(August 13, 2010 at 9:59 am)RAD Wrote: I know exactly what it is, and of course atheists use the Bible itself all the time to disprove it, making your arguments doubly silly and hypocritical.If you mean disproof by, say, contradictions in the Bible then the logically contradicted part is indeed logically disproved by means of logical contradiction. If you don't mean that then I don't know what you're referring to.
So, do you deny that trying to prove with the Bible is circular reasoning or not? (Note: If you understand what circular reasoning is then you should understand that trying to prove the Bible with the Bible is indeed circular reasoning. Proving 'X', 'Y', 'Z' or whatever with itself whether that be the Bible or anything else, is circular reasoning. If you don't understand that then I don't personally see how you can understand what circular reasoning actually is).
Furthermore, in the above quote you say you know what circular reasoning is, and yet it seems to me that you are indeed committing that fallacy if you think you can prove the Bible with the Bible. You also accuse atheists of committing it, and as I said I don't know what you are referring to. This much you know is I my opinion. But, you also seem to be implying that two wrongs make a right. That any atheists may actually commit the circular reasoning fallacy, that doesn't make it okay if you do it now does it? That would be the fallacy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque.
Quote:Why don't you do something intelligent like read Durant's rationale for accepting the Gospels, and then refute his reasoning?
Why do you think that would be intelligent?
Why would I need to refute the Gospels when the Bible can't prove the existence of a supernatural being? When no book whatsoever can give evidence to claims on the matter of existence outside that book, they can only be used as reference at best? What makes you think I'm particularly interested in the Gospels in the first place?
