Additionally, a number of Christians take it upon themselves to try and show there are no contradictions in the Bible. They do this by selecting a small number listed on various websites (NB. these listings are not exhaustive anyway) and then, by indulging in verbal somersaults, virtually rewriting the text, introducing foreign meanings and/or omitting the pertinent wording, they seek to show that no contradiction arises. Apart from the fact they can only do this by indulging in fanciful - and dishonest - manipulation of the material, they fail to grasp the obvious fact that the contradictions are listed to show that the Bible is not inerrant. They appear unable to grasp that if only one contradiction remains, then the Bible is revealed as something which is not inerrant. Consequently, if they are intent on rejecting this view, they obviously need to go through each and every contradiction listed and show why there is no contradiction. There is, therefore, no logic in just selecting a few of these. Only one contradiction is required to show the Bible is not inerrant. |
'Atheism is the absence of theism...Proof is only applicable in the case of positive belief [therefore] the atheist is not obligated to 'prove' anything. The atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration'.And on belief:-
(George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989), p.16)
'The presence of an idea does not constitute knowledge. One can have false ideas and false beliefs...to qualify as knowledge, i.e., as a correct identification of reality, a belief must be justified. It must warrant acceptance by rational standards'.As noted above, even though Christians are content to compose tedious and diffuse emails, they apparently feel it is unnecessary to include anything which is factual or supportive of what is being asserted. This appears to be a common practice: as Professor Kai Nielsen observes of Christians when trying to explain God as creator:
(ibid, p.102).
'Plainly, language has taken a holiday. We have lots of discourse which purport to be fact-stating, but in reality they fail to represent factual statements. That is to say, they do not function as fact-stating utterances'.
(Kai Nielsen, Philosophy and Atheism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989), p.85).