Logical fallacies in the Bible?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

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.

[cratehorus]

...

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"?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
Could you give an example, of what you mean by "logical fallacy"?

There are many. One that comes to mind is "Affirming the consequent"

If p then q
q
therefore p

Example:

If it's a dog, then it has fur
it has fur
therefore, it's a dog

Many more can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[Minimalist]

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,

Oh. I don't do 'pretend' very well so I'll leave this to others. I leave 'pretending' to the theists!

[cratehorus]

no then, because the bible doesn't argue, or give reasons, it decrees, and tells stories

[Godscreated]

You hear a lot about contradictions in the Bible, but what about fallacious reasoning within the "holy scriptures"? I tried searching the web for some examples and couldn't find any.

Perhaps have a go at actually READING the Torah and the New Testament, or look a bit harder on line.

You will find logical fallacies as well as contradictions.


Just off hand; one logical fallacy from the New Testament: A woman was found guilty of committing adultery. Under Mosaic law, the penalty was death by stoning. Jesus allegedly gets her off with "let those among you without sin cast the first stone". That's a common logical fallacy called 'tu quoque' or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. In essence it's a strawman; I may not use your crimes to justify or excuse mine.

Jesus committed no crimes to be excused from.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Jesus committed no crimes to be excused from.

I've heard that claim many times,of how Jesus was God AND man ,incapable of sin.. Yet Christians claim ALL humans are imperfect and sinners. To claim Jesus was an exception is called 'special pleading', another logical fallacy.

If Jesus was incapable of doing wrong,he was perfect and therefore not a man by definition.
If he was imperfect and did any wrong,he was not god by definition..

[Cyberman]

Jesus committed no crimes to be excused from.

Correction: Jesus can be accused of no crimes that can't be rationalised away.

[The Grand Nudger]

GC, whether or not Jesus commited any crimes has fuck all to do with the passage that Pad presented as a fallacy and why it is a fallacy. The proclamation "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is the fallacy. Was Pad unclear as to why, are you unclear as to how it applies, or is this part of the ignorant song and dance? Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that your god did traipse around the ANE, what did he do with his time? Looks like he peddled platitudes and fallacious reasoning. Some god indeed. Or perhaps god wasn't aware that this statement was an expression of fallacy-as-virtue. Which is odd, since we're led to believe that he somehow created or is the source of logic in the first fucking place. Your choice amigo, retard-god or fallacy-god. I couldn't care less which you decide to worship.

[Faith No More]

The choice to believe or to disbelieve came long before my ability to defend said belief. Just like when I shoot down all of the fallacious reasons you all have for disbelief in one aspect of the bible or another, you still have the belief even when your 'legit' reason was smashed against the rock, and you are left with nothing to defend. That is the reason for the name calling and harsh words. Because in the end I am challenging your belief beyond you ability to defend it. So my suggestion is just drop the pretence, and just admit that reason and logic is just a thinly veiled excuse to believe what you want. Stop pretending this is about anything other than what it is. Good old fashion Anger, Hate and resentment. Toward your family, toward the church you grew up in, toward a God who'd let it all happen the way it did.

Get over yourself. Even if you were able to disprove every misconception about the bible, there is still no reason to believe in it, just as there is no reason to believe in any other religious text, until you can show any real evidence that any of it is real. So far, the best any Christian has been able to offer is, "it works for me." Pardon us if we aren't overwhelmed by personal testimony that has no bearing on the validity a person's beliefs.

Your claim that you are demolishing our beliefs one by one is nothing more that the conceited delusion you have that you have had anything of value to say beyond what you believe the bible to mean, and that your understanding of every atheist's motivation for disbelief. Hate my family? Nope. Hate the chruch I was raised in? Certainly not, as it is probably the most respectful church I've ever heard of. Hate god for letting things happen this way? Impossible since I do not believe he exists.

It's time to drop this 'holier than thou' act you seem to believe you have not only earned but deserve. You come here saying you have the intentions of helping people with their interpretations and misconceptions about the bible and then you spew out shit like the paragraph I quoted.

It is YOU who should drop the pretense.