PDA

View Full Version : Hey look, Jesus used circular logic too!



lucious
02-28-2011, 06:41 PM
From John Chapter 8:

Then Jesus spoke out again, "I am the light of the world. The one who follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." So the Pharisees objected, "You testify about yourself; your testimony is not true!" Jesus answered, "Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true, because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you people do not know where I came from or where I am going. You people judge by outward appearances; I do not judge anyone. But if I judge, my evaluation is accurate, because I am not alone when I judge, but I and the Father who sent me do so together. It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I testify about myself and the Father who sent me testifies about me."

Then they began asking him, "Who is your father?" Jesus answered, "You do not know either me or my Father. If you knew me you would know my Father too."


No wonder Christians use circular logic so much, they learnt from the master!






Cliffs for those who automatically scroll over scripture:

- People say Jesus testimony not valid because he is a single person
- Jesus says two peoples testimony is valid
-When asked where the second person is, he replies his invisible father backs up his story
-When asked where his invisible father is, he claims his testimony supports his fathers

Godfrd824
02-28-2011, 07:28 PM
Seems about right, lols at the not judging part, but when he does he is correct.

TheRighteous
02-28-2011, 07:32 PM
From John Chapter 8:

Then Jesus spoke out again, "I am the light of the world. The one who follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." So the Pharisees objected, "You testify about yourself; your testimony is not true!" Jesus answered, "Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true, because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you people do not know where I came from or where I am going. You people judge by outward appearances; I do not judge anyone. But if I judge, my evaluation is accurate, because I am not alone when I judge, but I and the Father who sent me do so together. It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I testify about myself and the Father who sent me testifies about me."

Then they began asking him, "Who is your father?" Jesus answered, "You do not know either me or my Father. If you knew me you would know my Father too."


No wonder Christians use circular logic so much, they learnt from the master!






Cliffs for those who automatically scroll over scripture:

- People say Jesus testimony not valid because he is a single person
- Jesus says two peoples testimony is valid
-When asked where the second person is, he replies his invisible father backs up his story
-When asked where his invisible father is, he claims his testimony supports his fathersIt sometimes astounds me the lengths people will go to in effort to justify their false polytheistic beliefs, aka their Christianity.

ONtop888
02-28-2011, 07:33 PM
It sometimes astounds me the lengths people will go to in effort to justify their false polytheistic beliefs, aka their Christianity.

All religions will default to circular logic if God is their objective source...

lucious
02-28-2011, 08:11 PM
All religions will default to circular logic if God is their objective source...

but it presupposes the source is actually God, which requires a circular logic argument.

ONtop888
02-28-2011, 08:20 PM
but it presupposes the source is actually God, which requires a circular logic argument.

That's what I said, or at least the logical conclusion of my statement.

lucious
02-28-2011, 08:34 PM
That's what I said, or at least the logical conclusion of my statement.

....


Do I need to explain whats wrong with this idea?

ONtop888
02-28-2011, 08:37 PM
....


Do I need to explain whats wrong with this idea?

There's nothing wrong with it. It is an a priori that I accept.

lucious
02-28-2011, 08:41 PM
There's nothing wrong with it. It is an a priori that I accept.

Theres everything wrong with it.


Are you incapable of providing an intelligent answer to anything I ask? Not once in any thread I've ever made, have you simply provided a cogent argument. I dont care about winning debates or whos smarter, itd just be nice to see an intelligent attempt.


But instead, theres the usual side stepping or ignoring questions.

ONtop888
02-28-2011, 08:47 PM
Theres everything wrong with it.


Are you incapable of providing an intelligent answer to anything I ask? Not once in any thread I've ever made, have you simply provided a cogent argument. I dont care about winning debates or whos smarter, itd just be nice to see an intelligent attempt.


But instead, theres the usual side stepping or ignoring questions.

I have answered all of your questions directly. How is "there is everything wrong with that" an acceptable response on your part? I have agreed that the concept of God is an a priori. Is there something else you would like to ask.....

lucious
02-28-2011, 08:52 PM
I have answered all of your questions directly. How is "there is everything wrong with that" an acceptable response on your part? I have agreed that the concept of God is an a priori. Is there something else you would like to ask.....

You cant use circular logic to demonstrate an a priori.


I'm sure you realise the invalidity of circular arguments.

ONtop888
02-28-2011, 08:56 PM
You cant use circular logic to demonstrate an a priori.


I'm sure you realise the invalidity of circular arguments.

My argument isn't that I believe God is the source because God is the source. I believe in the existence of God because I am convinced of my subjective reasoning and experience. It's as simple that.

Rune
02-28-2011, 08:59 PM
You cant use circular logic to demonstrate an a priori.

since when do you demonstrate a priori knowledge... it essentially is your operating assumption, there need not be a logical basis.

lucious
02-28-2011, 09:03 PM
My argument isn't that I believe God is the source because God is the source. I believe in the existence of God because I am convinced of my subjective reasoning and experience. It's as simple that.

I dont understand what you are referring to as an experience. If if it was some near death experience, an out of body experience or something, this would probably strongly support the idea of consciousness being ethereal. In that case, this could actually be a profound discovery and could push the world into a more tolerant and uplifting direction, and help us let go of our barbaric old religions.



If it were something truly extraordinary, this again falls under the category of "deistic Gods or ineffable realities", not religious Gods. If it was something that powerful that it turned you religious I dont see how on Earth you equated it with a locust- commandeering Yahweh or Allah or any other deity from a bygone era.

ONtop888
02-28-2011, 09:27 PM
I dont understand what you are referring to as an experience. If if it was some near death experience, an out of body experience or something, this would probably strongly support the idea of consciousness being ethereal. In that case, this could actually be a profound discovery and could push the world into a more tolerant and uplifting direction, and help us let go of our barbaric old religions.



If it were something truly extraordinary, this again falls under the category of "deistic Gods or ineffable realities", not religious Gods. If it was something that powerful that it turned you religious I dont see how on Earth you equated it with a locust- commandeering Yahweh or Allah or any other deity from a bygone era.

Disconnecting the experience from it's context doesn't work. Taking a leap of faith to ask something out there to do something radical to change your life would demand that this God or "ineffable" reality as you like to say, actively responded in some manner on some level; spiritually, cognitively, physically, etc. That would not be the work of a deistic god.


The core of Jesus' message is far from barbaric. In fact, it makes our lived moral codes in the 21st century look barbaric.

TheAdlerian
02-28-2011, 11:31 PM
I understand the passage, and it's not what the OP thinks.

What Jesus talks about is just the same as I've experienced on countless message boards since I got online in the 90s.

Example: I have read the Koran and know exactly what it says about varous issues. Most people have not done that but will comment anyway based on their feelings of self-importance.

Me: The koran says that if you are even mildly offended by an infidel you can sneak up to their house by night and murder them.

Poster: No, it doesn't say that and you are a bad person.

Me: I know you're a fool because you wouldn't say that if you weren't.

It's like that. Jesus was telling them that they were in no position to comment on him since they were fake religious people and completely ignorant.

mistercollie
03-01-2011, 01:43 AM
-When asked where the second person is, he replies his invisible father backs up his story
-When asked where his invisible father is, he claims his testimony supports his fathersThey asked who his father was. If you knew anything about the encounters between Jesus & the Pharisees throughout the Greek Scriptures, you'd notice they often questioned him, but not for an answer. Rather, they did it in hopes of trying to get him to say something worthy of critical accusation... such as blaspheme, something worthy of death so they could rid of this "man" that didn't look or act anything like the triumphant Messiah they had pictured. Just look at his eventual trial. They broke laws (like holding a trial at night, etc) and coughed up a cheap accusation as to why he should be killed.

He was trying to avoid saying he was the Son of God. The Pharisees didn't believe it in the first place, and of what use was arguing with them? It's like arguing with you... and debating my point on how this is an incredibly weak citation of circular reasoning. Perhaps u just mad Jesus gave the "and not a single fcuk was given that day..." attitude to their questioning.

mistercollie
03-01-2011, 01:47 AM
The core of Jesus' message is far from barbaric. In fact, it makes our lived moral codes in the 21st century look barbaric.LoL! BrB - our own government barely does **** about Katrina, oil spills in the Gulf, and other catastrophes, but every other religious Christian organization is down there to volunteer and donate money to the relief.

Even though I don't agree with every Christian, Catholic, and the like - I can't refute that when things get serious and disaster strikes, many moral chords are struck with these religious persons.

nzgs
03-01-2011, 02:40 AM
LoL! BrB - our own government barely does **** about Katrina, oil spills in the Gulf, and other catastrophes, but every other religious Christian organization is down there to volunteer and donate money to the relief.

Even though I don't agree with every Christian, Catholic, and the like - I can't refute that when things get serious and disaster strikes, many moral chords are struck with these religious persons.

Last time I checked, Oxfam, Medicines sans frontiers, Red Cross etc are all SECULAR organisations. The only time I ever hear about religious efforts are when they get caught trying to smuggle children or they deem it appropriate to travel to Haiti with 5000 bibles instead of real aid.

Christians statistically donate less money to charity than atheists too. I mean this discussion only has one outcome.

Insane Clown
03-01-2011, 03:32 AM
Theres everything wrong with it.


Are you incapable of providing an intelligent answer to anything I ask? Not once in any thread I've ever made, have you simply provided a cogent argument. I dont care about winning debates or whos smarter, itd just be nice to see an intelligent attempt.


But instead, theres the usual side stepping or ignoring questions. I don't agree with ONtop's point of view, but in this particular instance he is being refreshingly honest.

He is saying that he enters the argument already assuming God exists (or, as a Christian, that the Bible is written by God, his proof is that the Bible says so). In this regards his logic will always be circular, and he's admitting that.


He is not saying he has demonstrated logically that his a priori assumption is accurate. But that's the thing about a priori assumptions, it means you accept them prior to debate, so they aren't ever demonstrated logically. (At least in that debate).

It does make things difficult when one person makes an a priori assumption that the other person doesn't share. In this case, formal debate can't logically continue, which is why it's difficult to debate religion with people who enter the debate with the a priori assumption that their religion is true/their religious beliefs are accurate.

Most religious folks are not so willing to admit this as ONtop is doing in this thread.

lucious
03-01-2011, 03:49 AM
I don't agree with ONtop's point of view, but in this particular instance he is being refreshingly honest.

He is saying that he enters the argument already assuming God exists (or, as a Christian, that the Bible is written by God, his proof is that the Bible says so). In this regards his logic will always be circular, and he's admitting that.


He is not saying he has demonstrated logically that his a priori assumption is accurate. But that's the thing about a priori assumptions, it means you accept them prior to debate, so they aren't ever demonstrated logically. (At least in that debate).

It does make things difficult when one person makes an a priori assumption that the other person doesn't share. In this case, formal debate can't logically continue, which is why it's difficult to debate religion with people who enter the debate with the a priori assumption that their religion is true/their religious beliefs are accurate.

Most religious folks are not so willing to admit this as ONtop is doing in this thread.



Isnt this admitting to defeat or an inability to present a cogent argument?

Insane Clown
03-01-2011, 03:52 AM
Isnt this admitting to defeat or an inability to present a cogent argument? Probably not defeat, but it is admitting that his argument does not work logically if you don't already make the same a priori assumptions he is already making.

ONtop888
03-01-2011, 07:46 AM
Last time I checked, Oxfam, Medicines sans frontiers, Red Cross etc are all SECULAR organisations. The only time I ever hear about religious efforts are when they get caught trying to smuggle children or they deem it appropriate to travel to Haiti with 5000 bibles instead of real aid.

Christians statistically donate less money to charity than atheists too. I mean this discussion only has one outcome.

Lolwut. Religious folk statistically donate more to charity AND volunteer more than atheists, as well as donate to SECULAR organizations more than atheists. These are facts, just use google.

ONtop888
03-01-2011, 07:56 AM
I don't agree with ONtop's point of view, but in this particular instance he is being refreshingly honest.

He is saying that he enters the argument already assuming God exists (or, as a Christian, that the Bible is written by God, his proof is that the Bible says so). In this regards his logic will always be circular, and he's admitting that.


He is not saying he has demonstrated logically that his a priori assumption is accurate. But that's the thing about a priori assumptions, it means you accept them prior to debate, so they aren't ever demonstrated logically. (At least in that debate).

It does make things difficult when one person makes an a priori assumption that the other person doesn't share. In this case, formal debate can't logically continue, which is why it's difficult to debate religion with people who enter the debate with the a priori assumption that their religion is true/their religious beliefs are accurate.

Most religious folks are not so willing to admit this as ONtop is doing in this thread.
Well said. Of course, I find philosophical arguments like the First Cause, and the anthropic principle to be convincing, logical reasons to believe in some sort of God (although, like their antitheses,they will ultimately hinge on subjectivity and a prioris). However, to make the jump from the existence of a God to a theistic, religious concept of God, that step comes primarily from my outlook on the world, my experiences in life, and my acceptance and radical trust in the message that has changed my life; that of Jesus.

nzgs
03-01-2011, 10:30 AM
Lolwut. Religious folk statistically donate more to charity AND volunteer more than atheists, as well as donate to SECULAR organizations more than atheists. These are facts, just use google.

The statistics religious folk cite always include donations to organisations whose sole purpose is the furthering of a specific religion, often missionary expeditions and building churches in 3rd world countries, spreading bibles etc. In fact they spend over $1billion a year on this. If you only look at donations to aid charities (and not any old NGO) then the 17% of church-going christians supply 20% of aid donations, roughly in line with the rest of the population, and lower than atheists.

It's not even the most important statistic. Pretty much any crime or immorality you can think of will have a higher prevalence among the religious. Christians dominate prisons whilst atheists are incredibly rare. Atheists dominate further education and highly-skilled technical or scientific jobs whilst christians dominate unskilled labour. It's a wash.

AKR
03-01-2011, 10:34 AM
I do not judge anyone. But if I judge, my evaluation is accurate, because I am not alone when I judge, but I and the Father who sent me do so together.



Wat. Wut you smokin, Jesus? Says he doesn't judge, but then, says he judges. Circular reasoning plus blatant contradictions = crazy time.

bird72
03-01-2011, 11:14 AM
The statistics religious folk cite always include donations to organisations whose sole purpose is the furthering of a specific religion, often missionary expeditions and building churches in 3rd world countries, spreading bibles etc. In fact they spend over $1billion a year on this. If you only look at donations to aid charities (and not any old NGO) then the 17% of church-going christians supply 20% of aid donations, roughly in line with the rest of the population, and lower than atheists.

It's not even the most important statistic. Pretty much any crime or immorality you can think of will have a higher prevalence among the religious. Christians dominate prisons whilst atheists are incredibly rare. Atheists dominate further education and highly-skilled technical or scientific jobs whilst christians dominate unskilled labour. It's a wash.

http://drmikessteakdinner.com/uploads/cute-puppy-pictures-blah-blah-talking.jpg

ONtop888
03-01-2011, 12:57 PM
The statistics religious folk cite always include donations to organisations whose sole purpose is the furthering of a specific religion, often missionary expeditions and building churches in 3rd world countries, spreading bibles etc. In fact they spend over $1billion a year on this. If you only look at donations to aid charities (and not any old NGO) then the 17% of church-going christians supply 20% of aid donations, roughly in line with the rest of the population, and lower than atheists.

It's not even the most important statistic. Pretty much any crime or immorality you can think of will have a higher prevalence among the religious. Christians dominate prisons whilst atheists are incredibly rare. Atheists dominate further education and highly-skilled technical or scientific jobs whilst christians dominate unskilled labour. It's a wash.

No, no. Again, you fail. The statistic is that religious people donate more to secular charities than atheists. It's a very direct fact, no need to muddy the waters.

Atheists dominate prisons in England. I have posted the statistic on here before. Your analysis is a wash. Perhaps it has something to do with the dominant demographic.....among other factors.

lucious
03-01-2011, 06:51 PM
Essentially, if you need someone to corrborate your story, develop schizophrenia

st_jimmy
03-01-2011, 08:37 PM
Bread goes in, toast comes out. You atheists can't explain that!

lucious
03-01-2011, 10:17 PM
Bread goes in, toast comes out. You atheists can't explain that!

But if evolution didnt happen how do you explain pokemon?

Geese_Howard
03-02-2011, 01:07 AM
The core of Jesus' message is far from barbaric. In fact, it makes our lived moral codes in the 21st century look barbaric.

Really. I'm not sure there are many governments or people for that matter that condone slavery, rape, racisim and genocide today. You can find your god partaking in all of these in the OT. The same, unchanging god who is jesus - or so christians claim.

RawGarlic
03-02-2011, 05:04 AM
Actual translation of that verse reads:

Only differences quoted
...as for me, I pass judgment on no one; but if I were indeed to pass judgment, my judgment would be valid...

I am not a psycho-jump-around-christian. I do not know, yet, whether Jesus was the Messiah. Sometimes I think He was and other times I have my doubts.

The one thing I do know though is many of the translations you read today are not properly done so from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek meanings. So many, even small, changes in meaning makes the whole thing change.

mistercollie
03-02-2011, 11:32 AM
But if evolution didnt happen how do you explain pokemon?http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/halolz-dot-com-pokemon-magikarp-themusclekarp.jpg