Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

I know this.Glad that is cleared up.My statement is that you're not thinking of the bigger picture of logic. You were inserting your own moral values into your logic earlier without considering that logic has nothing to do with your moral viewpoint.2 sentences later...Chatturgha: "Logic has an involvement with morality."I'm well aware of the fact that Logic is independent of morality, this is the point I was trying to impress upon you. Now you have contradicted yourself. You were framing a moral question as if it were a question of logic. Nothing you've said, as far as I can recall, has pertained to Logic.If you want to talk about whether ancient people were logical or illogical you need to point out some specific inferences made by those people, only then can we evaluate their logic.So what?Well in order to evaluate logic, it is useful to determine the veracity of premises. To determine the veracity of premises we need the most accurate information. Much of this accurate information has only been discovered in the last 2,000 years or so.No, what people believed thousands of years ago does not necessarily correlate what is relevant today.If we are talking about logic and morality, then what bearing does relevance of belief have to do with either of these? Does an action become moral only when the belief about it is relevant? No. So why should it matter? is something only logical when it is relevant? No. So why should it matter?People back then didn't do things senselesslyI agree, but people did do things based on faulty information.It's not illogical to do something you are sure that will help you when it actually ends up backfiring in the end.What you mean to say is that is that it's not unreasonable to do something that you believe will help you (even if it doesn't). Please note that it is entirely possible for something to be reasonable but illogical.The difference between Logic and Reason:http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-logic-and-reason.htm They won't pursue peace because that is too big a risk to their existence.Except for the times in history where exactly this has happened.It would be efficient to be peaceful if all creatures hadn't evolved from the very beginning to be violent, competitive animals.Peace can and does persist when there is mutual benefit, as is often the case when two sides are equally matched or when trading results in prosperity for both peoples.How does efficiency consideration not involve logic?please visit link above.You get labor out of itLet me rephrase the question. How is it MORALLY preferable to just killing one's attacker?If this situation is not what you mean though, please clarify.Many nations, cultures, clans, and peoples would take the women of a conquered land as their own slaves. If slavery was about threat mitigation, they would not do that. Explain why.I doubt that.You doubt that human sacrifice is not a good way to improve moral?Hatred and fear are some of the most powerful influences to date.Hatred and fear had nothing to do with human sacrifice by the Aztecs, for the most part. Human sacrifice, only existed in the Americas because religious practices prescribed it. In many regions in the world where such religious practices did not prescribe human sacrifice, unsurprisingly you did not see it.I'm trying to give an example of how taking away some people's rights can protect them, not just oppress them.Unless your example or analogy pertains to how the way in which women were subjugated protected them, then your example is of no use. The quality of being logical does not necessarily require that you be sentient. I can't believe you'd deny this.Yes it does. A rock rolling down a hill is neither logical nor illogical, it's just a fact. If you were to draw some inference from this fact, then it may be considered logical or illogical.For example:1. A rock is rolling down a hill.2. I did not push it down the hill.3. There are animals present on the hillC. Therefore an animal must have knocked down.Logical is a description of inferences or inference-makers.I'd like an example then of a society that has survived to this day without resorting to violent competition with other groups of humans.How is it that slavery was rendered in your a statement as 'violent competition'? I think you know that i can find societies that were preserved without slavery, so you chose to broaden the term to given yourself some leeway.May I please have a citation?The Tarahumarahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarahumara_people