Biblical contradictions.

[Unbeliever]

Apparently, like his hero Trump, he gets confused by double negatives.

[Cavebear]

Cavebear, Cavebear, my man. :))  He didn't quite say that.  This is what he said as the last sentence of one of his posts dealing with Jesus:'Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.'  Isn't that saying if you deny that he never existed that would not be factual--well, I don't deny that he never existed--that is what I think--and mousey is telling me that that is factual.  He is arguing with himself.

Multiple negatives.  I never mess with that nonsense.  Beware of 'players" who do.

[Mike Cl]

Apparently, like his hero Trump, he gets confused by double negatives.

Apparently his god lead him right into that. :)))  And just like trump, mousey believes whatever he is saying at the moment is the truth--even if he said the opposite a few minutes ago.

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, big surprise, huh?

[trdsf]

You should actually try reading it from cover to cover.   Some bits of it make for a really good read.

I can but quote Asimov here: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

[Jason78]

Not only did I read it, I read it more than a dosen times.

But lets see if you can top this, I summarized it and printed it in book form.
Unfortunately in my mother tongue. Afrikaans.

You should actually read the Bible in the easiest language on Earth.
Afrikaans!

Then you will go to heaven.

If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

I present to you Ladies and Gentlemen; Our learned theists considered rebuttal to the problem that his favourite book doesn't actually mean any of the things that it says.

[Mousetrap]

I present to you Ladies and Gentlemen; Our learned theists considered rebuttal to the problem that his favourite book doesn't actually mean any of the things that it says.

I suggest, Jason, stay away from movies such as Halloween, and get into comedies a bit.
This might teach you comedy when someone produces it to you.

[Mousetrap]

I can but quote Asimov here: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

And I can quote many people on their stance of the Bible.
Will it change the facts?
Why do you think quoting Asimov will be some hard core fact that the Bible is wrong?

On the above link you will read about Peter Hitchens, brother of the most notorious Christopher Hitchens, on what he think of God.
to quote him..."I AM ALSO BAFFLED AND FRUSTRATED BY THE STRANGE INSISTENCE OF MY ANTI-THEIST BROTHER THAT THE CRUELTY OF COMMUNIST ANTI-THEIST REGIMES DOES NOT REFLECT BADLY ON HIS CASE AND ON HIS CAUSE. IT UNQUESTIONABLY DOES."

[Mousetrap]

Apparently his god lead him right into that. :)))  And just like trump, mousey believes whatever he is saying at the moment is the truth--even if he said the opposite a few minutes ago.

I do admit that in my Language, the double negatives is the norm. And by me thinking in Afrikaans does not assist me in writing in English at all.
Again, I learned English in a very late stage of my life.
Furthermore, the places where I learned it at, was not English at all.
Therefore, I learned 2nd hand English, and admit I am bad, Bad, Bad with that language.
Therefore, if this is the only critique you have, so be it.
I can speak, Afrikaans, English, and Zulu.
Zulu is my 2nd language.

How about you guys?

[Baruch]

Yes, more than one language allows the double negative ... this breaks narrow logical schemes.  A double negative should be a positive, and thus redundant.  But in these languages (I have studied quite a few being an amateur linguist) the double negative serves a rhetorical purpose.

Language analysis per computer science:

Lexical analysis - individual symbols (alphabet)
Syntactical analysis - combinations of symbols (variables etc)
Semantic analysis - what the code does (reality of how the code runs)
Pragmatic analysis - how the executing code interfaces with the outer worlds

Scripture analysis per rabbis:

Denotational sense - the original has no punctuation, what are the words?
Connotational sense - what is the meaning of the verse
Homilitic sense - how can we use the verse in our ritual life
Esoteric sense - what is the transcendent meaning

Per naturalists:

Physics - atoms
Chemisty - molecules
Biology - living things
Psychology - cognizant living things

Typically most people are literalists (they only deal with the first level) because it is easier to ignore the difficult.  Reductionism in science says only physics is real aka materialism.

Western culture isn't the only culture, or has the final answers on cultural questions.  Ancient Buddhists had 4 level logic, beyond the 2 level logic of Boole (19th century British).  Modern computers actually used 3 level logic (on, off, disconnect).  Saying it is binary, isn't accurate.  Notice also that DNA isn't binary, but quaternary ... though if you look at pairs only, it is binary, but the order of the pairing matters (which nucleotide is on which strand).

Per Buddists:

It is true
It is not-true
It is both true and not-true
It is neither true nor not-true

Per this string topic .. nobody here knows what a contradiction even is.  If you have two level logic, a logical formula has three mutually exclusive status:

Tautology - true by definition - on
Contradiction - false by definition - off
Contingent - to be determined by additional formulas provided later - disconnect

The logic of the binary, has three levels ... hmm ... same as computer circuits.  Computers are logic machines, but not as simple minded people think.  The logic of the status ... is not binary.

For example, with a database, the external data in it can be self consistent or not.  Nobody bothers with a database that is true by definition (an authoritative dictionary attempts that, and fails, because a living language is alive, not dead (like Latin)).  So contingent in this case matches the Buddhist "both true and not-true".  An empty database would match the Buddhist "neither true nor not-true".

This is also why there can be no true AI.  A human being is an analog machine, there are an infinity of levels, not just two, three, four.  This is made possible by the analog nature of reality, and the presence of many trillions of DNA strands etc that make up your body.  A computer is an oversimplified approximation.  It is as cognizant as an inflatable sex doll is a real woman.

[Unbeliever]

Of all the great inventions and discoveries that go to make human life easier, happier, more rich and glorious, not one can be laid to the work of theology. These triumphs all belong to science…. If man had no knowledge except what was got out of the Bible he would not know enough to make a shoe.

[Baruch]

I would agree that theologians didn't help mankind.  Chemists produced Zyklon B.  Yeah team!

[Hakurei Reimu]

Gassing humans was an off-label use of Zyklon B. It's labeled use was as insecticide.

Of course, it was fucking cyanide, so it's not as if this use was harmless.

[Hydra009]

I do admit that in my Language, the double negatives is the norm. And by me thinking in Afrikaans does not assist me in writing in English at all.
Again, I learned English in a very late stage of my life.
Furthermore, the places where I learned it at, was not English at all.
Therefore, I learned 2nd hand English, and admit I am bad, Bad, Bad with that language.
Therefore, if this is the only critique you have, so be it.
I can speak, Afrikaans, English, and Zulu.
Zulu is my 2nd language.

How about you guys?

Your english is fine (so good, in fact, that I doubt that it's not your native language).  If your mastery of logic was anywhere near your mastery of language, you'd fit right in.

[Baruch]

Gassing humans was an off-label use of Zyklon B. It's labeled use was as insecticide.

Of course, it was fucking cyanide, so it's not as if this use was harmless.

Religion isn't harmless.  Chemistry (science) isn't harmless.  On the basis of harm you want to ban X, but not ban Y.  Y is that?