Never Tell A Christian He Or She Is Using Circular Reasoning

[SkepticalDaniel]

This is something that I've learned recently. One thing you simply can't say to a Christian is "You can't use your Bible to prove your Bible." That would be almost like telling an evolutionary scientist that he can't use peer-reviewed studies of evolution to prove evolution.

[rjn]

This is something that I've learned recently. One thing you simply can't say to a Christian is "You can't use your Bible to prove your Bible." That would be almost like telling an evolutionary scientist that he can't use peer-reviewed studies of evolution to prove evolution.

 

Maybe I'm a dense moron, but I don't really follow your analogy there. Peer reviewed scientific papers are usually based on something, like, you know, research... The peer review process in itself is as far as I know very rigid and time-consuming, whereas any preacher can pick up his KJV and claim whatever he likes.

[qadeshet]

This is something that I've learned recently. One thing you simply can't say to a Christian is "You can't use your Bible to prove your Bible." That would be almost like telling an evolutionary scientist that he can't use peer-reviewed studies of evolution to prove evolution.

 

SkepticalDaniel, you are correct. Now that I'm too old to care,  I've turned to Ridicule and Sarcasm. At least they run away faster. For some reason, people don't seem to care much for being made fun of. It might make them think!

 

Know Thyself!

[Lilith666]

This doesn't make sense. The bible hasn't been reviewed by experts and shown to be reliable, no matter how much Christians will tell you it has. Peer-reviewed research has - your article doesn't get published without being subjected to scrutiny and okayed by other scientists. See? The bible is just something with a whole bunch of implausible or impossible claims that Christians happen to believe. Science is backed up by a community of people who know what they're talking about and keep each other in check.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Walter Martin said that god revealed to him in a debate with an atheist that "The Bible isn't one book, it is several books written over hundreds of years all pointing to the same god, therefore it isn't circular to use it to prove what we say."

 

There are problems with that, of course. Since much of it is demonstrably untrue, contradictory, and non-historical, it doesn't matter what the authors have to say. Would the same believers trust what Mormons wrote about Joseph Smith or the god they worship? No. Why? Because they only write in order to propagate the religion, not to write truth. They have an agenda, to promote the cult. They do so with stories that cannot be substantiated, unlike science peer review where peers WILL point out flaws and attack details or overall assumptions.

[Bhim]

This is something that I've learned recently. One thing you simply can't say to a Christian is "You can't use your Bible to prove your Bible." That would be almost like telling an evolutionary scientist that he can't use peer-reviewed studies of evolution to prove evolution.

 

The more intelligent Christians I've encountered tend to at least take the reliability of the Bible as a premise to other arguments. So when they quote 2 Timothy 3:16, they see themselves as demonstrating the self-consistency of the Bible, rather than actually proving that it is inerrant via the quote. I find it more useful to attack the character of the authors themselves, particularly Paul, who is alleged to have written 2 Timothy 3:16. Paul was a dubious fellow who never knew Jesus, dissented with those who did, and claimed to only see him in a vision. You call that divinely inspired!?

 

Regarding all the criticism you've received for your analogy to peer review, I do think I see what you're trying to say here so maybe you can confirm this for me. I believe your point is that Christians rely on circular reasoning as much as scientists rely on peer review. To take away circular reasoning from a Christian is thus to take away the very means by which they obtain and judge new knowledge. Correct?

 

More specifically, I believe what you are not saying is that peer review is a form of circular reasoning.

[Scottsman]

 

This is something that I've learned recently. One thing you simply can't say to a Christian is "You can't use your Bible to prove your Bible." That would be almost like telling an evolutionary scientist that he can't use peer-reviewed studies of evolution to prove evolution.

SkepticalDaniel, you are correct. Now that I'm too old to care, I've turned to Ridicule and Sarcasm. At least they run away faster. For some reason, people don't seem to care much for being made fun of. It might make them think!

 

Know Thyself!

This. Im tired of educating people. Just ridicule them for their ridiculous worldview. "Really? You believe that? You still have imaginary friends? You believe god impregnated a teenage girl with himself so he could sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself?" Shakes head and walks away.

 

Seriously, it was being talked down to like a child and being completely dismissed without a second thought that made me question it all in the first place. Debating them gives them legitimacy. Dismiss their worthless idealogy

[qadeshet]

 

 

This is something that I've learned recently. One thing you simply can't say to a Christian is "You can't use your Bible to prove your Bible." That would be almost like telling an evolutionary scientist that he can't use peer-reviewed studies of evolution to prove evolution.

SkepticalDaniel, you are correct. Now that I'm too old to care, I've turned to Ridicule and Sarcasm. At least they run away faster. For some reason, people don't seem to care much for being made fun of. It might make them think!

 

Know Thyself!

This. Im tired of educating people. Just ridicule them for their ridiculous worldview. "Really? You believe that? You still have imaginary friends? You believe god impregnated a teenage girl with himself so he could sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself?" Shakes head and walks away.

 

Seriously, it was being talked down to like a child and being completely dismissed without a second thought that made me question it all in the first place. Debating them gives them legitimacy. Dismiss their worthless idealogy

 

 

Exactly! I got this idea from (I think) John Loftus' site. It's working better for me. Your's should work even better that mine!

 

Have a great day!

[qadeshet]

Actually, last year, I got into a FB spat with a preacher.  A good friend of mine posted about a personal problem he probably shouldn't have in such a public forum like that were everybody knew him, but be that as it may, one of his FB friends was a Baptist preacher who then proceeded to preach at him.  That pissed me off.  I went after that preacher and tied him up with the Bible he likes to preach and used it against him.  I never let him know I was not a believer and did not answer the question.  He made all kinds of assumptions to which when I demanded he prove it, he could not.  You know when you are winning when a preacher wants to take it private.  LOL.  I refused to let him and finally he blocked me.  LOL.  I insisted that he put his case before all people on that site, and he refused.  

 

Give these fanatics no mercy. Wouldn't it have been great to just laugh in his face?

Cheers.

[qadeshet]

 

 

Actually, last year, I got into a FB spat with a preacher.  A good friend of mine posted about a personal problem he probably shouldn't have in such a public forum like that were everybody knew him, but be that as it may, one of his FB friends was a Baptist preacher who then proceeded to preach at him.  That pissed me off.  I went after that preacher and tied him up with the Bible he likes to preach and used it against him.  I never let him know I was not a believer and did not answer the question.  He made all kinds of assumptions to which when I demanded he prove it, he could not.  You know when you are winning when a preacher wants to take it private.  LOL.  I refused to let him and finally he blocked me.  LOL.  I insisted that he put his case before all people on that site, and he refused.  

 

Give these fanatics no mercy. Wouldn't it have been great to just laugh in his face?

Cheers.

 

 

 

I much preferred to use slow bbq.  My friend appreciated my efforts, even though he is a believer. That preacher kept making the bragging statement that he wrote a book.  I picked him apart. I said that Adolf Hitler wrote a book, Mao wrote a book, etc., and that just because a book was written does not mean it is correct.  That preacher also has a radio program.  

 

 

Burnedout, we all, i think, get a real pleasure destroying their stupid appologetics sometimes. Like on a Saturday morning. Or i just roll my eyes and give a one-liner-"Whatever dude, go peddle your used Religion elsewhere."

Cheers!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Regarding all the criticism you've received for your analogy to peer review, I do think I see what you're trying to say here so maybe you can confirm this for me. I believe your point is that Christians rely on circular reasoning as much as scientists rely on peer review. To take away circular reasoning from a Christian is thus to take away the very means by which they obtain and judge new knowledge. Correct?

 

More specifically, I believe what you are not saying is that peer review is a form of circular reasoning.

 

This was also the impression I got concerning peer review.  I don't think you're trying to use this as an analogy so much as a comparison.  

 

Finally, something biologists and physicists can agree on!

[★ Citsonga ★]

This doesn't make sense. The bible hasn't been reviewed by experts and shown to be reliable, no matter how much Christians will tell you it has. Peer-reviewed research has - your article doesn't get published without being subjected to scrutiny and okayed by other scientists. See? The bible is just something with a whole bunch of implausible or impossible claims that Christians happen to believe. Science is backed up by a community of people who know what they're talking about and keep each other in check.

 

Exactly, and if flaws are later discovered in the scientific data, then it gets corrected and revised. The Bible, on the other hand, is the same old tripe it's been for millennia.

 

Walter Martin said that god revealed to him in a debate with an atheist that "The Bible isn't one book, it is several books written over hundreds of years all pointing to the same god, therefore it isn't circular to use it to prove what we say."

 

There are problems with that, of course. Since much of it is demonstrably untrue, contradictory, and non-historical, it doesn't matter what the authors have to say. Would the same believers trust what Mormons wrote about Joseph Smith or the god they worship? No. Why? Because they only write in order to propagate the religion, not to write truth. They have an agenda, to promote the cult. They do so with stories that cannot be substantiated, unlike science peer review where peers WILL point out flaws and attack details or overall assumptions.

 

I used to listen to The Bible Answer Man, and I remember that Walter Martin thing. I can still hear in my head the specific comment, "Who told you this is one book?" Anyway, you're quite correct about the insurmountable problems with the Bible, which Walter conveniently manipulated to try to make it sound believable.

 

Actually, last year, I got into a FB spat with a preacher.  A good friend of mine posted about a personal problem he probably shouldn't have in such a public forum like that were everybody knew him, but be that as it may, one of his FB friends was a Baptist preacher who then proceeded to preach at him.  That pissed me off.  I went after that preacher and tied him up with the Bible he likes to preach and used it against him.  I never let him know I was not a believer and did not answer the question.  He made all kinds of assumptions to which when I demanded he prove it, he could not.  You know when you are winning when a preacher wants to take it private.  LOL.  I refused to let him and finally he blocked me.  LOL.  I insisted that he put his case before all people on that site, and he refused.  

 

That is priceless! Did you happen to get screen shots that you could share with us?

[older]

To re-state in a slightly different way, science goes to reality, examines the facts and comes to conclusions, changing the conclusions when new facts are discovered. Religion comes to conclusions, denies reality, ignores the facts, and refuses to change its conclusions.

[qadeshet]

To re-state in a slightly different way, science goes to reality, examines the facts and comes to conclusions, changing the conclusions when new facts are discovered. Religion comes to conclusions, denies reality, ignores the facts, and refuses to change its conclusions.

 

Hello older. Objective vrs. Subjective Reality?

Cheers.

[Voice]

 

Regarding all the criticism you've received for your analogy to peer review, I do think I see what you're trying to say here so maybe you can confirm this for me. I believe your point is that Christians rely on circular reasoning as much as scientists rely on peer review. To take away circular reasoning from a Christian is thus to take away the very means by which they obtain and judge new knowledge. Correct?

 

More specifically, I believe what you are not saying is that peer review is a form of circular reasoning.

 

This was also the impression I got concerning peer review.  I don't think you're trying to use this as an analogy so much as a comparison.  

 

Finally, something biologists and physicists can agree on!

 

 

I've been thinking about this too, having argued with a terminally devout christian this year who used the bible to prove the bible. Haven't yet found a good analogy for that but there are some to be found.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The bible does get "peer reviewed" in a manner of speaking.  Over the centuries, as societal ideals have changed, the interpretations of scripture have been "reviewed" and altered to conform with the progress of culture.  This is why, even though slavery is condoned by the bible, most christians no longer agree with it; and why these days it's not unusual for a woman to hold a place of authority within a church.  Hell, just during my lifetime, it has become socially acceptable for young christian men to have long hair, despite Paul stating that it was shameful to do so.  So, after a fashion, there is a "peer review" process, in which "the experts" on scripture decide how verses should be understood in light of (or, rather, often after the fact of) shifts in social thinking.

 

Unfortunately, the "data" really is open to a variety of interpretations, unlike a scientific study or publication.  And any given interpretation is not interested in truth or validity; but rather in justification.  Whereas the peer review process for science is meant to validate or invalidate a conclusion which is based on a data set acquired during a scientific study.  This is why everything associated with said study has to be recorded, reviewed, and verified (including lot numbers, expiration dates, calibration certificates, etc), before the study is submitted for review.  "Review", in scientific terms, involves "reproducibility", and you can bet your bottom dollar that there's some bastard out there just waiting to prove you wrong by showing the flaws and inconsistencies in your work. 

[qadeshet]

 

 

Regarding all the criticism you've received for your analogy to peer review, I do think I see what you're trying to say here so maybe you can confirm this for me. I believe your point is that Christians rely on circular reasoning as much as scientists rely on peer review. To take away circular reasoning from a Christian is thus to take away the very means by which they obtain and judge new knowledge. Correct?

 

More specifically, I believe what you are not saying is that peer review is a form of circular reasoning.

 

This was also the impression I got concerning peer review.  I don't think you're trying to use this as an analogy so much as a comparison.  

 

Finally, something biologists and physicists can agree on!

 

 

I've been thinking about this too, having argued with a terminally devout christian this year who used the bible to prove the bible. Haven't yet found a good analogy for that but there are some to be found.

 

 

Hi voice. Try starting out with just two words; use either version: Believe it or not...Know Thyself

 

Know Thyself!

Know Yourself!

 

This is Science...because it works.

[qadeshet]

The bible does get "peer reviewed" in a manner of speaking.  Over the centuries, as societal ideals have changed, the interpretations of scripture have been "reviewed" and altered to conform with the progress of culture.  This is why, even though slavery is condoned by the bible, most christians no longer agree with it; and why these days it's not unusual for a woman to hold a place of authority within a church.  Hell, just during my lifetime, it has become socially acceptable for young christian men to have long hair, despite Paul stating that it was shameful to do so.  So, after a fashion, there is a "peer review" process, in which "the experts" on scripture decide how verses should be understood in light of (or, rather, often after the fact of) shifts in social thinking.

 

Unfortunately, the "data" really is open to a variety of interpretations, unlike a scientific study or publication.  And any given interpretation is not interested in truth or validity; but rather in justification.  Whereas the peer review process for science is meant to validate or invalidate a conclusion which is based on a data set acquired during a scientific study.  This is why everything associated with said study has to be recorded, reviewed, and verified (including lot numbers, expiration dates, calibration certificates, etc), before the study is submitted for review.  "Review", in scientific terms, involves "reproducibility", and you can bet your bottom dollar that there's some bastard out there just waiting to prove you wrong by showing the flaws and inconsistencies in your work. 

 

You are certainly right, Professor.

 

The two most powerful words, used to open the Doors of Perception, the Cave of Treasures, have been around for thousands of years. Try them and see. Because Science works.

 

Know Thyself!

or:

Know Yourself!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I've been getting the feeling lately that qadeshet wants us to know ourselves... not sure where that feeling is coming from.

[qadeshet]

I've been getting the feeling lately that qadeshet wants us to know ourselves... not sure where that feeling is coming from.

 

It's simple, Professor. I do want everyone to know their Self. You only need two words: Know Thyself.

Cheers!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Knowing your self also means living with your self; so be the kind of self you are okay with.

[qadeshet]

Knowing your self also means living with your self; so be the kind of self you are okay with.

 

Yes Professor. But most people don't know their Self!

 

Know yourself!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Couldn't agree more, there, qadeshet.

[qadeshet]

8 members, 67 guests, 1 anonymous users

 

Welcome everyone!

 

Thanks Professor! You can call me Gilligan.

 

Couldn't agree more, there, qadeshet.

[austere]

Gilligan, thanks for linking. I finally get why you keep posting that Maybe you could include a link to it in your signature?