Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[Goose]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

Typical atheist generalization and antagonistic observation you've made. Seems like you're looking for a fight, not a debate.

Many of the debates I've perused are highly informative and pursue the best course of logic in most cases. It seems the differing issues always boil down to naturalism's presuppositions toward the supernatural. And on the contrary Christians' presuppositions toward science. I don't think that will ever change.

[Goat]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

Typical atheist generalization and antagonistic observation you've made. Seems like you're looking for a fight, not a debate.

Many of the debates I've perused are highly informative and pursue the best course of logic in most cases. It seems the differing issues always boil down to naturalism's presuppositions toward the supernatural. And on the contrary Christians' presuppositions toward science. I don't think that will ever change.

I find it is a bit different. You see, I see that Christians are perfectly willing to dismiss supernatural claims out of hand, if those supernatural claims are the basis for a different religion. Yet, they are unwilling to question very similar supernatural claims of their own religion.

Of course, I don't see that as just Christians. Most everyone has some kind of bad logic sometime or other.

[melikio]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

The reality is that "Christians" (deeply-religious, or not) are human beings. Therefore it does stand to reason that various biases and paradigms affect "objectivity" (as it is with ALL human beings).

I've met seriously-extreme people on all sides of most controversial topics or arguments. But every person I've ever met, held some preconceptions, biases or supported agendas which have likely "colored" their objectivity or logical view of any given thing. As I grew older/wiser, I realized (and accepted) that there is no one who knows all of any subject, or is completely objective about anything.

Now, there is a point where extremism causes a breakdown in people's ability to consider or learn from the views of others, and I think that is what's MOST difficult to accept overall; that the person being spoken to or debated with offers an experience similar to arguing with a ROCK.

For any serious person of faith, there are certainly parts of their religious views, which cannot be rationalized via "logic" as most people define it in the general sense. Blessed are those, who find a functional and/or reasonable balances or delineations between what they know, think they know or believe. Some people are SO INTOLERANT, that they will not even allow others the right DIFFER or deviate from the set beliefs they themselves hold. And none of us need go to far, to find real and serious examples of what I'm pointing out (in history and especially today).

Some "Christians" and "others" are very logical in most anything and everything they say, and that logic follows into the WAY they actually live their lives (mainly concerning how they treat others; live/let live). Unfortunately, the world is not full of such reasonable and/or moderate people. Even so, I have ALWAYS encouraged others to advocate for "tolerance", mainly because I realized over time that... PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT.

-Mel-

[Goose]

I find it is a bit different. You see, I see that Christians are perfectly willing to dismiss supernatural claims out of hand, if those supernatural claims are the basis for a different religion. Yet, they are unwilling to question very similar supernatural claims of their own religion.

But that's because Christianity is the "true" religion and everyone else is wrong

Seriously, I've questioned many of the Christian supernatural claims. The obvious one is Christ's resurrection. Based on the arguments for and against that I've read. I have seen no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell me it did not happen. So I choose to believe it to be true. You on the other hand might choose it not to be true because of a presupposition to the possibility of it being true or what you feel is lack of evidence.

As for other religions. I guess I'd need an example with the documentation, witnesses etc. to make that judgement. Oh, and please don't mention Santa Claus.

[Goat]

I find it is a bit different. You see, I see that Christians are perfectly willing to dismiss supernatural claims out of hand, if those supernatural claims are the basis for a different religion. Yet, they are unwilling to question very similar supernatural claims of their own religion.

But that's because Christianity is the "true" religion and everyone else is wrong

Seriously, I've questioned many of the Christian supernatural claims. The obvious one is Christ's resurrection. Based on the arguments for and against that I've read. I have seen no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell me it did not happen. So I choose to believe it to be true. You on the other hand might choose it not to be true because of a presupposition to the possibility of it being true or what you feel is lack of evidence.

As for other religions. I guess I'd need an example with the documentation, witnesses etc. to make that judgement. Oh, and please don't mention Santa Claus.

And other than a few books written 40 or more years after the fact, what evidence do you have that it actually DID happen? What evidence do you have outside the New Testament?

What irrefultable evidence do you have that Mohammed didn't accend directly to heaven ? I am sure you reject that story.

[McCulloch]

Seriously, I've questioned many of the Christian supernatural claims. The obvious one is Christ's resurrection. Based on the arguments for and against that I've read. I have seen no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell me it did not happen. So I choose to believe it to be true.

When there is no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell you that some awesome incredible miraculous event has happened that has been reported to have happened, you have determined that it is rational to believe that it is true?

You on the other hand might choose it not to be true because of a presupposition to the possibility of it being true or what you feel is lack of evidence.

Yes, without irrefutable evidence, a rational person must believe that dead people stay dead. We have lots of evidence to support the idea that dead people stay dead and none to oppose it.

As for other religions. I guess I'd need an example with the documentation, witnesses etc. to make that judgement.

And you would give them the same benefit of the doubt? So long as they have no irrefutable piece of evidence against them, their supernatural claims will be accepted as true?

Oh, and please don't mention Santa Claus.

Ho Ho Ho.

[MrWhy]

We insist that engineers, financial advisors, physicians, etc. have reason and evidence for what they do, but religious leaders are not held to the same standard. Intelligent people lower their requirements for evidence when pressed about their religious faith. In no other domain of knowledge is belief without evidence considered a desirable quality.

[Goose]

And other than a few books written 40 or more years after the fact, what evidence do you have that it actually DID happen? What evidence do you have outside the New Testament?

Please list in detail what other evidence or documents you feel would be necessary outside of the NT to verify the claim and why it would be crucial to have these pieces of evidence.

What irrefultable evidence do you have that Mohammed didn't accend directly to heaven ? I am sure you reject that story.

Not necesarily.

When there is no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell you that some awesome incredible miraculous event has happened that has been reported to have happened, you have determined that it is rational to believe that it is true?

You're catchin' on. Are you saying that a miraculous event must have some type of special evidence for it to have taken place? If so why?

Yes, without irrefutable evidence, a rational person must believe that dead people stay dead. We have lots of evidence to support the idea that dead people stay dead and none to oppose it.

I have no reason to disagree with this. By "rational" you mean someone that is closed to the idea of the supernatural, right? But if evidence was provided for such a thing in our current day (not saying I have this mind you) would you accept it? Or would your presupposition toward the supernatural preclude you from accepting it regardless of the evidence provided? Just curious?

And you would give them the same benefit of the doubt? So long as they have no irrefutable piece of evidence against them, their supernatural claims will be accepted as true?

As I've already stated my presupposition to the supernational does not cause me to doubt a claim necessarily. Regardless of the nature of the evidence.

Ho Ho Ho.

Jingle bells, Batman smells...

[McCulloch]

We insist that engineers, financial advisors, physicians, etc. have reason and evidence for what they do, but religious leaders are not held to the same standard. Intelligent people lower their requirements for evidence when pressed about their religious faith. In no other domain of knowledge is belief without evidence considered a desirable quality.

MrWhy, what a wonderful observation! I have rephrased this as a question for debate, " Why is faith a virtue ?", with a slightly different emphasis than this one.