Freethought & Rationalism Archive

YHWH666 · 04-09-2012, 12:24 PM

I'm looking for a Formal Debate that I read back in the Internet Infidels days. It's no longer in the "formal debates" section (which used to hold old archived debates). Is there a way to search the old debates still?

In any case, the one I'm looking for pertains to biblical contradictions. Specifically it discusses the concept of the Burden of Proof in contradictions.
It goes into what constitutes a reasonable interpretation of a biblical contradiction. Basically, the Christian attempts to setup a standard of evidence whereby the atheist must anticipate, and refute in advance, any possible way to reconcile an apparent contradiction. I think the example used was how Judas died---hanging or puncture wounds.

I've been taunted in a discussion that I was otherwise just going to ignore. I linked someone to the contradictions section of the Skeptic's annotated bible and he comes back with this:

Quote:

It would seem that you either ignore logic and reason when it comes to the bible or you lack critical thinking skills and reading comprehension. Do you really accept anything as truth before giving a good look through?

Lets take the first three contradictions from the site you provided,

How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?
In order to be a contradiction it must be shown that both verses are talking about the exact same event and the exact same person. Why doesn't it show that as it clearly seems to understand that this must be addressed first to conclude that there is an error?

Was Abraham justified by faith or by works?

James 2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
No contradiction here just a more detail to what true faith is. Just as with love, if you love someone it shows by your actions. If someone beats their wife can they really say that they love her? Same here, if your faith in God is true then it shows by your works. The works don't save, they testify to your belief. This is true of whatever you believe in, your actions show it. This is why Jesus even said that by their fruit you will know them.

James 2:22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

How many sons did Abraham have?

When the bible declares Isaac as Abraham's only son that is truth. Yes he had more. We see that God promised Abraham a son in which a nation was to be born, but he and his wife didn't have enough faith to wait since they were old. So his wife brought him a woman to have a child by. The woman, Hagar, and child, Ishmael, were sent away. So when Abraham was called to give Isaac to the Lord he was his only son.

Does anyone know where I can find the old debate? Or perhaps someone knows of similar reading material so I can refine my argument?
Even original input of your own would be welcome. Thanks.

seeker · 04-09-2012, 12:46 PM

This is a debate that cannot be won. The whole field of biblical hermeneutics, which goes back as far as the Bible itself, is designed to explain away...ooops, I mean 'interpret' contradictions so that they can be seen as not existing. Hermeneutics are so common that people don't really start reading the bible as they would any other literature until two or three centuries ago.

YHWH666 · 04-09-2012, 12:57 PM

That's kinda of the point raised in the debate actually.

The atheist (if I could just remember his damn name!) basically argued that the christian was starting out with the presumption that the bible must be true, and trying to setup a false burden-of-proof. Basically, saying that the atheist had to come up with apparent contradictions, anticipate any possible imagined scenarios the christian could come up with to reconcile them, and refute them all in advance.

Toto · 04-09-2012, 01:19 PM

The archives are at http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/index.php

The debate archives are

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...splay.php?f=17

This might be what you remember: Is the Bible inerrant? -- Vinnie vs. RobertLW

Your best source for Biblical contradictions in general is to search www.infidels.org

YHWH666 · 04-09-2012, 01:24 PM

Aha!

Much obliged Toto.

Kthnx...

seeker · 04-09-2012, 01:37 PM

One cannot assume that a proposition is true then use that assumption as proof. The theist in this argument is locking the atheist into an impossible position. Logically there is no reason to assume the bible is true.

The atheist shouldn't be arguing about contradictions, he should be arguing that the bible isn't true. I'd bring up the four legged locusts in Leviticus rather than contradictions. Attack the bad proposition not the end product.

You'll still have to get by hermeneutics though. The theist will undoubtedly devise some way in which a four legged locust is plausible.

My advice is avoid arguing with crazy people.

James Brown · 04-10-2012, 08:43 AM

"There are no contradictions in the Bible" is a positive claim that should be supported by the person making the claim, but then again, "There are no contradictions in The Cat in the Hat," too. The person making the claim should explain why the supposed lack of contradictions is relevant. So what if the Bible is inerrant?

Of course, the reason the claim comes up is because the speaker wants that characteristic to be evidence that the Bible is magic, that it was ghost-written by the creator of the universe. That is a much more interesting claim worthy of a debate, in my opinion, not counting noses in lists of soldiers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2012, 12:46 PM	#2
seeker Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: US Posts: 748	This is a debate that cannot be won. The whole field of biblical hermeneutics, which goes back as far as the Bible itself, is designed to explain away...ooops, I mean 'interpret' contradictions so that they can be seen as not existing. Hermeneutics are so common that people don't really start reading the bible as they would any other literature until two or three centuries ago.

04-09-2012, 12:57 PM	#3
YHWH666 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: North America Posts: 457	That's kinda of the point raised in the debate actually. The atheist (if I could just remember his damn name!) basically argued that the christian was starting out with the presumption that the bible must be true, and trying to setup a false burden-of-proof. Basically, saying that the atheist had to come up with apparent contradictions, anticipate any possible imagined scenarios the christian could come up with to reconcile them, and refute them all in advance.

04-09-2012, 01:19 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The archives are at http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/index.php The debate archives are http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...splay.php?f=17 This might be what you remember: Is the Bible inerrant? -- Vinnie vs. RobertLW Your best source for Biblical contradictions in general is to search www.infidels.org

04-09-2012, 01:24 PM	#5
YHWH666 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: North America Posts: 457	Aha! Much obliged Toto. Kthnx...

04-09-2012, 01:37 PM	#6
seeker Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: US Posts: 748	One cannot assume that a proposition is true then use that assumption as proof. The theist in this argument is locking the atheist into an impossible position. Logically there is no reason to assume the bible is true. The atheist shouldn't be arguing about contradictions, he should be arguing that the bible isn't true. I'd bring up the four legged locusts in Leviticus rather than contradictions. Attack the bad proposition not the end product. You'll still have to get by hermeneutics though. The theist will undoubtedly devise some way in which a four legged locust is plausible. My advice is avoid arguing with crazy people.

04-10-2012, 08:43 AM	#7
James Brown Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Texas, U.S. Posts: 5,844	"There are no contradictions in the Bible" is a positive claim that should be supported by the person making the claim, but then again, "There are no contradictions in The Cat in the Hat," too. The person making the claim should explain why the supposed lack of contradictions is relevant. So what if the Bible is inerrant? Of course, the reason the claim comes up is because the speaker wants that characteristic to be evidence that the Bible is magic, that it was ghost-written by the creator of the universe. That is a much more interesting claim worthy of a debate, in my opinion, not counting noses in lists of soldiers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.