Russ,
If you believe in the bible, great for you. I've no problem with anyone's beliefs, insofar as they don't infringe on me. Obvoiusly, as I'm sure you've deduced by now, I no longer have an interest such matters -- matters of dogma, that is. I fear that by trying to explain myself one last time, I have opened myself up to yet another unsolicited sermon, but I guess I'll take that risk. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Russ says: "Using logic and reason, I have deduced—as I believe the vast majority of people who have actually studied it have—that the Bible is in fact God's inspired writings to us. "
This statement is simply does not stand up to logical scrutiny, Russ. There is no way to logically deduce that "God" exists in the first place -- at least not in the manner in which those of us who adhere to the rules of informal logic and science -- let alone that the words written in the Bible were spoken (or otherwise communicated) by Him/Her/It. It's just not possible to objectively verify. It's a logical dead end road -- sorry. That you *believe* that the bible contains the words of some omniscient creator is more accurately the case. The difference between beliefs and facts are that beliefs cannot be verified logically. If "God" could be verified, then there wouldn't be such wide disagreement about the matter. On the other hand, there is virtually no disagreement that the Sun exists, for example. Furthermore, it's existence can be verified in ways that would leave no room for doubt. Unfortunately, that is not the case with "God" or the bible.
Therefore, since the matter cannot be proven (or has not yet, if you like), then it is irrelevant (and not appropriate) in any discussion that is to be based in logic -- the very foundation of the argument is not logically sound (the logical fallacy of appeal to authority . . . i.e., it's in the bible, therefore it must be true). Even if we assumed that we all agreed that "God" exists, there is no way to verify what "God" meant or did not mean. Again, not verifiable.
In anticipation of more erroneous assumptions, let me just say ahead of time that I did not say it was useless or bad or does not contain reason or logic. I also did not say that there is no such thing as "God" . . . nor did I say people who believe in "God" are not logical . . . nor did I say that scientists don't believe in "God", or that belief in God was "irrational" etc.
Russ says: "It's a big mistake to obliterate the possibility of all verifable logic because people have opinions."
Nowhere did I say or imply such a thing. Sorry, another straw man. The point is this: the bible is ambiguous - the evidence for this is overwhelming. Just look at how many flavors of Christianity there are, for example. Look how wildly different the interpretations of the same piece of literature are. In contrast, there is no debating the Sun's role in photosynthesis -- it is verifiable. That "God" says we should or should not eat meat quite plainly is not verifiable.
Russ says: "So often I have discovered that when people do this (what the previous statement says) it is nothing more than an excuse to not do something they simply emotionally don't want to do (check out the Bible for themselves). It's a copout. I don't like excuses. Nevertheless, you must explore the information yourself or take the risk that I'm right."
I know you're trying hard to steer the direction of the discussion toward religion -- sorry, not interested. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> My only interest in religion these days is in the context of refuting it's relevance to a discussion based in logic and pointing out its logical irrelevance. If you want to keep introducing belief systems as evidence of some truth, then I'm afraid we're using different rules.
Speaking of which, here are mine . . . and the rest of us who use informal logic as the foundation of a debate/discussion.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.htmlBest,
Tom
