If some of you guys posted on the Logic Discussion Board there'd be an endless supply fallacies for analysis and discussion. 😀

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Let's suppose there is a group of people, let's call them oh I dunno-Christians! Ya that's it, Christians.
Let's furthur suppose that they believe that a man called Jesus was the one foretold in some writings by an earlier group, let's call them oh I dunno-Jews! Ya, that's a good name, nice ring to that one.
Anyways, these Christians split off f ...[text shortened]... ."
But, after painting oneself into a corner for thousands of years, it's gonna be difficult.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You should update your knowledge about at least one group of Christians, the so called Roman-Catholic people.

Reading the Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" would be an appropiate starting point to educate yourself and get rid of all those old-fashioned ideas:

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM


You can also take a look at the ["Truth and Tolerance", Cardinal J. Ratzinger] thread and read the content.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I did read "Truth and Tolerance" Nothing new there, just the same old "my belief is true, yours aint" that I hear from many sources, not just from the RCC.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You read the book ?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Your thread.

Originally posted by Coletti
If some of you guys posted on the Logic Discussion Board there'd be an endless supply fallacies for analysis and discussion. 😀

I have to agree with Coletti on this one. Aggghhhh! The room is spinning!!! Wait ... okay ... phew. It's over. Really though, logic is only a tool that can be used in all manner of fashion. It is not even a given that a perfectly logical argument even makes "sense" to anyone, for it is all based on the premises used. If you're premise is "The Bible is the Word of God" then you could correctly argue certain things. If your premise is "All dogs are blue," then you could argue that your pet Fido is blue, even when he isn't. Faith does have to be applied at the beginning in creating premises; as these premises are usually a very personal interpretation of patterns that are probably beyond our understanding, it's not at all surprising to find out that there are differences in opinion defended only by bad jokes and insults.

Originally posted by Coletti
This is especially for the Christians on the RHP, but others may be interested. I'm now one of the moderators on the Logic Discussion Board at http://www.christianlogic.com/forums/

The sites purpose is to provide a place where Christians can learn and talk about logic. You don't have to be a Christian to participate - as long as you don't go in there ...[text shortened]... ou right quick! 🙂

If you feel the desire to bash logic or Christians - you can do that here.

Originally posted by dottewell
Well I had a quick look.

I found the following interesting post at the website, which I believe was written by you:


As you have noted, faith is not the opposite of knowledge. There really is no epistemological differentiation between faith and knowledge that I think is justified. What I have faith in, I believe to be true. What I know, I believe ...[text shortened]... in what I know (or I wouldn't say I know it).


Is this an argument? What is its form?