start over.

Being in and of are two different things. GOd may have been in the darkness, but he was still not OF the darkness.

Gen 6 only speaks of those LAND animals outside the ark. It would be difficult to kill something that is of the water with water. I personally believe the fish survived. The freshwater fish could possibly have been put in an aquarium on the ark. Remember that we have no clue what the technology level was before the flood. People could have laughed at Noah because he could have built a more technological boat. Thing is, we really don't know.

As for the final accusation that God created evil. I decided to go online to www,blueletterbible.org and get the Hebrew words used here and I found out some interesting things, this word has several translations. The topmost definition of the word Ra' is distress and adversity. This can be extrapolated also to mean trials and tribulations. Here is a list of the words it is translated as and the number of times these words are used for translation:
evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13,
trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3,
harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2

I find it kind of funny that noisome and favoured are found there to.

The premise verse you pulled from Isaiah backfires on you in the context, since it is followed in the next verse with salvation falling from the sky. Well, that is my time for now. Sorry it took so long, I had four projects due in my college classes, life went insane.

Of, if anybody is hanging around Chattanooga this Friday, Saturday, Monday or Tuesday, drop by the Tennessee Temple Campus for Judgement Day 14, The Last Letter. Only 7 dollars entry to see a healthy replacement of the haunted house.

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Being in and of are two different things. GOd may have been in the darkness, but he was still not OF the darkness. Gen 6 only speaks of those LAND animals outside the ark. It would be difficult to kill something that is of the water with water. I personally believe the fish survived. The freshwater fish could possibly have been put in an aquarium on the ark. Remember that we have no clue what the technology level was before the flood. People could have laughed at Noah because he could have built a more technological boat. Thing is, we really don't know. The premise verse you pulled from Isaiah backfires on you in the context, since it is followed in the next verse with salvation falling from the sky. Well, that is my time for now. Sorry it took so long, I had four projects due in my college classes, life went insane.

very weak. You really should have just kept that all to yourself. You talk about what who could really know what.Who the heck cares? The point is what does the story say????????? You personally BELIEVE the fish survived???? Very childish. Thre book says, (Genesis 6:17, 7:4, 21) God killed every living substance that he made and destroyed it from the face of the earth. The story says All flesh died that moved upon the earth and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth and every man, fowl, cattle and of beast.

If you are the type of person that ignores this in a debate then you really don't deserve any respect. Then you point out a contradiction in the bible and tell me in reference to Isaiah that it backfires on me. That's plain stupid. Address the contradiction sir. Why does it say God does evil?

Quote by: dthmstr254 As for the final accusation that God created evil. I decided to go online to www,blueletterbible.org and get the Hebrew words used here and I found out some interesting things, this word has several translations. The topmost definition of the word Ra' is distress and adversity. This can be extrapolated also to mean trials and tribulations. Here is a list of the words it is translated as and the number of times these words are used for translation: evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2 I find it kind of funny that noisome and favoured are found there to.

I mean really though? This word?????? What word are you referring too? What word has several translations??? God? Evil???? God creates distress and adversity???? Or better yet there is no such thing as evil or the devil and the evil things that the devil is suppose to do, because it's God that creates all the trials and tribulations???? Is this your angle??? So if evil is only the trials and tribulations created by God, what is it that the devil does??? It can't be evil can it???? God has that covered. Or at least translation accepted by you God does.

Ra means disagreeable, Tobe means agreeable. These are the aramic words used and translated for good and bad in the bible, yes! what have you said?????? Nothing, you confirm that God does bad, creates bad and is behind anything that is bad. Even a simple disturbance like being noisome, thank you very much!

And remember this since you want to talk about technology back then, Genesis 7:17 says the ark was lift up above the earth and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

This boat didn't float! And thats some awesome technology for those times. What Noah built hovered. If you think it was a huge boat, then God had a boat too in Genesis 1:2 ...And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. k
1Kings 5:9 uses the word floats pertaining to a fleet, from the aramic word "Doberah" and refers to navigation in the sense of driving on water, by a raft or float. Si it's not like the word float is not in the bible. Did God and Noah float on the water?????? The story doesn't say so.

Try again. come better or don't waste your time.

[Kuroko]

To the orriginal poster;

In answer to your question. The creator of god need not be a question requiring an answer. Hear me out. God created not only the creation but also the universe to which the creation exists within. In this universe there are two true states, that of existance and that of non-existance. God would not be bound by the rules God created, in other words, in a created universe requiring every thing that exists having been created in the first place, god does not require gods creation to exist as this rule is bound only to the universe god created.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: zauhiyq very weak. You really should have just kept that all to yourself. You talk about what who could really know what.Who the heck cares? The point is what does the story say????????? You personally BELIEVE the fish survived???? Very childish. Thre book says, (Genesis 6:17, 7:4, 21) God killed every living substance that he made and destroyed it from the face of the earth. The story says All flesh died that moved upon the earth and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth and every man, fowl, cattle and of beast. If you are the type of person that ignores this in a debate then you really don't deserve any respect. Then you point out a contradiction in the bible and tell me in reference to Isaiah that it backfires on me. That's plain stupid. Address the contradiction sir. Why does it say God does evil? I mean really though? This word?????? What word are you referring too? What word has several translations??? God? Evil???? God creates distress and adversity???? Or better yet there is no such thing as evil or the devil and the evil things that the devil is suppose to do, because it's God that creates all the trials and tribulations???? Is this your angle??? So if evil is only the trials and tribulations created by God, what is it that the devil does??? It can't be evil can it???? God has that covered. Or at least translation accepted by you God does. Ra means disagreeable, Tobe means agreeable. These are the aramic words used and translated for good and bad in the bible, yes! what have you said?????? Nothing, you confirm that God does bad, creates bad and is behind anything that is bad. Even a simple disturbance like being noisome, thank you very much! And remember this since you want to talk about technology back then, Genesis 7:17 says the ark was lift up above the earth and the ark went upon the face of the waters. This boat didn't float! And thats some awesome technology for those times. What Noah built hovered. If you think it was a huge boat, then God had a boat too in Genesis 1:2 ...And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. k 1Kings 5:9 uses the word floats pertaining to a fleet, from the aramic word "Doberah" and refers to navigation in the sense of driving on water, by a raft or float. Si it's not like the word float is not in the bible. Did God and Noah float on the water?????? The story doesn't say so. Try again. come better or don't waste your time.

So a boat made of gopher wood hovered.

Never mind on that. Float, hover, or submerse like a submarine, I don't give a flip. However, since you want to play the interpretation game, I will play there. Here is a funny relationship within signs:

Shirt and volunteer are exactly the same sign, with only the context used to discern them.

Hebrew and Aramaic are the same way. The context around the word determine the meaning, ESPECIALLY with verbs and abstract words such as evil.

Seeing that Ra' simply means disagreeable, it could just mean a little bump in the road or morning sickness. Yes, they are disagreeable, but that doesn't mean they are pure evil. All that confirms is that God does something that is temporarily disagreeable. God only created the POTENTIALITY of evil, WE are the ones who actualize that potential. With the CHOICE of doing good comes the CHOICE of doing evil. God gave us free will. Is it His fault when YOU decide for evil? No? Then why should it be His fault when Suddam Hussein chooses evil?

As for the translation, don't take me out of context. I very clearly indicated which word has several translations. That word is Ra'. I ain't going to put it in bold and with big neon signs flashing it out, so read what I write.

The translation in the Bible can be many things, but when you translate it in light of the following sentences about God sending salvation from Heaven, you would be able to tell that it was talking about trials and tribulations and NOT evil. The KJV had it wrong there.

[Fonceai]

Wait wait wait...

So first, dthmstr you go around quoting the Bible like it's the book of truth of all things.

Then you admit that one translation had it wrong. So why does any other translation have it right?

To the credit of the Islamic faith, there are no vagaries in their holy book. They believe, if I'm correct, that it's the word of the God as spoken by his prophets. They know when it was written and it has never changed.

That is a great credit to any faith.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Fonceai Wait wait wait... So first, dthmstr you go around quoting the Bible like it's the book of truth of all things. Then you admit that one translation had it wrong. So why does any other translation have it right? To the credit of the Islamic faith, there are no vagaries in their holy book. They believe, if I'm correct, that it's the word of the God as spoken by his prophets. They know when it was written and it has never changed. That is a great credit to any faith.

THat is an incorrect statement about Islam. They believe that their book is only understandable in the original language. And I am not talking about a simple knowledge of Arabic language, but a knowledge only attainable by way of speaking the language for many, many years. So that really excludes every English translation that is out there. At least, by their beliefs.

As for translations, when you know how to study into the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, you can have liberty to choose which translation is best. In the case of Isaiah 45:7, I would prefer NIV:

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Disaster isn't necessarily evil. The Arkansas Flood (How high's the water mama?) followed a drought that could have killed more than the flood did.

Also, if suffering were a valid reason to stop trusting God, then explain to me why a preacher who's child was killed when his wife backed the car up, accidently crushing the child under the rear wheel, is now one of the most outspoken supporters of the Christian God there ever was. Yes. We all suffer disaster(s), but if that were reason enough to abandon the Christ who took all your pain and suffering on the cross in addition to the pain of the cross, then none would follow Him.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: dthmstr THat is an incorrect statement about Islam. They believe that their book is only understandable in the original language... So that really excludes every English translation that is out there. At least, by their beliefs.

What a shocker. An English translation doesn't really communicate the message correctly? That's no surprise.

And how does that make my statement incorrect?

Quote by: dthmstr As for translations, when you know how to study into the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, you can have liberty to choose which translation is best.

At best assumptions, the Bible was originally written in Latin. I can read and understand Latin, so I bothered to get a Latin Bible when I visited Vatican City. I was there right after Pope JP died.

Even in one of the original language, the Bible is still a terribly contradictory document, even for a religious text. If it is the word of God, then God must be quite confused most of the time.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Fonceai What a shocker. An English translation doesn't really communicate the message correctly? That's no surprise. And how does that make my statement incorrect?

You claimed they think there are no problems in translations. That is an incorrect statement.

At best assumptions, the Bible was originally written in Latin. I can read and understand Latin, so I bothered to get a Latin Bible when I visited Vatican City. I was there right after Pope JP died. Even in one of the original language, the Bible is still a terribly contradictory document, even for a religious text. If it is the word of God, then God must be quite confused most of the time.

Dude, you might want to put some proof behind that statement, because every "contradiction" I have been shown has turned out to be the result of one of the three mistakes most commonly made in analyzing documents:

1. Taking things out of context.

2. making something seem like what it isn't

3. claiming of a contradiction outside of the main messages of the document. Example: Saying what it REports is what it SUPports.

I bet I will hear some of the classic examples, but even so, post something that does not fall under those categories.

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: dthmstr254 So a boat made of gopher wood hovered. Never mind on that. Float, hover, or submerse like a submarine, I don't give a flip. However, since you want to play the interpretation game, I will play there. Here is a funny relationship within signs: Shirt and volunteer are exactly the same sign, with only the context used to discern them. Hebrew and Aramaic are the same way. The context around the word determine the meaning, ESPECIALLY with verbs and abstract words such as evil. Seeing that Ra' simply means disagreeable, it could just mean a little bump in the road or morning sickness. Yes, they are disagreeable, but that doesn't mean they are pure evil. All that confirms is that God does something that is temporarily disagreeable. God only created the POTENTIALITY of evil, WE are the ones who actualize that potential. With the CHOICE of doing good comes the CHOICE of doing evil. God gave us free will. Is it His fault when YOU decide for evil? No? Then why should it be His fault when Suddam Hussein chooses evil? As for the translation, don't take me out of context. I very clearly indicated which word has several translations. That word is Ra'. I ain't going to put it in bold and with big neon signs flashing it out, so read what I write.

Why do you care what word like RA has several translations? What did it mean in Aramic? Then how was it used in Aramic? Then, did the scholars do a good job in translating it? Who cares how many times it was tranlsated?

Saddam chose evil? How does one chose evil? How do you chose to disagree? When views are opposite it is obvious!!!! Quite often people want the same thing but desire to take different paths to achieve it. Evil? I think you know not what you sopeak of? Only a sickness in your heart. Why did scholars provide the meaning to a word like EVIL by defining a word like RA to be disagreeable? Evil means what?

The KJV has a lot wrong and you are right along with him and any other version. Evil =???? there you go again, as if you miss the point. What is evil? did we not just go through it???? Disagreeable, ok. you want to say, "hey, it's not that bad, not pure evil!" Dude, what is evil? Pure disagreence???? huh, pure disagreeableness? I mean foreal though. Did you create the concept on evil? I thought we went into translations to see how this term evil came about. Did we not???? It is what it is. People say evil what do they intent? what is the context?? Will you be speaking for everyone? Your grandma might say football is the devil's game, it's evil. Remember Water Boy? People disagree with killing, raping, fighting, swearing, lying, cheating, stealing, laziness, etc. I could go on. Yet just like God, other people believe their is a right time to kill, to cheat, to steal, etc. The fact that the Devil disagrees with God, why doesn't that make God evil????? Do you or don't you agree with the bible? And if not, does that make the bible evil?

Quote by: dthmstr254 The translation in the Bible can be many things, but when you translate it in light of the following sentences about God sending salvation from Heaven, you would be able to tell that it was talking about trials and tribulations and NOT evil.

How can you tell again? How is it that you know or see that there is a difference between the words RA and Evil and your scholars didn't?
Explain the context IF YOU CAN: How do you send trials and tribulations through the sky? What does this mean? Simply put, how do you send trials and tribulations (salvation) from heaven???? Just explain that.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: dthmstr You claimed they think there are no problems in translations.

Incorrect. Geez you guys are making it easy today. Go back up to the first post on this page. Where in that post did I say that there are no problems in the translation of Islamic holy texts? It's a rhetorical question, the answer is never.

Quote by: dthmstr Dude, you might want to put some proof behind that statement, because every "contradiction" I have been shown has turned out to be the result of one of the three mistakes most commonly made in analyzing documents:

Proof behind the statement that there are contradictions in the Bible?

I did a search in Google for "contradictions in the Bible" minus the quotes and got a huge list I was going to post here, but instead I found one site that proves my point for me:

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered

143 contradictions listed, yet the explanations are terribly weak, in some cases.

A great example is the very first one listed, which I'll quote here for those who don't want to read the site, even though it is an excellent proof against the Bible's truth.

1. God is satisfied with his works "God saw all that he made, and it was very good." [Gen 1:31] God is dissatisfied with his works. "The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain." [Gen 6:6] This is an obvious case of both/and, for something occurred after Gen 1:31 and before Gen 6:6, namely, the Fall. Evil entered creation as a result of man's volition. One can argue the theological implications elsewhere, as the only relevant point is that this is not an obvious contradiction. When God created, all was good. After man rebelled, God grieved.

Notice how the explanation dismisses the contradiction by basically saying that after man goofed then God wasn't happy any more.

All the contradictions cite this kind of thing.

If all the Bible is supposed to be true, how can anyone take it seriously then when God changes his mind so much?

These are the kinds of contradictions, and the kind of apologist explanations, that cause distrust.

Before you even bother quoting scripture or expressing your devotion, save your time.

You can either acknowledge that some of us have a legitimate reason to not trust the Bible, or you can go back to your usual stuff anyway.

Personally, if I were you I'd pony up and admit that even though I don't agree, the rest of us have a valid issue. But would just be demonstrating intellectual honesty, maturity, and good debating form.