Firm Christians say, the Bible is the absolute standard. Skeptics would say, if there is any standard, that would have to be human logic. The fact of the matter is, the latter standard is circular, not the former. The human mind is capable of strengthening any notion, true or false, using logic. Very ironic how every reference to the Bible is dismissed as "circular."

Reported, requesting rolling into the religion megathread.

*edit- bluegospel, I'm over you making these new threads when what you are posting is suitable for the religion megathread. You might not agree with the moderators moving things to that thread, however I think its the best course of action. It has nothing to do with 'fear'.

This is linuxquestions.org, not bible-discussion.com

What are you afraid of?

Those 'firm christians' are the same ones that ignore every fact that contradicts what they believe. Books written as 'fact', decades/centuries AFTER the events they describe cannot be taken as 'fact'.
So...by using logic and facts you strengthen an idea? Sounds exactly right, since that's the way learning takes place. IGNORING such things is willful ignorance and stupidity. Only something that IS true can be strengthened by logic..something that's false is exposed. See your previous threads about the bible as good evidence of that.
Again, bluegospel...NO ONE is afraid of you. You appear to be a serial troll, and (as has been explained to you MANY times), merging threads of similar/identical content is done often. Your threads are no exception, and why should they be?

The only things we can be 'afraid' of here would be wasting time trying to debate something with someone who has displayed ZERO interest in actual rational discussion, and someone who lacks the education and willingness to learn, in order to debate such things.

What are YOU afraid of, since having a thread merged causes you such grief?

Human logic, AND facts, AND strong evidence.

Yes, but this is not a valid argument against logic itself as a tool, which, like every tool, can be used for good or bad purposes, by making true, weak or false assumptions. Also, logic can be used correctly or can be used in an incorrect way (the latter often intentionally, in order to fool people). But I wouldn't call "logic" an incorrect form of it, as I wouldn't call "knife" a spoon with a label saying "knife" attached.

Respectfully,
Philip

The logic of men is but foolishness to God.
Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace.

You just ransacked the sacred cow of skeptic science--evolution, which is now supposed fact.

It would only be circular if someone was trying to prove logic using logic. For example, this nonsense: Mathematics self-proves its own Consistency (contra Gödel et. al.).

Smart.

Oh? How exactly did I do that? Writing something down as it happens != hearsay about what happened later.

Here's a tip about how science and learning works.

• You observe something.
• You come up with an idea about WHY it works the way it does. This is called a "hypothesis".
• You experiment to try to prove it. This involves many, many things.
• You then tell people how you did what you did (these would be the things you wrote down when you were doing them), and ask them to duplicate your findings.
• If they do, and things fit the hypothesis, it becomes a "theory".
• In science, it cannot be called a FACT unless you document every single, solitary step.

The last one is an important distinction to make to folks such as yourself. For example, if you point to a ring of stones in a forest clearing, and there are ashes, partial remains of logs, and charred edges on the rocks, a scientist would say "There appears to have been a fire here". Not there WAS a fire here, because it wasn't observed. All the evidence is there, is strong, verifiable, and fits the facts...but it is not FACT.

To make it simpler for you: these are semantic terms that people who are educated use. Don't cling to the word "theory" as if it can be refuted, unless you are prepared to actually LEARN the processes and science behind it. The 'scientists' who fundamentalists cite have never published how they come up with their conclusions, never say where they get their 'facts', etc. Believing them because they support your point of view doesn't make them right.

I've never tried proving the Bible using just the Bible. I realize Christians tend to do that. I will often cite a passage in the Bible to prove consistency between supposed inconsistencies, or quote Scripture as as a premise, but I do not use it circularly as is common.

For example, the Bible says, "the heavens declare the majesty of God." I'm standing here now, the sky is clear, the sunlight is perfect. I've seen numerous night skies that are just brilliant. And I cite all that, along with the miracle of human awareness as evidence. Yet you guys dismiss it all because of Christ.

This is so absolutely false and total beulleucks, you have clearly no idea what logic is or how it works. I would recommend you some real exposure to the philosophy studies, but i will send you here instead.

Yes you do, and have done so here, several times.
You just hear what you want to hear. There may be folks who don't believe in ANY god, yet they can appreciate a beautiful day, and the wonder of life. However, YOU dismiss science and evidence, because they make you uncomfortable, probably because you can't grasp the concepts, so remaining willfully ignorant is a way out.

Some folks have come right out and said they don't believe, but that doesn't mean their arguments about a book are wrong or irrelevant. Others who DO believe can also have the intelligence to look at things objectively, and reach the same conclusion. The two are not contradictory. Perfect case of circular reasoning: the book is important, because the book SAYS its important!

Sorry, but the message is whats important...not who wrote it, or when. Ignoring facts only makes you look foolish.

As evidence of what? I suppose you meant evidence of God's existence. I wouldn't call that circular, just invalid (i.e. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise).

Maybe this particular thread doesn't warrant it, we'll evaluate that later on, but I'd like to see if LQ members are capable of discussing this showing mutual respect for each others points of view and without playing word games or attacking each other.
*Note contributing beyond this point should mean you are willing to make an effort to understand what the other is trying to say and vice versa.

Thanks in advance for your participation.


"You should respect each other and refrain from disputes;
you should not, like water and oil, repel each other,
but should, like milk and water, mingle together."
-- Buddha