Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"My apologies, I misinterpreted your statement. "....
Did you now....? We'll see....
In any event ...thank you for acknowledging that you lied regarding what I posted.
"Perhaps these quotes were more reason for me to believe that you believe that contradictions prove the Bible irrational."
Perhaps they were .... perhaps they weren't .... perhaps you were trying to misrepresent the discussion.
Anyway ,Caleb , perhaps you'll answer a question for me .....
What do you make of Matthew 27:9 .....
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;"
What do you make of it ?
Here you go.
I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions.
Really? Caleb ….. really ?
OK just for clarification ……
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;”
The contradiction being that the said fulfilled prophecy was not one of Jeremiah’s but in fact is from Zechariah,
The question I asked was “what do you make of it ?”
It was YOUR opinion I was soliciting.
And what was it you did? …..
You just posted a link to “answersingenisis”.
I assume that you are saying you have no opinion on this particular verse and that you will go along with what AIG tells you to think.
Is that it ?
Very well ….. if you are content to trust your intellectual reputation to the likes of Ken Ham ….
Lets look at what the folks at AIG have to say about the misquoted verses…
AIG while acknowledging ,” If Matthew did make a mistake, then the concept of scriptural inerrancy is undermined.”
AIG goes on to say…
“we can see that there are several rationalizations of the alleged problem that have been discussed over the years.”
In short they are:
1/Said by Jeremiah but later written by Zechariah
No evidence …?
2/Zechariah’s second name is Jeremiah, like “Simon Peter” for Peter
3/Copyist mistake, but the Syriac and Persian versions have no prophet listed and all the Greek versions do.
This is true …. The Syriac version mentions only “the prophet”….. not sure what this means for the Jeremiah contradiction……but it knocks bloody great holes in the idea of Biblical inerrancy.
4/This is quoting from an apocryphal work of Jeremiah, like Jude quoting from Enoch
An “apocryphal” work …. Check out the definition of “apocryphal”….(the synonyms are particularly good)
(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.
"an apocryphal story about a former president"
synonyms: fictitious, made-up, untrue, fabricated, false, spurious;
5/The last four chapters of Zechariah were actually written by Jeremiah
This one smacks of real desperation ….. and is only held to by Ham and his pixies…..there is of course ….no evidence.
6/Due to a different order of books in the Jewish canon, Jeremiah could be given proper credit for any of the minor prophets.
You’ll note the important word here……”could” ….. COULD …..
7/This passage refers to both sections of Jeremiah and Zechariah, and only Jeremiah is mentioned
Ah…. There you go…..it means BOTH Zechariah AND Jeremiah ….. despite the quote NOT appearing in Jeremiah.
There is also a number 8/ but this is really off the wall….
it runs along these lines….”So, if Matthew, speaking with the Holy Spirit, quotes this and attributes it to Jeremiah, then it was indeed something Jeremiah said, and it was merely not recorded in his writings.”
It’s a sort of theists get out of jail free card….”Look …God said it….believe it or else.”
So AIG can only offer “rationalizations” ….. no actual facts.
Just one more small fact....Zecheriah dates to around the 520 bc mark and was operating in Babylon while Jeremiah dates to around the 600 BC mark and was in Egypt....... makes co-operation difficult.
You got anything else Caleb..??
As to your other post ....I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions
Don't worry I'll get round to it...
I was saying that I do have an opinion and that I agree with AIG.
That is how I interpret this passage, you may not agree with it, but that is my explanation.
So do you believe that laws of logic exist?
Are you still on about the laws of logic? I'm glad you are asking questions, but nobody here is falling for that tactic. Whether or not there are laws of logic, logic cannot be used with imaginary properties (like the creation of our universe, or gods that operate outside our reality yet cause effect inside our reality) except possibly to disprove them, but sometimes not even then, so it makes little difference for that sort of discussion.
Rationalization is not logic, philosophy is not logic; logic is not arbitrary and it is very strict. In human terms, it is a language and a tool much like mathematics; and like mathematics, it expresses tangible properties of reality, yet with less malleability than mathematics. Laws of logic are more solid even than laws of gravity or any other laws of physics.
Don't stop trying to poke holes, just find another avenue of approach, this one is blocked.
"logic cannot be used with imaginary properties "
I however don't believe that God is just some imaginary property.
"Rationalization is not logic, philosophy is not logic"
You are right. However, these things depend on logic, do you disagree?
You have a great view of logic, I agree with you that it is very very strict.
But how can that be so in you view of the world? After all, you said that everything is subjective, does that include the laws of logic?
"Don't stop trying to poke holes, just find another avenue of approach, this one is blocked."
I did however ask some questions about uniformity in nature, we could talk about personal dignity and freedom if you'd like, or perhaps reliability of senses and memory, or even rationality in debate. All of which don't make sense in an atheistic universe, but do make sense in a Christian universe.
Okay, I admit to being intrigued by, "personal dignity and freedom if you'd like, or perhaps reliability of senses and memory, or even rationality in debate." Please elaborate on how these don't make sense in an atheistic universe, but do make sense in a theistic one.
As to the other questions, I cannot argue with someone who won't realize that the transcendent is imaginary. You continually misinterpret what logic is. It is how we describe things which we see actually happen and how we make predictions about things that may happen; and when we see that the predictions are incorrect, logic forces us to re-examine and re-formulate predictions. This is because logic is about real, material things, not the transcendent.
Personal dignity and Freedom
Atheistic ~ why is a Human being worth any more than the thousands of bacteria you kill in your mouth every time you brush your teeth?
Why should an we go to a friends funeral if he is just an intelligent evolved bacteria?
Theistic~ Because God made Human's in His likeness, Humans aren't just highly evolved bacteria, They are special, and have worth.
Reliability of Senses and Memory
Atheistic ~ Why should we rely on our senses or memory, after all if they just happened by random chance why should they be reliable?
Theistic~ Because God made them and we would expect something God made to be reliable. However there are diseases as a result of sin that will affect this to a degree.
Rationality in Debate
Atheistic ~ Why should we be rational? Why can't we commit logical fallacies?
Theisic ~ Because God wants us to be rational.
Could you define imaginary? Do you mean not real or immaterial?
Sounds like all you really know about atheism is how to spell it.
The only, I repeat ONLY, thing all atheists have in common is that they are not theists.
For you to assign thoughts and opinions to atheists as a group, other than that we are not theists is bigoted at a minimum.
Notice I said, "Atheistic" not "Atheists", I was being very careful. Because not all atheists believe alike, but in an atheistic universe...
However, beliefs come in clusters, and beliefs have consequences.
Then I will reword for you...
Sounds like all you really know about the word 'atheistic' is how to spell it.
The only, I repeat ONLY, thing that defines 'atheistic' is that it is not 'theistic'.
For you to assign thoughts and opinions as 'atheistic', other than that it is not 'theistic' is bigoted and completely ignorant at a minimum.
Outside of combat, I'm a rather peaceful and laid back person. But somehow I really want to punch you in the face after reading these comments. Sorry, I'm just being honest about my gut reaction, of course I wouldn't do it. I know there are those who would say vile things like this about your beliefs (theists and atheists), but I am not one of them. The arrogance of your stance is alarming. Of course I feel you're entitled to your opinion, but maybe you should think about it some more. If what you say can elicit this kind of ire out of me, I bet tens of dollars it will cause much worse in others. That kind of extremism is fraught with problems.
Glad we are just over the internet then.
You didn't have such a gut reaction when I questioned logic, or uniformity in nature, did you?
Got to be in the running for strawman of the year.
I try by best. *joke*
I don't want to strawman you, care to explain?
"I was saying that I do have an opinion and that I agree with AIG.
That is how I interpret this passage, you may not agree with it, but that is my explanation."
You do realise that the AIG position is actually no position at all…..what they propose is several (unproven) possibilities ….. well 8 actually ….some more ridiculous than others.
But you say ….,” I do have an opinion”
That’s good …. You’re 18 …nearly a man …. Its time you had opinions of your own.
“I agree with AIG”
Well that would not be my choice….. but it is your choice we are talking about …. So that’s fine….
which one of their 8 postulated explanations matches your own.
“That is how I interpret this passage,”
Good …strong and assertive response ….but you haven’t actually said which interpretation/explanation….
“that is my explanation”
What is ?
I agree with them that either of the possible 8 explanations could be true, and therefore the inerrancy of scripture is not undermined. Some however are more likely then not.
I will concede that the models we will build on say the flood and how it happened could be wrong, but the fact that the flood happened, cannot.
That will not do….
You posted ….. “ I do have an opinion”.
But all you say is ,” I agree with them that either of the possible 8 explanations could be true,”
Then you try to slide the conversation sideways onto “the Flood”….
NO ,no ,no that cannot be allowed…. The Flood has been thoroughly debunked over and over….
(if you are serious about wanting to be made to look ridiculous I suggest you start a new thread specifically for the Flood...but ,trust me...It will fill up VERY quickly.)
NO WE WERE DISCUSSING MATTHEW 27-9…..
Now you say “either of the possible 8 explanations could be true”.
I’d like you to present evidence for ,shall we say ,4 of the eight.
Or 3…… or 2….. or even any…
Perhaps….” Said by Jeremiah but later written by Zechariah” ….
Or …..” Zechariah’s second name is Jeremiah”..
Or maybe …” The last four chapters of Zechariah were actually written by Jeremiah”.
Come on Caleb ……
you said , “ I do have an opinion”.
All I’m asking for is that you justify “your” opinion …
show me that you are not just parroting Ham’s brainwashing .
How did you arrive at this opinion ?
Where is the evidence for Zechariah’s 2nd name.
You see …they can’t all be right ….
Some of them must be wrong…..
and if some of them are wrong why not all of them ?
What can be asserted without evidence may be disregarded without qualm.
Once again, my opinion is their opinion.
If we approach the passage looking for an error, we will find one.
If we approach the passage looking for biblical inerrency,we can see that there are several rationalizations to the supposedly contradiction. 6-8 being more likely.
My point with the flood was that, while the models we build about how something happened, like for example, the way the flood happened, the way the ark was built, the way Jesus was crucified on the cross, or the way Paul's ship sank, may change, the fact that each of those happened will not.
So do you, or do you not believe contradictions are irrational?
No ...contradictions are not irrational....
So.....you actually have no opinion of your own......
your stance is one of blind ,unthinking obedience.....
parroting the words of Ham.
" If we look at the passage, while assuming scriptural inerrancy, we can see that there are several rationalizations of the alleged problem that have been discussed over the years."
No research ,no reading ,no reasoning ,no rationality......just blindly doing and thinking exactly what you are told to.
Believing what you are told to.....
shaming yourself ,your country......
how can the country that put man on the moon have produced you ??
How sad.....very VERY sad....... only 18 years old .... your intellect and your integrity stolen from you .... by a snake-oil salesman.
Still very much a child then.....
I shall trouble you no further with questions.........
why would I ?.....
if I want to know what you think on any given subject all I have to do is check out AIG to see what good old uncle Ken is telling you to think...
I'll leave you these sites as a "life line" ....They will provide a starting point for your recovery......in the event sanity ever returns.
I shall leave this thread now .... I hope the world treats you better than you warrant.....
"Thou never shalt hear Herald anymore"
"contradictions are not irrational" Pardon my saying so, but why?
"Believing what you are told to....."
So I should just believe what you are telling me?
BTW the guy who invented the MRI is a Young-Earth Creationist.
Witness1615 - "BTW the guy who invented the MRI is a Young-Earth Creationist"
Yes, smart people can believe stupid things. Newton believed in Atlantis, the elixir of life, and the philosophers stone; and lots of other stupid stuff, including god.
Oh, and do you really believe Jesus never existed?
To do that you basically have to deny all ancient history.
I didn’t even watch a video. My sources for morality are reason and empathy.
Why are atheist rules not arbitrary? Because they are justified, atheists can give and account for them, they do have a basis.
Batman himself is good and is the Standard for goodness, and Batman has revealed himself through the DC Comics, Hence Batman did not just one day decide what is moral and what is good, because Batman himself is goodness and it's standard. That is why in the atheistic Batman worldview there are moral laws.
Why are there in the theistic worldview again?
Had batman always existed?
Of course, ever read a batman comic where batman didn't exist?
Irrefutable evidence of batman's existance. I'm sold!
cm, all you have to do is allow Batman into your heart!
Sadly, now that I have evidence, my acceptance of Batman as my savior is meaningless as an expression of faith.
I am amazed that you all went with batman as opposed to the flying spaghetti monster.