what to respond?

How to respond to someone who'd claim that it is illogical to not believe in spirits (ghosts, poltergeists, demons, etc.) simply because it is mentioned in the bible. The only reason he gives for their existence is because they are mentioned in the bible and you can not use science to explain these phenomenons. This goes without saying that he believes that the bible is infallible. Here is what he said:

"You have a book that is supposedly god given to humanity, and as science evolved over time, the scientific pieces of information that puzzled scientists for some time or the scientific pieces of information scientists believed something to the contrary to were continually corrected such that they are exactly the way they are stated in this book, and the book is claimed to be from god, and it tells u to try and find a single fault in it, but until now that has not happened. And then you have paranormal activity and people being seriously affected by it to the point of needing exorcisms. And then the book has never been wrong for thousands of years, this tells you that there is something called demons and the explanation of what demons are goes exactly in line with what caused the exorcisms."

I'd prefer not to get into the scientific errors of the bible because simply him and many others like him would twist and bend the words of the bible and interpret them in ways where it serves there views while maintaining the infallibility of the book; any criticisms or objections will be met by this behavior. However, Id appreciate it if anyone could post links to credible resources that prove the scientific errors in the bible.

Thanks

How to respond to someone who'd claim that it is illogical to not believe in spirits

First, realize that they have the burden of proof since they are making this claim. They need to demonstrate that it is illogical, which from what you wrote, they have not. Nothing they wrote even suggests that not believing in "spirits" would violate any laws of logic, thus, not illogical. So how would I respond? Simply by asking, "what law of logic is not believing in spirits violating?"

Ultimately, what you are dealing with is a person who presupposes the Bible to be "perfect." This means, any evidence presented against the perfection of the book MUST be wrong, flawed, or otherwise not a problem for the Bible. It is a case of extreme motivating reasoning combined with circular reasoning (e.g., The Bible is perfect. Why? Because everything that attempts to demonstrate the Bible not being perfect is flawed in some way. Why? Because the Bible is perfect). For example, it is well known that the ideas of some scribes who made notes in the margins of the Bible made it in as "scripture." Through motivating reasoning, believers will tell us that since the Holy Spirit guided the whole process, this is what God wanted... it was supposed to happen. Same with other transcription errors, translation errors, etc.

I wrote a chapter in my book The Concept about Biblical errors basically listing about a dozen techniques used to make the book "error free." These are basic linguistic and cognitive tricks that can be applied to any old book (my favorite is claiming something is meant to be metaphorical or "spiritual" when no rational human being who wants to be taken seriously can possibly justify the claim/story in any other way). I finish the chapter by telling users not to Google "errors in the Bible," but "Errors in the Bible Explained," because these are far more telling how much mental gymnastics one must go through to accept the explanation.

Here is a good source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

Bo is correct, always make sure the proper person carries the burden of proof. But that is not what I think is the core of your question, which I understand is how to respond. 

In my experience, people never change their beliefs by being punched in the head with facts. Most people believe what they believe because they want to believe what they currently believe. Facts are not important. Michael Shermer made this addition to Cognitive Dissonance Theory in his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things.” So, if your goal is to change another person’s belief, I think you must use a different approach.

Peter Boghossian suggested a strategy to change a person’s belief. To be successful, he said the person whose belief you want to change must reconsider how he arrived at the belief under discussion. If your goal is to change his mind, as distinct from pontificating (which is better done in front of a mirror), then you need to get him thinking about how he arrived at the belief.  

Boghossian’s book, “How to Have Impossible Conversations,” is an excellent manual on how to do this. In my experience, people never change their beliefs by being punched in the head with facts. Most people believe what they believe because they want to believe what they currently believe. Facts are not important. Michael Shermer made this addition to Cognitive Dissonance Theory in his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things.” So, if your goal is to change another person’s belief, I think you must use a different approach.

Peter Boghossian suggested a strategy to change a person’s belief. To be successful, he said the person whose belief you want to change must reconsider how he arrived at the belief under discussion. If your goal is to change his mind, as distinct from pontificating (which is better done in front of a mirror), then you need to get him thinking about how he arrived at the belief.  

Boghossian’s book, “How to Have Impossible Conversations,” is an excellent manual on how to do this. He suggests asking questions. For example:

“I’ve come to a different conclusion, and I’m having a hard time understanding where you’re coming from. I assume you must know some things about this subject that I don’t. Could you tell me more about where you’re coming from on that so I can understand better?”      

The more ignorance you admit, the more readily your partner in the conversation will step in with an explanation to help you understand. And the more they attempt to explain, the more likely they are to realize the limits of their knowledge and epistemological errors made along the way.

If you ask someone a direct question and he obfuscates or refuses to answer, ask him to ask you the same question, and you answer it. Other Boghossian suggestions:

“That’s an interesting perspective. What leads you to conclude that?”

 Say, “I’m skeptical,” not “I disagree.”

 “On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being no confidence and 10 being absolute confidence, how confident are you that belief is true?”

“I’m not sure how I’d get to where you are, at a X. I want to see what I’m missing. Would you help walk me through it?”

“I am not trying to convince you of anything. I’m curious and would like to ask some questions to learn more.”

The idea is instead of people holding a belief because they think they should hold that belief, reverse it and claim to hold your belief and wish you could stop believing—if only the discussion partner could show you the error of your ways. The point is, you want to get them thinking about the process that led to the conclusion and not about the conclusion itself. 

All of this deals with the Fallacy of Subjectivism. Subjectivism is not only a way of adopting conclusions on subjective grounds, but also — and probably more often — a way of evading the grounds. Some people have perfected the skill of ignoring what they don’t want to see, and most of us indulge in this habit from time to time. Heuristics are hell. If I put the statement into a proposition, it takes the form: “I don’t want to accept p. Therefore p isn’t true.” That’s the fallacy of subjectivism.

 

Usually when I hear that something is true because it is written in a book (any book, here is the Bible) I respond that Harry Potter is also true because it is also written in a book.

I guess it's not the answer you expected, but that's my response.

As for the "try and find a single fault in it" one of the most ridiculous things I have read in the Bible is the following about how to treat skin diseases (check the 48th).

After you show them that, if they continue to say that this isn't a fault, then not understanding that further discussion with them is a waste of time is totally on you :)

If I had to guess, anything you say to them would probably be a waste of time.
"Some people want to know, some people want to believe." ~Nitzsche 
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe" ~ Carl Sagan   

As a christian, I have to respond.

I think there's gonna be central theme. Allow me to include this following verse:

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Hebrews 11:6

Just like the cognitive dissonance applies to me, it also applies to you. So my question would be if you are in fact earnestly seeking him?

Now, I won't answer everything here. This is just an intro, unless no one wants to engage but I guess I'll include all of my responses anyway. I've been sent to the Biblical scientific errors website. I want to respond to that. Here's a quote:

"One of these is the concept of methodological naturalism. This states that supernatural explanations are excluded a priori from scientific considerations."

If I represent this correctly, the claim is that science is not in the business of the supernatural. Those explanations do not belong to scientific considerations by a priori exclusion. What I think this means is that there is an a priori rejection of the supernatural. 

Example: This is how I remember the evidence for the resurrection from a video that I watched. Historians agree that many people, to the tune of at least 500, experience an appearance of Jesus. Some explanations have been given, like having an hallucination. Why? Because a supernatural explanation is excluded from scientific considerations. This is a bias. 

Then my response to the basic assumption that methodological naturalism should hold is that what I hear is a naturalistic bias (also borrowed this from a book that I'm reading). Why do I think this happens? I think that it's an ambiguity fallacy . This is why:

1. Properly collected data is part of the scientific method.
2. Interpreting the data is part of the scientific method. 
3. I interpret that a hallucination best explains the data.
C. Therefore, a hallucination is the scientific interpretation.

In fact, 'interpreting data' takes on two meanings: testable hypothesis vs explaining the past, or how I understand it, abductive reasoning.

If you're curious about what I think about deep time, since my best guess is that you would agree that appeal to possibility is fallacious thinking, then I think you're ready for the teleological argument. Here's my response to this video (I'm the comment on the very top with the added comment because I think I wasn't clear on it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e9v_fsZB6A&t=362s

Finally, I will tackle the insects problem. 

Here's a quote from the rational wiki page: "But as the biblical text clearly differentiates Group A (those with no jointed legs) as separate to Group B (those with said jointed legs) and yet both groups are defined as having four legs, this argument can be of no defense."

Here's Leviticus 11:20-21

“‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.
Leviticus 11:20-21

Here's the claim from rational wiki.

1. Leviticus 11:20-21 mentions two groups of insects, those that walk on all fours and those that walk on all fours and have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.
2. Leviticus 11:20-21 says that Group A do not have jointed legs.
3. Group B is mentioned as having four legs. 
C. Group B has 4 legs and two of them are joint legs for hopping on the ground.

This is how I actually see what Leviticus 11:20-21 says:

1. Group A is the group of insects that walk on all fours and are to be regarded as unclean.
2. Group B is the group of insects that walk on all fours and are not to be regarded as unclean. This is the group of insects that have two jointed legs FOR hopping on the ground.
3. An example of group B would be the grasshopper. It has 4 legs to walk and two jointed legs for hopping on the ground.
4. Defense: group A may have jointed legs for other things even if they were not mentioned. Look up for the class of arthropods.

What I'm saying is that most likely, premise 2 for the rational wiki author is false. He/she has committed a strawman fallacy.  

Here's how I want to conclude my first response for the upcoming series: are you honestly searching and looking for the truth? Do you honestly think that God would make such an obvious mistake like looking at a grasshopper and declaring that it only has 4 legs and 2 of them are meant for hopping? 

Here's a verse that might offend you but I think you need it:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.
Colossians 2:8