Re: What is your strongest disproof of the Bible?

[minstrelofc]

Well, my collection of spare Bibles have gone missing, so until I can dig one out of my closet, (probably this weekend,) I can answer questions!

1. The great flood would have needed cloud cover so dense it would have blocked out the sun, thus killing noah and all the animals he was trying to save.
  Miracle
Wow, what an amazing cop-out. It is now up to you to show me some kind of evidence that the great flood did in fact happen.

2. Women are not made out of male bones.
  Miracle
Seriously?!? How would you believe that based on the overwhelming evidence for evolution? It is unbelievable that you would trust the bible’s claim that the first woman on earth was some how fashioned from the first man’s rib cage. Most life forms have two sexes and that is due to evolution, not from a special makeshift mutated piece of bone. Human beings did not simply pop into existence; it was a gradual process full of many proceeding forms of life that diverged into two separate sexes some time in the past.

3. Snakes don’t talk
  Miracle or They did then
WTF?. What evidence do you have that suggests snakes evolved to the point of having language? My theory on this is, ancient people saw snakes as evil because of their hypnotic eyes and poisonous bite. The fear and stories surrounding these creature may have been past down through generations and became warped and embellished. The shape of a snake is phallic and would carry sexual connotations and would evoke sinfulness. A tongue that is used to explore its environment might suggest an ability to communicate through language. I have not researched this, but this all seems way more likely than the devil talking through a snake.

4. The earth is not older than our sun
  ("science")The atoms that make them up would be the same age, (/"science") Way too many questions regarding sure determination of sun age, earth age, other things
So everything is the same age? Come on!
Matter (hydrogen) in a region of space condenses by gravity to forms stars and left over matter condenses to form planets and moons. This in happening now and has happened in the past. Stars are older than the planets that orbit them.

http://origins.stsci.edu/faq/planetary-systems.html

5. The moon is not a “small sun” that creates light in the same way the sun does.
  The moon is a "lesser light" that "rules the night"
You are a poet and didn’t know it. The moon does NOT shine it reflects light from the sun. Day and night are earth terms that don’t really make sense out in the universe. The moon just happens to be there. And I guess the stars a perfectly positioned to help us too?

6. Rainbows existed before the great flood.
  You have no proof, only presumption that things were the same then as they are now
 

A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. They take the form of a multicoloured arc, with red on the outer part of the arch and violet on the inner section of the arch.

A prism can be used to break light up into its constituent spectral colors (the colors of the rainbow). Prisms can also be used to reflect light, or to split light into components with different polarizations.

Rain drops are acting as a prism. Are you telling me that a triangular piece of glass would have Not separated white light into a rainbow before the great flood? Science can do that experiment today. Light from a distance star that is just now reaching us from BEFORE the time of the great flood can arrive on earth and separated by a prism into a rainbow.

7. Thou shall not kill yet killing animals, insects, plants, bacteria, viruses and people who are deemed “evil” is morally acceptable.
  Thou shalt not murder - non-humans don't count, "state" executions are not murder, explicit orders from God overrule general principles
 I have heard my whole life “thou shall not kill” …something fishy going on there…
Regardless, how is it not murder to go around shooting animals for the sport of it? I knew a Baptist preacher who enjoys hunting and uses squirrels as target practice. How can it be morally justifiable to murder/kill creatures that have a desire to live, simply for fun?
Bad stewards, bad!

1. I didn't have "evidence of the flood" on my list, but I'll add it now.
However, calculations of cloud cover would be effectively impossible - the bible also mentions water being released from the underground, and does not specify the ratio of underground-to-rain water. Furthermore, at the time God was specifically controlling events - there's no way of telling if he simply ensured that specific things didn't die because he didn't want them to --- there would be no evidence *now* either way.

2. God was directly involved in creating the first woman out of a rib bone from the man.

Yes, if you take a male rib bone and sit it on the ground it will not spontaneously turn into a woman. That's why it's called a "miracle" - God directly interferes, causing something to happen that is beyond nature.

There is no evidence now that could prove it or disprove it.

3. Let me start by saying that there's no evidence now as to whether a specific snake talked or not. No way of proving it, therefore, it must be deducted from other established beliefs. You believe (I assume) that based on the evolutionary record (and other evidences) that there is no way that a snake could have spoken to a human. And quite rightly so - if you believed what you do and thought that snakes were chatting like crazy back in the day, I'd start to doubt your sanity. I believe that the Bible is true, and the Bible says that this snake talked. If I *didn't* believe that the snake talked, but still claimed to believe the Bible, then there would definitely be a problem.

4. Quoting your link:
"A cloud of interstellar gas, dust and ices, containing several generations of material, collapsed to form the nebula from which the Sun and the rest of our solar system grew."
The sun and the earth come from the same dust cloud, so their atoms are the same age.

Which is precisely what I said - I try not to put things into little ("science") tags unless I mean exactly what I say.

5. So you're saying that gold doesn't shine? Silver doesn't shine? Of course they do, they just don't generate the energy of the light themselves.
The sun, planets, stars, and the moon all provide luminance to the earth. Some through Incandescence, others by reflection.

I do not understand the relevance of you bringing up the irrelevance of earth-based time systems in non-earth zones. Are you suggesting communication would be clearer if we destroy our timepieces and only refer to "non-inertial-reference-frame-seconds" (so we can not be affected by time dilation due to earth's motion)?

6. We weren't there, and there's no proof either way. Prisms could have worked, but there might have been full cloud cover. There's no evidence available now that I can look into.

7. "kill" is a very general term in English, whereas the Bible was not written in English.

I agree with you, we should all be taking better care of "Spaceship Earth".

What you need, OP, are some Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, and Jewish friends. This "Christian" and "Non-Christian" split you've got is a false dichotomy.

I don't want you to see the differences in the arguments from Christians and atheists. I want you to see the SIMILARITIES in arguments from people of different religions. [...]

I understand your point.

There are "ways" (which you would quite rightly scoff at) to explain things like that.

The thing is, I understand the Christian viewpoint and the Scientific viewpoint the best, so I'd rather work on the interactions between them (and naively assume that if Christianity isn't true, no religion is true) than try to learn more "possible" (but just as unprovable) viewpoints.

I've probably used the term "non-christian" when I was trying to mean non-theist, or perhaps simply atheist/agnostic. I apologize for any confusion.

Sorry, first post here and I am sure this gets said a lot... but surely the response to this is;

You cant prove a negative.

Its not our job to disprove the bible.. its YOUR job to prove it. You say its the truth, you say its right. Prove it. Provide me with evidence.

Welcome to the forums!

You're right, it's not your job to disprove the Bible. I'm trying to make that my job.  

If I'm going to try to convince you that the Bible true, then I should most definitely provide evidence.

As for the communication difficulties of which you speak, I do not have to accept your perspective to communicate with you. You do not have to accept my perspectives to communicate with me. Now, for you to change my mind, I would have to accept your perspectives. A complete lack of evidence to support the claims of the bible lead me to believe that is not going to happen.
That being said, do you choose to see anything from a muslim perspective? Or a jewish perspective? Or a mormon perspective? My guess is you could try to all you want, but until you completely believed what they do, you won't be able to do it.

I disagree: we both must accept a common language and medium of communication (voice, text, etc) in order to communicate at all. Similarly, we must accept common definitions of terms (like "bread", or "chair") in order to understand each other. The degree to which we can agree upon a shared perspective is directly proportional to the depth at which we can communicate.

This extends to false perspectives: if I say "This television set is beautiful", and then you find out that I mean "cake" when I say "television set", you do not have to agree with my definition to understand what I'm saying. However, without knowing my perspective, you would not be able to figure out what I mean.

[Ihateyoumike]

As for the communication difficulties of which you speak, I do not have to accept your perspective to communicate with you. You do not have to accept my perspectives to communicate with me. Now, for you to change my mind, I would have to accept your perspectives. A complete lack of evidence to support the claims of the bible lead me to believe that is not going to happen.
That being said, do you choose to see anything from a muslim perspective? Or a jewish perspective? Or a mormon perspective? My guess is you could try to all you want, but until you completely believed what they do, you won't be able to do it.

I disagree: we both must accept a common language and medium of communication (voice, text, etc) in order to communicate at all. Similarly, we must accept common definitions of terms (like "bread", or "chair") in order to understand each other. The degree to which we can agree upon a shared perspective is directly proportional to the depth at which we can communicate.

This extends to false perspectives: if I say "This television set is beautiful", and then you find out that I mean "cake" when I say "television set", you do not have to agree with my definition to understand what I'm saying. However, without knowing my perspective, you would not be able to figure out what I mean.

Yet again, you have not only misunderstood everything I have said, you have also completely avoided the topic at hand. Where did this become a conversation about needing a common language to communicate? I was under the assumption that perspective means perspective, and not language. Are you intentionally trying to not make sense and confuse so that you can ultimately prove a point? If so, please come out with that point.
So again I will say, I do not have to agree with your perspective to communicate with you.

Of course you *can* study anything you want from any perspective you can conceive of (and can obtain). I personally believe that if you chose, you *could* see the Bible from a Christian perspective (without necessarily believing it). You choose not to, and for fairly understandable reasons (why put your mind in such a weird state for no benefit). The unfortunate part is that it makes for communication difficulties with those who accept that perspective as their default world-view.

Again, this is the message which I quoted and was responding to. How in the world did you get from that quote to this:

if I say "This television set is beautiful", and then you find out that I mean "cake" when I say "television set", you do not have to agree with my definition to understand what I'm saying.

I'm just confused, so I think I need to stop trying to figure out what your side of the argument means. Perhaps if I need your definitions of words to understand what you're saying, you should either define them your own way as you go, or use the words you use as they are intended to be used. Because "I don't have to accept your perspective to communicate with you" means something quite different from "I don't have to accept your language to communicate with you."

[toadhall]

What you need, OP, are some Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, and Jewish friends. This "Christian" and "Non-Christian" split you've got is a false dichotomy.

I don't want you to see the differences in the arguments from Christians and atheists. I want you to see the SIMILARITIES in arguments from people of different religions. For example:

People of nearly all religions will point to miracles as proof of THEIR religion.
People of nearly all religions will consider their religious texts holy and often inerrant.
People of nearly all religions will say non-belief or at least wrong action through non-belief will be punished in the next life.
People of nearly all religions will cite personal experience with their deity, and say this personal experience cannot be argued against.
People of any religion can go to the old mainstays of the ontological proof, the cosmological proof, or the appeal to design and say this proves THEIR God.

As you study all the thousands of religions out there and find that they are all just as convinced and steeped in their beliefs as Christians, you'll have to face the uncomfortable truth that even if you did want to believe in something greater, you have no way of knowing which religion is true.

:brick: is a very powerful icon for escalating the tone of a post to become offensive and insulting, both of which are detrimental to the quality of a debate. However despite this I've come across it often on this board, used and accepted as a legitimate rebuttal. Perhaps you can explain?

However, on to Loffler's argument:

People of nearly all religions will point to miracles as proof of THEIR religion.

In the book of Acts, the author describes how cripples are instantly healed by the power of Jesus. If this were true wouldn't you say it was testimony to the power of Jesus, not Zeus?
This is not the same as someone praying for rain tomorrow. A miracle is a supernatural event that can only be attributed to a god, and if one can be proven to have occurred, then all we'd need to do is discover which god was asked.

People of nearly all religions will consider their religious texts holy and often inerrant.

I don't know what you're getting at with the word "holy", but the Bible is a series of books, mostly narrative but some teaching, written by several individual authors over different periods of time.

Loffler, I think it'd be better to amend all those statements with "Some people" instead of just "people", because I certainly don't agree with all those things.
Again, I used the brick icon because it seems to be somewhat part of HAF's culture. No offense meant.

[Miss Anthrope]

To tell the you the truth, Miss Anthrope, I just thought I'd try it out.   is a very powerful icon for escalating the tone of a post to become offensive and insulting, both of which are detrimental to the quality of a debate. However despite this I've come across it often on this board, used and accepted as a legitimate rebuttal. Perhaps you can explain?

I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain. Do you mean the comment?

Ideally, the brick comment is used to reply when someone isn't "getting" something in a line of discussion, or when bad logic is being used. Since Loffler's post was in reference to one sided belief sytems and bad logic, I wasn't sure if you were using the icon to show that you're frustrated by the inability of many religious people to understand the similarities between religions, or if you thought that what Loffler was saying didn't make any sense.

I certainly wasn't questioning your right to use it or express your beliefs, I just wasn't clear about the meaning. Using the brick icon as a reply to relatively long posts can be confusing, so in such cases it's usually a good idea to add your arguments to your reply so that everyone knows why your banging your head.

[Whitney]

Just posting   has never been considered a 'legitimate' rebuttal as it does not rebut anything; it just expresses a poster's emotional reaction to a post.

If this needs to be discussed futher I will need to split it off from this thread to avoid a derail.

[Loffler]

People of nearly all religions will point to miracles as proof of THEIR religion.

In the book of Acts, the author describes how cripples are instantly healed by the power of Jesus. If this were true wouldn't you say it was testimony to the power of Jesus, not Zeus?

I don't understand your point.

This is not the same as someone praying for rain tomorrow. A miracle is a supernatural event that can only be attributed to a god, and if one can be proven to have occurred, then all we'd need to do is discover which god was asked.

First of all, no. A miracle does not have to be attributed to a god. That's a very theistic assumption. It could also be from a river spirit, a fairy, the Trix rabbit, transdimensional aliens, or our collective psychic unconscious.

Secondly, what if thousands of different gods got asked?

People of nearly all religions will consider their religious texts holy and often inerrant.

I don't know what you're getting at with the word "holy", but the Bible is a series of books, mostly narrative but some teaching, written by several individual authors over different periods of time.

Again, I don't understand your point.

Loffler, I think it'd be better to amend all those statements with "Some people" instead of just "people", because I certainly don't agree with all those things.

No, my statement is correct. If I'd said "all people" I would amend it. But I didn't. So I won't. "People" does not automatically mean "all people."

If I said "People are talking about your new hat," you'd know I didn't mean every person on Earth or even all the people I know.

Again, I used the brick icon because it seems to be somewhat part of HAF's culture. No offense meant.

None comprehended.

[Ihateyoumike]

A miracle is a supernatural event that can only be attributed to a god,

False. A miracle is a supernatural event that can only be attributed to humans who lack the knowledge necessary to find the true answer for what has occurred. Oddly enough, your god can be replaced for miracle in this sentence as well.

[Loffler]

A miracle is a supernatural event that can only be attributed to a god,

False. A miracle is a supernatural event that can only be attributed to humans who lack the knowledge necessary to find the true answer for what has occurred. Oddly enough, your god can be replaced for miracle in this sentence as well.

The direction I was going was that even if it's a completely inexplicable miracle and defies all physics now and forever, it is not evidence of a deity. This is the fault of theists: they have chosen to point out that all the order in the universe is itself evidence of a deity. If this is the case, miracles would be evidence AGAINST a deity by violating the orderliness of the universe. Lucky for them, their assertion is nonsense: neither order nor miracles prove God exists.

[PipeBox]

Hi everyone, got sidetracked for about to weeks.  Today I scrolled up in notepad, where I keep all my ideas I'm working on (I never shut off my computer, though I do save the file periodically), and saw a two-week-old rebuttal to minstrelofc.  I didn't post it originally because I was also going to rebut his responses to other people, but in hindsight, you guys can cover your own bases very well, and since my bit is done, no reason not to drop it before I find another excuse to forget about it.   ).

I've already evaluated the atheistic/agnostic perspective as being (outwardly) valid, if I accept the initial conditions of (for example) starting by not believing anything, and accepting things only when they are "proven".[/quote]
I don't know what to say.  If you find atheism "outwardly" valid, and have no proof (which is the only reason I can surmise that you are trying to restrict shifting it back to the person asserting the claim), then I can only assume that your desire for a god to exist is the only reason you believe in one.  (rant to Christians in general) How proud must you be to think your desires shape reality??  It's not as though I want to die a permanent death sometime this century, it's not as though I want to be a primate who shares an ancestor with chimps, apes, and somewhere further up, crocodiles and squirrels, it's not as though I want to be all alone when I am alone, it's not as though I want to cast off a creator who would see to my every need, be apprised of my every journey, and make me wise of the spirit, it's not as though I want morality to be subjective, nor any other advantageous thing you can claim God brings.   But there is no evidence that any of the above is the case.  You have a book that makes claims and has as much backing as the Koran.  The Bible is, in fact, demonstrably wrong about a host of things when those who believe in it don't shift the meanings at will.  The implied age of the universe, the worldwide flood, how the universe was created, and a so much more that I can't remember or haven't yet learned of.  The only thing Christianity ever had was desire for its tenants to be true.  But that is a powerful thing, so powerful that it is unlikely to be broken by any one statement.  The person who believes must ask themselves why they do, no amount of debunking will suffice for a matter of faith, especially one so well malleable as Christianity.  The excuse "Well, maybe God did it like this. . . " will always be available, even if the output no longer looks like the God of the Bible.  And it will always be viable until you're willing to question your belief instead of questioning us as to why you should't have it.

Beyond that, all we can give you is logical, scientific, and historical arguments as to why the Bible cannot be right, and you have a clear path for getting around all three if you so desire.

[SSY]

jcm: Snakes don't talk

Miracle, or maybe they did then.

Listen to yourself! I mean really, talking snakes? You seriously see nothing wrong with that? Nothing there seems like it might not tally with reality?

This thread is an absolute farce. I hereby remove myself from it with extreme prejudice (unless I need to come back with a witty quip after I have been wished good riddance )!

[minstrelofc]

Yet again, you have not only misunderstood everything I have said, you have also completely avoided the topic at hand. Where did this become a conversation about needing a common language to communicate? I was under the assumption that perspective means perspective, and not language. Are you intentionally trying to not make sense and confuse so that you can ultimately prove a point? If so, please come out with that point.
So again I will say, I do not have to agree with your perspective to communicate with you.

We're having trouble communicating. In the context of what you are saying, what is your definition of "perspective"? I've been defining it as a system of assumptions, or axioms, upon which a philosophical viewpoint is constructed.

I refuse to accept this as a valid thing for God to do. However, I have some conflicting data, so I'll have to get back to you on exactly why once (and if) I can resolve it.

It must be a valid thing for God to do, how else will you explain the star light, not to mention a whole host of sciences that are at odds with a biblical timeline.  I know you don't have time to research all of radiometric dating, nor study topics like fused chromosomes and ERVs, nor study archaeology and astronomy, but the alternative is that 99% of scientists are inept in these fields or that they're lying to you and everytime a new person figures it out by studying all of it, they're invited into the Conspiracy Club.  The only way you can account for these inconsistencies is if your benevolent God is testing you.  The alternatives are that God is malevolent, God is insane, or that Satan utterly wrecked God's glorious plans and he was unable to prevent or fix it.

Timeline-wise I'm not fully convinced either way.
See this link: http://www.aish.com/societyWork/science ... iverse.asp
It has some fascinating data on how 1500 year old Talmudic commentaries expressed a clear division between the days of creation and the days after Adam was created. It even ties it into Relativity.

Was Faraday inept because he didn't fully figure out electromagnetism? Of course not - he was working with a field that hadn't (as still hasn't) been fully explained. Scientists today are the same - they're working with the best data they have, but haven't figured everything out.

Unorganized thoughts: (I recognize it as valid for God to provide less data than we need to be scientifically certain, but not valid to destroy incidental data. Perhaps a perfect being would not need to destroy "dangerous" evidence because they would have done a better job (or at least done a different thing) in the first place.)

If this is the case, God definitely owes me a showing, because all of that previous stuff is definitely correct and he has no reason to hide from me.  Indeed, I desire my burning bush, booming voice, and discussion with corporeal Elijah, Moses, and Jesus.  If God isn't trying to cover it up to "keep it a matter of faith," where is he?

You're not getting what I'm saying. Repeat performances: no. Evidence of past performances: maybe. Non-disproof of past performances: Yes.

I hope you can see the difference there.

"testing the world because he must" - I do not see which part of His character would compel Him in this circumstance.

Isn't the Old Testament pretty much him testing and subsequently passing or failing pretty much everyone he comes in contact with?  I mean, even in the New Testament, salvation is pretty much the grandest test of all.  God offers salvation through a dusty book and, if you're lucky, some occasional gut impulses, and, leaving no other proof, then waits to see who gets in  . . .  Not a test at all . . .

That or each person's salvation is personal and individual. All evidence you encounter is provided specifically for you, and you yourself may decide if you're going to believe in Him or not.

I don't know what to say.  If you find atheism "outwardly" valid, and have no proof (which is the only reason I can surmise that you are trying to restrict shifting it back to the person asserting the claim), then I can only assume that your desire for a god to exist is the only reason you believe in one.
[...]
Beyond that, all we can give you is logical, scientific, and historical arguments as to why the Bible cannot be right, and you have a clear path for getting around all three if you so desire.

It's not desire, it's choice. (Much like (Christian) marriage, but that's another discussion )

If you have a multiple choice question on a test, and have no proof on hand as to which answer is correct, then you make a choice. You can leave it blank, and get no marks, or you can make a choice, double-check that your answer is not provably incorrect, and have a chance of getting it right.

(note that the above is NOT why I believe, it's simply a very limited logical device to explain one reason I'm pursuing this - double-checking that my chosen answer is not provably incorrect)

And yes, many potentially valid arguments can be evaded by pre-belief in the Bible, but that's why I'm working on finding one that is very difficult to evade.

[Ihateyoumike]

Yet again, you have not only misunderstood everything I have said, you have also completely avoided the topic at hand. Where did this become a conversation about needing a common language to communicate? I was under the assumption that perspective means perspective, and not language. Are you intentionally trying to not make sense and confuse so that you can ultimately prove a point? If so, please come out with that point.
So again I will say, I do not have to agree with your perspective to communicate with you.

We're having trouble communicating. In the context of what you are saying, what is your definition of "perspective"? I've been defining it as a system of assumptions, or axioms, upon which a philosophical viewpoint is constructed.

Sorry, but you're making no sense. Perhaps if you were able to keep your arguments (whatever those may be, I'm still confused by everything you say) in order, it may be possible to have a discussion. I have read through this thread many times now, focusing on the exchange between us, and I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.
From what I can find from rereading the thread (try it) is that I think you are trying to take on too many arguments at once. You will write something, a whole page of responses (well thought out) will come up, and then a few days later you will attempt to respond to everyone in one (not well thought out, IMO) post. I think that is the source of my frustration with you and your thread right now. I would suggest that if you want to make a pro-religious thread on an atheist forum, you should take the time to go back and really read what has been said. Do not just read it, but really digest it, pay close attention. Then, spend time really thinking about what your position is, and do your best to answer everything in an honest and clarifying way. It will make threads such as this less frustrating for you, and everyone else involved in the discussion. Please think about it before you alienate more people who are just trying to have an honest discussion with you. Anyway, that's just my $.02 before I agree with SSY:

I hereby remove myself from it with extreme prejudice (unless I need to come back with a witty quip after I have been wished good riddance )!

[minstrelofc]

Sorry, but you're making no sense. Perhaps if you were able to keep your arguments (whatever those may be, I'm still confused by everything you say) in order, it may be possible to have a discussion. I have read through this thread many times now, focusing on the exchange between us, and I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Ah. I think I see where the confusion is coming from.

This is not a pro-religious thread.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that my beliefs are true.


For the record, my "argument" in our discussions has been that the assumptions we start with determine what we believe. (assuming correct use of logic after that point)

If you start by assuming you know nothing, you will end up Agnostic.

If you start by assuming that the Bible is true, you will end up Christian.

If you start by assuming the FSM, you will end up Pastafarian.


Can we agree on that point?


EDIT:
You may, of course, disagree. Or be confused.

If either are true, I suggest you try one of the following responses:
"minstrelofc, you're wrong! Assuming that you know anything to start with is faulty logic!"
"minstrelofc, you're wrong! Assuming that you know nothing is not really an assumption!"
"minstrelofc, you're wrong! If you assume you know nothing, you'll end up Atheist, not Agnostic!"
etc.

EDIT #2:
If you feel I'm not making sense, DON'T just give up. Point out *exactly* what I said that didn't make sense. I'm not trying to confuse; I'm trying to be clear.

If I'm using unfamiliar cliches, expecting everyone to understand what I mean, then I need them pointed out to me so I can stop using them. Likewise, if I'm doing anything else that is interfering with clear communication, I need specific details so I can correct the problem and communicate more effectively.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Having briefly scanned this thread I would say the following, first that the bible, despite your attempt to claim otherwise, has got the value of pi wrong since it clearly states:

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. (1 Kings 7:23)

Quite clearly, according to your bible Pi is 3.

I also take exception to your attempts to jump out of the genesis argument by waffling on about days not being days:

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:4-5

The above makes it crystal clear that they are talking about days, not weeks, not years, not millennia, but literal 24 hour days ... you can argue this any which way you like but you CANNOT get away from the fact that it clearly means days as supported by the terms morning and evening etc. Whichever way you look at it that makes your bible NOT a book of fact but one of allegory and that presents you with a number of philosophical problems.

Regardless that isn't why I posted here, I posted her to let you know I've posted my own challenge to you:

For Minstrelofc, Titan & Any Other Christian: A Challenge!

Have fun twisting your way out of it (I have absolutely NO expectation that you will take it up honestly and carry it through to completion).

Kyu

[Ihateyoumike]

For the record, my "argument" in our discussions has been that the assumptions we start with determine what we believe. (assuming correct use of logic after that point)

If you start by assuming you know nothing, you will end up Agnostic.

If you start by assuming that the Bible is true, you will end up Christian.

If you start by assuming the FSM, you will end up Pastafarian.


Can we agree on that point?

That's a valid point.

You may, of course, disagree. Or be confused.

If either are true, I suggest you try one of the following responses:
"minstrelofc, you're wrong! Assuming that you know anything to start with is faulty logic!"

Assuming that you know the answer to questions that have not been answered is faulty logic, and leads to not searching for the truth.

"minstrelofc, you're wrong! Assuming that you know nothing is not really an assumption!"

It's an assumption, a slightly lazy one perhaps, but an assumption. In my opinion, it's a better and safer assumption than assuming there is a god.

"minstrelofc, you're wrong! If you assume you know nothing, you'll end up Atheist, not Agnostic!"

Nope. If you assume you don't have the answers, that would be agnostic. If you don't have the answers but open your mind to the proofs which present themselves to you through research by way of the scientific method, and you do not attribute everything you do not have proof for to a deity which there is no proof for, then you can end up being an atheist.
You see, atheism is unique from religion in that it does not rely on assumptions or faith, it relies on proof.

If you feel I'm not making sense, DON'T just give up. Point out *exactly* what I said that didn't make sense. I'm not trying to confuse; I'm trying to be clear.

I have been pointing out what has not made any sense in your previous posts. I feel like this is the first post to me which you have actually spent time attempting to make it clear what you are trying to say to me. You did not respond to 5 different people in one post this time. You responded to me. Thank you for that.