(June 11, 2012 at 2:41 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:(June 11, 2012 at 12:44 am)Minimalist Wrote: ...
You don't need "logical" fallacies if the facts are bullshit to begin with. Something, I fear, which xtians can simply not understand.
Your last sentence is yet another example of a "factual fallacy" or, at best, a very flawed premise.
...
I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. I should have been more clear. I understand about forgeries in the bible. I don't deny the history of how the bible came to be. I agree with you. I'm just saying that even if one were to pretend that the Bible came to be in the magical fairy tale way most Christians think it did, you still have contradictions and possibly fallacies (fallacies being what this thread is suppose to be about). So, even temporally assuming (pretending) the Bible in the best possible light, you still have so many problems as to make it clear that it isn't inspired. Yes, demonstrating the reality of the history of the development of the Bible is a very strong argument against its supposed inspiration. Showing fallacies might be yet another way to do such a thing. Combine the two arguments in a debate, and throw in an argument of evil or two, and you've got a fine cumulative case going.
Also, some of you in this thread have been posting contradictions. Biblical contradictions are not necessarily the same as logical fallacies. I'm looking for logical fallacies that take place in a single passage, not contradictions between two or more passages.
Could you give an example, of what you mean by "logical fallacy"?
