If the story were consistent, it wouldn't be full of contradictions, but it is. It's only consistent if you ignore said contradictions, but whoever said you were supposed to read any book that way? The fact is, if you read a book for it's entirety, you have to accept it for what it is, including all the faults. If you have to resort to selective readings, then either you're not a good reader, or the book is not a good read.
If people want to believe that the resurrection really happened in light of its validity that the other contradictions call into light, that's really their choice, but all I've done is to explain why I reject it. If you have a problem with that, I can't really do anything about that if you feel so personally about it. Just accept the fact that there will always be people who have reasons to reject the story, and people who blindly accept it.
And thanks once again for adding those unnecessary comments; I made no such discussion about the proving of God's existence, only to say that I did not dwell on such a topic, nor did I directly say that Jesus' resurrection being false meant God doesn't exist--that would be a poor generalization of all that I have posted before, and maybe that's a good reason why you admit my posts are boring. But if they were, you wouldn't be reading them or responding to them, would you? If you weren't reading them because they were boring, then I can clearly see why you debate the way you do.
And for the last time, I did not say that everyone who believes in God believes in the bible. When I speak of the people who believe in the bible, I did not say I was talking about everyone who believes in God. I know quite well that people have different perspectives of the God they believe in, and don't all believe everything in the bible, but when I speak of a particular case, I do not speak of every other case of religious people who don't necessarily believe the same things. And that wasn't even what I was talking about anyways. I was speaking of the atrocities and contradictions in the bible, not of the people who believe in such things. The only reason we're talking about that now is because you repeatedly keep bringing up said matters on your own, even though I made no such comments about them. Thanks once again for hitting the strawman.
As for whether or not God exists, let's hope we're speaking of the Christian one to begin with--in fact, that should have been implied from the beginning, and if you suggest to twist such a definition of the God we are speaking of, then you are clearly committing sophistry. When I suggest these things written in the bible were written badly, and in such a way that its validity is at question, it might lead to God not existing, but as I have said in my first post, that's not the only reason God might not exist. There are so many reasons why God is unevidenced or not likely to exist, and for that reason, the probability he exists is low--all of these comments were made about the Christian God. If there was another God that other people believe in with different characteristics, I have nothing to say about that because I don't know anything about said God. I do know, however, that there is no God I know of, Christian or not, that I have ever observed or experienced in my life.
If you haven't heard of a strawman fallacy before, there's a companion thread to this one about Debate Fallacies. I would suggest reading it because it might help you learn to debate better.
If you believe God exists, that's your problem, not mine. However, I think the probability that God exists is quite low, and maybe he does exist by some small probability--who knows. But since this is a debate, it would do well for you to explain why you think he exists, particularly because the burden of proof is on those who suggest that beings or things exist without there being evidence.
As I have posted before about the correlation between logic and religion, people who don't like seeing their religion talked about in a logical light like to dismiss the argument away by saying that they're not related.
But I digress. I would like for a debate to be argued in the most reasonable and rational way possible--after all, that is what a debate is. If you were to suggest that there is no relation between logic and religion, you would be defeating the purpose of debate. However, I am not speaking solely of religion being illogical, but that it has an illogical place in my life because it makes no sense whatsoever. You have even admitted that it requires blind faith to believe in religion, and when explaining why I choose not to believe, it is quite obvious then that because I base my life on logic and reasoning, that religion is of no interest to my personal life. I can see religion in no other light than that of reason because I lack all faith. You can only concede that religion makes no sense logically at all, but to say that I cannot speak of religion in terms of logic simply because they're not related is a fallacy--I will continue to dissect religion if it explains why I don't buy it, regardless of whether you like it or not.
As I have made a mention to another poster in this debate, if you have no evidence to suggest things, then what you propose is inconclusive, and you can say nothing on the subject matter. Furthermore, that does not change the probability that the bible might have stolen ideas, when so many of these ideas were taken from so many other works that predated the bible, rather than just one or two of them. However, the fact still holds that these other ideologies existed before the bible did, and the bible copying or pretending to create these ideologies on its own does not change how important they are. People will continue deciding for themselves which ideologies they want to have, and no book can emphasize how important they are; they are important because you see them that way, and are insignificant for the same reasons. All the ideologies can do are introduce new concepts to people for them to think about. But do not hasten so quickly to suggest the bible gives people "new" ideologies to think about because they are not new, and they have furthermore been included with a set of ideologies to shun those of others--once again, it is easy to see how it is that people credit the bible for certain ideologies, but ignore that these ideologies appeared before the bible in other works that they denied because they weren't "Christian".
Then I would like to know why you spend so much time defending a book that is obsolete.
If you ignored the Old Testament, that might have been true, but then again, we come across the same problem of selective reading or a bad book--having to ignore the Old Testament to make the New Testament look better doesn't dismiss the fact that the bible as a whole isn't a good book. The contradiction in taking the intolerance of the Old Testament with the New Testament probably explains why people deny the Old Testament, but it's still there--in fact, that's probably a good reason why the people did what they did. Unlike certain people, they read the entire book for what it was, rather than cherry picking certain verses they wanted to hear. If the Old Testament hadn't said the things it said, the people would have less of a reason to do what they did. This just goes back to the argument I presented about two problems--one being the people who believe what they read without questioning it, and the other being what's actually written in the book.
You are free to believe that the teachings or the book are not at fault, but when I see that there are these contradictions, inconsistencies and repetitions, the entire thing shouldn't really make much sense altogether, and it is only through cherry picking that it even makes any sense, and you shouldn't have to cherry pick in order for something to make sense, otherwise you are using an external criteria by which to judge the book and subsequently, the God you are reading about from it--which is why I suggested it might have been better to read other philosophical works that are less contradictory or inconsistent. It would be the more logical thing to do.
I have read your posts carefully, and all I can garner from them are insults and plain getting pissed off and being too personal about a mere debate. If you're not Christian and don't really care about what happens to their God, I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. I'm not attacking your God, just the biblical one.
Last edited:
), and my kid is fatally sick. No matter what I do, he doesn't want to go to the hospital. He cries and screams and kicks and punches whenever I mention the very word. Do I have a right to force him to go? Answer this, and I'll elaborate on it's importance afterwards.
