671 replies to this topic

[braz]

Christians completely failed to provide any kind of proof except for the argument from personal experience and circular reasoning (The Bible says so, therefore its true. Why? Because the Bible says so) Also, anyone who uses Albert Einstein as a support for a Christian belief is an idiot.

Christians = pwned.

[Aegist]

I challenge you evolution believers to read the full booklet and then tell me that the authors haven't made a plausible argument for creation and against blind evolution without a creator behind the process.

I challenge it to say something new which makes it worthy of my time spent reading it...

[DJS]

Society's Dramatic Shift

we as human beings are the product of random chance.

Dawkins' opinion on whether evolution is all about random chance:

That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.

[DJS]

Joseph: Until you agree to set aside the fables, ancient verses, and superstitions you picked up via Christianity, it is hard for us to take you seriously, and it will continue to blur your view of reality, quit thinking things are ridiculous just because you feel so... get up and think this stuff through yourself.

Also, that bit about people just accepting things that were told to them by scientists and professors because they were "probably smarter than them"... no, people.... real scientists in training, do not do this, this is the sort of decayed and weak thought process you will observe every day in churches, mosques and holy sites the world over... if this is how you think... I feel very sorry for you, and I cannot imagine myself being in such a position.

So true. [thumb]

[DJS]

Why has evolution become so widely accepted, and why has the Bible come to be viewed with such hostility?

Not true. Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).

The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. The percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth actually rose five points in the latest poll.

My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. Those kinds of mainline Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals. Since 1960, the number of Pentecostalists has increased fourfold, while the number of Episcopalians has dropped almost in half.

The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America....

The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America's emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith. As the Catholic theologian Hans Küng puts it in "On Being a Christian," the Virgin Birth is a "collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly legendary" narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were widespread in many parts of the ancient world.

Elijah: Only a few generations ago laws prevented the teaching of the theory of evolution in some communities and regions in the United States. The Bible was commonly accepted as true and a reliable account of our origins. But now almost the opposite is true. The Bible is banned from classrooms in American schools, and serious discussion of the biblical view of the creation of our universe—and our human origins—is forbidden. At the same time, criticism of the theory of evolution is at times ruthlessly suppressed in academic and scientific circles.

Separation of Church and State

[william7]

Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process.

This would still be a blind, random process. Is Dawkins, by chance, saying that the genes themselves are programmed to act in this way? If so, what programmed or caused the genes to act this way and when did this process start? Did it arise as a chance event or was it caused?

In the fourth chapter of the Creation or Evolution— Does It Really Matter What You Believe?, at http://www.gnmagazin...stscreation.htm, Dr. Wernher von Braun is quoted as saying:

"Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause."

I can't see how Dawkins can say that these genes are just programmed to behave in this way without a cause. Dr. von Braun is correct to say that it defies the fundamental laws of science to say so.

[luv2increase]

Now that isn't to say over time they don't adapt, but they are the last in society to change. (world is flat, people used to think diseases were punishments from God, used to believe in astrology, used to think black people were inferior, used to think Earth was the center of the universe, etc. etc., until science proved otherwise, and then after much argument for many years, they finally accept what science says) In other words, science is self correcting, and always represents what we know as a species at any one point,

These things in which you write are not in the Bible. Therefore, they are irrelevant when it comes to debate against the Bible, but I understand where you are coming from.

while religion holds steadfast to dogmatic teachings and old ideas till the bitter end.

Christians hold true as to what is written within the Bible. I can't say this is true for Catholics though. They seem to have intertwined pagan ways with the Bible which is forbidden within the Bible. I am a non-denominational Christian. We don't have any "set" belief systems that are never to change when it deals with topics outside of the Bible. I am not for organized religion. That is a whole different discussion for another day which none of you, I am sure, would care to talk about anyway.

The "old" ideas and "teachings" are from the Bible. They do hold true to the bitter end though. Have you not noticed all the prophesies of the Bible starting to be fulfilled? How could this have been predicted 2000 years ago or whenever these predictions were written? There is no explanation other than the Bible being the true Word of God. This is further evidence "for me" to believe the Bible and its teachings.

[Live Forever]

Now that isn't to say over time they don't adapt, but they are the last in society to change. (world is flat, people used to think diseases were punishments from God, used to believe in astrology, used to think black people were inferior, used to think Earth was the center of the universe, etc. etc., until science proved otherwise, and then after much argument for many years, they finally accept what science says) In other words, science is self correcting, and always represents what we know as a species at any one point,

These things in which you write are not in the Bible. Therefore, they are irrelevant when it comes to debate against the Bible, but I understand where you are coming from.

while religion holds steadfast to dogmatic teachings and old ideas till the bitter end.

Christians hold true as to what is written within the Bible. I can't say this is true for Catholics though. They seem to have intertwined pagan ways with the Bible which is forbidden within the Bible. I am a non-denominational Christian. We don't have any "set" belief systems that are never to change when it deals with topics outside of the Bible. I am not for organized religion. That is a whole different discussion for another day which none of you, I am sure, would care to talk about anyway.

The "old" ideas and "teachings" are from the Bible. They do hold true to the bitter end though. Have you not noticed all the prophesies of the Bible starting to be fulfilled? How could this have been predicted 2000 years ago or whenever these predictions were written? There is no explanation other than the Bible being the true Word of God. This is further evidence "for me" to believe the Bible and its teachings.

I am well aware of what the Bible says. I study it often. I just don't believe what it says. My arguments were not based on the assumption that it is true, but rather that regardless of if it is true or false, science can be considered the "current" state of human knowledge. Dogmatic teachings of religion cannot make such a claim.

[Live Forever]

"Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause."

What is the proof to say that cause was God....and what caused God? (and don't use the "He is outside of space and time" cop out; If everything deserves a cause, you have to answer it without resorting to magic, because I could resort to magic to disprove God if I were so inclined.) To say that everything needs a cause does not necessarily mean that cause was God. Anything that is more complex than the thing you are requiring to be caused by it necessarily requires a cause in and of itself. To say that the universe is eternal (always has been) is just the same (if not more sound scientifically) as saying that God is eternal, and just created a universe.

[Aegist]

Christians hold true as to what is written within the Bible.
...
The "old" ideas and "teachings" are from the Bible.  They do hold true to the bitter end though.

Do hares still chew the cud?

Leviticus 11
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

No. They don't.

Doesn't showing that God is not infallible end the universe or something?

[luv2increase]

God has always been. I don't believe everything in the universe is to be understand by man's mind. This is all by design. Some things just aren't to be known whether we like it or not.

For instance... What brought about subatomic particles into existance? What makes up subatomic particles and what makes up that and so on and so on. These are things that man will never know. What is on the other side of the outer edge of space? What is it made up of?

[Aegist]

Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process.

This would still be a blind, random process.

Layman says - "Evolution is random chance"
Professional Says - "While one element of it may be random, the overall process is very much non-random due to the active selective nature of it."
Layman replies - "yes it is" *stamps foot*

Very persuasive stuff.

Is Dawkins, by chance, saying that the genes themselves are programmed to act in this way? If so, what programmed or caused the genes to act this way and when did this process start? Did it arise as a chance event or was it caused?

Genes replicate due to their chemical nature, which is no more startling than the fact that Oxygen and Carbon combine in a fire, that matter is attracted to matter by gravity, or that an object inmotion will remain in motion until acted upon by an external force.

DNA doesn't think, it just does what it does. And what it does is replicate itself. Pure, simple, easy. The result is startling, sure, but the method is so damn simple.

[
In the fourth chapter of the Creation or Evolution— Does It Really Matter What You Believe?, at http://www.gnmagazin...stscreation.htm, Dr. Wernher von Braun is quoted as saying:

"Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause."

I can't see how Dawkins can say that these genes are just programmed to behave in this way without a cause. Dr. von Braun is correct to say that it defies the fundamental laws of science to say so.

No he isn't *stamps foot*

[DJS]

"For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design . . .

Biology was designed -- by the process of evolution.

In regards to the apparent "fine tuning of our universe, please read this link (which I provided once earlier): Anthropic Principle

What random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

A truly random process probably couldn't produce the human brain or complex visual systems. Then again, evolution isn't a random process.

"Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer.

Correction, intelligent designer.

They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand

No. I do not admit that there are miracels in the world around me. There are phenomena which are not yet completely understood.

They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .

Confucius say, man who go to sleep with itchy ass, wake up with smelly finger.

"What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him?" (Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 1997, pp. 159-160).

The concept of the electron is useful in our modeling of reality. Many extremely accurate predictions have been produce using the concept of the electron. On the other hand, the metaphysical postulate of God is vacuous and without any predictive power whatsoever.

Here is a very simple way to understand this Elijah. - Subjects which fall under the jurisdiction of science must avail themselves to the possibility of being falsified.

God is a metaphysical postulate that can not be falsified. Therefore, the mention of God in scientific discourse is inappropriate.

Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as humans is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

Whoever wrote this article is totally confused and has a very poor understanding of evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

It really amazes me that an individual can be such a meticulous nitpicker, identifying any and every area of contention within a theory when there is even the slightest bit of uncertainty and using it as ammunition for their extremely flawed and biased world view. By comparison, their precious bible gets no such scrutiny. All of the contradictions in the bible, and there are a mulitude of them, are brushed aside or explained away. The level of bias present with Christians is truly staggering...just utterly mind boggling.

Let's take it a step further. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?

Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.

A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.

If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?

Regrettably, such obvious flaws in the theory are too often overlooked.

Wrong, wrong, wrong again. What a totally confused simpleton this individual is. With evolution there are phylogenetics contraints, precisely because the process itself has no foresight! The author over looks the obvious fact that homo sapiens sapiens primary survival advantage was their superior intelligence. This superior intelligence requires BIG BRAINS. Because of the constraints of preexisting female reproductive anatomy, BIG BRAINS (which require BIG HEADS) can't fit through the birth canal. Ergo, the way that evolution solved this was to allow the develolpmental process to continue after birth, when the cranial size contraints were not as much of an issue.

This author is also forgetting the very important fact that there are also separate selective forces for collections of genes known as "gene pools". Traits which may seem sub-optimal for the individual are often beneficial to the species (the "gene pool") as a whole.

Even Charles Darwin, whose theories about evolution took the world by storm, had second thoughts. In his later years he reflected on what he had started: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199, emphasis added).

A total distortion of the historical record. Charles Darwin subscribed to the theory of evolution till the day he died. This is pure rhetoric, shallow intellectual dishonesty.

Meanwhile, the world languishes in the sorrow and suffering resulting from rejecting absolute moral standards. With no absolute standards, we have no reason to care what happens to our fellowman. We should seek only our personal gain regardless of the cost to others—acting exactly as evolutionary theory says we should.

This is a misunderstanding revolving around the naturalistic fallacy. A morality constructed out of humanism could foster a high level of compassion among human kind (much more so than the draconian, inflexible, moralism of most world religions). Moral flexibility is a good thing, it allows for adaptability and the exercising of intelligence in the face of adversity.

Which is the myth, God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of France's Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Federer, p. 61).

Nonsense. Talk about pot and the kettle! The bible is the fairy tale for grown ups. Evolution is a well established, highly validated, highly respected, scientific theory. In terms of usefulness, the theory of evolution has proven extremely valuable in developing biotechnologies that alleviate human suffering (think bacteriology and virology).

What usefullness does a belief in God possess?

[luv2increase]

Christians hold true as to what is written within the Bible.
...
The "old" ideas and "teachings" are from the Bible.  They do hold true to the bitter end though.

Do hares still chew the cud?

Leviticus 11
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

No. They don't.

Doesn't showing that God is not infallible end the universe or something?

This is part of the teaching aimed toward "the Jews" and not the Gentiles. I believe that the "Orthodox Jews" still abide by today.

[Aegist]

God has always been.

The universe has always been

I don't believe everything in the universe is to be understand by man's mind.

Evidence has proven you wrong. We understand some stuff.

This is all by design.

Evidence?

Some things just aren't to be known whether we like it or not. 

And in the past it wasn't to be known 'where the wind blows from' 'Why the sun moves across the sky' 'why bad things happen to good people' etc etc.

If all people were to be sstupid enough to listen to this rant of yours, we would still be wondering those same old things. "Why oh why did my mother die when she spent her whole life praying to God and being a good person?" they would wonder. Now, we know. Cancer killed her. OR, even better, Cancer made her sick. God ignored her, medical intervention cured her.

Praise be to Medicine!

For instance...  What brought about subatomic particles into existance? 

We're working on that one.

What makes up subatomic particles and what makes up that and so on and so on.

Working on it all. This stuff is complicated, and unlike this 'god' hypothesis, we haven't been working on these questions for 2000 years yet.

These are things that man will never know.

Your assumption. Unfounded, no evidence for it, and more than anything just an expression of your own failings, not of humanity in general.

What is on the other side of the outer edge of space?

Why assume there is an edge of space? How does God solve this problem anyway?

What is it made up of?

What is God made up of? Who made God? And who made the maker of God?

You got nothin.

[Live Forever]

Christians hold true as to what is written within the Bible.
...
The "old" ideas and "teachings" are from the Bible.  They do hold true to the bitter end though.

Do hares still chew the cud?

Leviticus 11
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

No. They don't.

Doesn't showing that God is not infallible end the universe or something?

That is a good one, but there are tons of Bible errors and contradictions. Anyone claiming that it is literally True (with a capital T) in this day and age hasn't studied the subject.

http://atheism.about...rrorsinthebibl/
http://personal.bgsu...erth/bible.html
http://www.freethoug...tradictions.htm
http://www.infidels....radictions.html
http://www.atheists....radictions.html
(as well as tons and tons of others)

[Aegist]

Christians hold true as to what is written within the Bible.
...
The "old" ideas and "teachings" are from the Bible.  They do hold true to the bitter end though.

Do hares still chew the cud?

Leviticus 11
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

No. They don't.

Doesn't showing that God is not infallible end the universe or something?

This is part of the teaching aimed toward "the Jews" and not the Gentiles. I believe that the "Orthodox Jews" still abide by today.

I wasn't asking what it was teaching. I wasn't asking whether you abide by it, or if anyone does. I don't care what the moral of those passages are, i was talking about a directly observable fact as stated by GOD himself.

HARES. DO NOT. CHEW. THE. CUD.

God was wrong.

next book please. This time, pick one which makes sense.

[Aegist]

That is a good one, but there are tons of Bible errors and contradictions. Anyone claiming that it is literally True (with a capital T) in this day and age hasn't studied the subject.

Oh, I know that, but in my experience, if you overwhelm you poor christian antagonist with a list of ALL of the errors in the bible, then they ignore them all with a single sweep of ignoring.

I find that forcing them to acknowledge a single undeniable error, or a single undeniable case of stupidity/intolerance/injustice/etc, then they have to address it.

[luv2increase]

Why would I abide by it? I am not Jewish. The Orthodox Jews abide by it.

Also, not everyone is perfect and abides 100% of what the Bible tells us not to do. The Bible states that no one is perfect.

[Athanasios]

The whole how the eye evolved thing... a 4 min video of dawkins explaining it


As for which came first, God or the Big Bang, I think Dawkins argued that one well too. Starting with something as a ball of energy is much more probable than starting with a complex omnipotent being.

back to the grind...

[DJS]

God has always been.  I don't believe everything in the universe is to be understand by man's mind.  This is all by design.  Some things just aren't to be known whether we like it or not. 

For instance...  What brought about subatomic particles into existance?  What makes up subatomic particles and what makes up that and so on and so on.  These are things that man will never know.  What is on the other side of the outer edge of space?  What is it made up of?

Ahh, perhaps there is hope for you yet. [lol]

Reality is infinite. Causality extends outward in all directions.

The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be. ~ Carl Sagan

Only the strongest, truly daring minds can bear this truth - finite beings put to the task of understanding an infinite reality. Who needs a concept such as God when reality itself is so breath takingly beautiful, liberating and wonderous!

God is a gross answer, and indelicacy against us thinkers. ~ Nietzsche

[Live Forever]

Oh, I know that, but in my experience, if you overwhelm you poor christian antagonist with a list of ALL of the errors in the bible, then they ignore them all with a single sweep of ignoring.

I find that forcing them to acknowledge a single undeniable error, or a single undeniable case of stupidity/intolerance/injustice/etc, then they have to address it.

True. The math ones where they say one total and actually add up to another total are the ones that are especially hard to explain away, imo. (very hard to say that is due to "interpretation")

[Live Forever]

Christians hold true as to what is written within the Bible.
...
The "old" ideas and "teachings" are from the Bible.  They do hold true to the bitter end though.

Do hares still chew the cud?

Leviticus 11
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

No. They don't.

Doesn't showing that God is not infallible end the universe or something?

This is part of the teaching aimed toward "the Jews" and not the Gentiles. I believe that the "Orthodox Jews" still abide by today.

Would it be better to pick a mistake or contradiction from the New Testament? There are plenty there as well, I assure you.

[luv2increase]

Go for it. I'm all ears.

[Live Forever]

Go for it.  I'm all ears.

Ok, just 3 for now (on Aegist's advice). I can provide tons more if needbe.

Was the potter’s field purchased by Judas before his death (Acts 1:15-19) or by the priests after his death (Matthew 27:3-10)?

According to Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus prophesied that some of the people listening to him would still be alive when he returned and God’s kingdom was ushered in: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Of course, it didn’t happen.

How many generations were there between the Babylonian captivity and Jesus? In Matthew 1, it says there were fourteen, but only thirteen are listed. (I love the math ones, because they are so hard to refute by saying that it is just due to "interpretation"; The math is wrong!, and not the only example of this)

Note: there are tons and tons of inconsistencies, where it says one thing in one place, and another in another place; Here is a fairly comprehensive list of a lot of them.

[DJS]

Yeah, these biblical inconsistency lists are all over the net.

Just look at all of the clear contradiction from this one list!

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.
PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

EX 20:4 God prohibits the making of any graven images whatsoever.
EX 25:18 God enjoins the making of two graven images.

Incomplete theory = "we're still working on it".

Logical contradiction = "we're clueless and really don't care if we make sense anyway."

[Aegist]

Why would I abide by it?  I am not Jewish.  The Orthodox Jews abide by it.

Also, not everyone is perfect and abides 100% of what the Bible tells us not to do.  The Bible states that no one is perfect.

Can you read?

Try reading my post.

HARES. DO NOT. CHEW. THE. CUD.

God was wrong.

I thought what i said was quite simple.

[zoolander]

Question: does anyone here that doesn't believe in GOD not refer to themself as aetheist?

I don't believe in GOD and people ask if I am Aetheist. I tell them that I am not Aetheist either and they ask "what are you then?". I respond with, "I'm neither?" and that dumbfounds them. Why?

[Aegist]

Because Atheist can mean someone who believes there is no God, or it can also be taken to mean Someone who doesn't beleive in a God.

So on that second version of meaning, You believe in God, or you are an Atheist.

I presume your answer to the question is functioning under the first meaning, so You neither believe in a God, but you also do not believe that there is not one. Making you agnostic.

[DJS]

Technically speaking, I am an agnostic minimalist atheist.

Usually in casual conversation I'll be PC and tell people I'm "secular". If that doesn't get the point across to them, then I'll just go ahead and tell them that I think all religions are bullshit.