The Power Of Circular Reasoning

[stvdv]

No more sound than another common claim:

View attachment 30212​

The one in the OP is much "deeper" IMO

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I do not understand how that is relevant to what I said.
Besides, I attacked no one, and he did admit "I, in fact, did create it. I used a program called CSSWRAP."
It appears the phrases were made up as well.
I never heard it before, and I don't know of anyone that uses it.
Come on. No one reasons that lame.

This article covers the subject:

Circular reasoning - RationalWiki

 

[nPeace]

This article covers the subject:

Circular reasoning - RationalWiki

I still don't see what that has to do with what people actually says.
You will have to show me someone who actually uses such reasoning, and quote them word for word.
No one I know reasons that way.

Perhaps they are individuals who do reason as described in the article you linked, because they are apparently persons who don't seem to be able to reason.
I am not aware of anyone who reasons the way they paint that picture.
If you do, I would like to hear them for myself.

Until you can do that...
I think the OP would be similar to someone writing an article saying atheist do "house cleaning" in their brain. The first things to go are logic, reason, and common sense, then conscience quickly follow.

Would you like that?

Or, how about...
The Circular Reasoning of Atheists
Google Image Result for https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/lookaside/crawler/media/?media_id=803459993031378

Just because someone has a view, which they thinks sounds amusing or smart, and they present it as fact, does not mean it actually is.
Is that not so?

 

[Milton Platt]

Don't you get tired of criticizing God or the Christian faith?
I don't mind that you do not believe in the bible or God, but why the need to pull down those who wish to follow the Christian faith?

Possibilities:
1. Enjoys the debate
2. Is interested in how religious people come to their decisions
3. Has not received answers to his past questions that were logically sound.
4. Has noticed that he gets more responses from Christians if they feel he is challenging them.
5. Just wants to prod people to critically examine their beliefs.

Sure He can add more.....

Your question could be turned back around on you as a Christian.......why do Christians continually challenge a person's lack of belief in supernatural causes?

Whether or not anyone's mind gets changes, we all learn a lot about each other.

 

[dybmh]

Thing is, no one here is obligated to read anything anyone writes or respond to it. And if you find my posts too challenging then I suggest you stick with the choir; the Christian related DIR forums.

I find your threads to be click-bait. Quite honestly. You act like an aggregator of tabloid Atheist websites. there is very little substance. And your commentary after the OP is not useful or unique.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I find your threads to be click-bait. Quite honestly.

It's an unrelated subject, but my constructive criticism is that I have no problems with this particular thread, but if he wants to talk about the subjects of sex and religion a lot, to divide the threads up into one on "sex" and one on "religion" if possible. As it is, he covers "sex as it applies to religion", when I, for one, would rather talk about either or.

I hope this advice isn't taken in a negative fashion.

 

[dybmh]

It's an unrelated subject, but my constructive criticism is that I have no problems with this particular thread, but if he wants to talk about the subjects of sex and religion a lot, to divide the threads up into one on "sex" and one on "religion" if possible. As it is, he covers "sex as it applies to religion", when I, for one, would rather talk about either or.

I hope this advice isn't taken in a negative fashion.

Yes, but... sex mixed with religion is more click-baity.

 

[sooda]

God sent the Flood because people had become so evil that they were all going to Hell - to prevent that happening any further, God brought the curtain down on the show. This is called "being cruel to be kind."

"God is Love" (says the Bible), therefore God is Liberty, therefore has given us free will - WE are responsible for the evil in the world.

The Biblical statement "Love your neighbour as yourself" forbids slavery and genocide.

Science helps us to understand nature - it has nothing to say about ethics.

If God didn't exist, we would be of no more lasting significance than spiders - only God gives human history any meaning or purpose - Nature doesn't.

There was NO flood.. The Hebrews borrowed a Babylonian myth. In the original story the gods destroyed people in a great flood because they were noisy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Don't you get tired of criticizing God or the Christian faith?
I don't mind that you do not believe in the bible or God, but why the need to pull down those who wish to follow the Christian faith?

If you don't appreciate that sort of thing, why are you participating in a religious debate forum? Debate is precisely about arguing for contrary viewpoints. You'd be better of following the Christian faith in a church, than in a debate forum.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Believing in a god is nothing more than a choice and that choice is based on faith. A god existing or not existed cannot be shown by any science. A belief in god or a disbelief in god is fine and both are done by nothing more than faith. Their faith is a god does exist, your faith is a god doesn't exist. Evidence doesn't support either.

Interesting, but in two places in the quote, you stopped just a little bit short:

1. "Believing in a god is nothing more than a choice and that choice is based on faith." But what is that "faith" based on? I think that for the vast majority of people in the world, faith is based on what they were taught before they were old enough to discriminate for themselves, and encouraged to believe by those in whom the necessarily placed the most trust.

2. "Their faith is a god does exist, your faith is a god doesn't exist. Evidence doesn't support either." But "evidence" comes in two forms, presence and absence. We never convict anyone in court on the basis of an absence of evidence, but rather on the positive identification of evidence that links the accused to the crime. I am assuming you mean that there is no positive evidence that supports either position. For most atheists, on the other hand, the absence of evidence strongly suggests that god does not exist, rather than leading to a conclusion that he does.

 

[Skwim]

I find your threads to be click-bait. Quite honestly. You act like an aggregator of tabloid Atheist websites. there is very little substance. And your commentary after the OP is not useful or unique.

Please feel free to ignore me.

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Being in a hopeless state is a recipe for being miserable. What hope do atheists have? All they have is today, right now, this minute....today or tomorrow your life might end and then there is nothing more. If I felt that this life was all there was, my life would indeed be miserable. Imagine someone born with a severe disability or who developed a terminal illness in childhood and they never got to live a 'normal' life,to enjoy the things that many of us take for granted....if this life is all they get, then Jehovah would indeed be a cruel and heartless God.

He has asked us to bear with him whilst he deals with rebellion and eradicates it forever. I am willing to wait for what he promises because he is the only one who can actually deliver on his promises. Who do you depend on?

My heart knows that life on this planet should be the opposite of what it is now. It is the collective desire of most humans to live a way different life....why is that? Why do we long for peace and security for ourselves and our loved ones? Why are we drawn to paradise locations? This life with all its uncertainty and tragedy might be enough for you...but it isn't enough for me. I know something better is coming because I have faith in my Creator. Not everyone has it but it can be nurtured if you feed it. Nature teaches us so much about the one who made it. Open your eyes.

The Bible explains why we all seek something better. It's programmed into us...
This life is a pathetic fake created by God's adversary in the hope that it will make people give up on belief in a benevolent Creator.....has he succeeded? Looks that way to me. But many have come to see through his deception.



How do you know it isn't? In every culture in different parts of the world there is a flood story. How did that happen when there was no communication between nations thousands of years ago. They didn't know other cultures even existed, for the most part. That can only happen if the event impacted on the world to such an extent that it created legends in their history. Genesis explains how that happened.



Why is God a terrible person for executing those who were committing capital crimes? He executed those who were offending him by their licentious and violent ways. So invasive was their influence, that only one family was seen to care anything about God and his laws. These were the only ones NOT breaking his laws. God didn't save them, but gave them instructions on how to save themselves...it was a monumental task and if they had faltered on any of God's instructions, no one would have survived that event.

An executioner is not a murderer. Who has a better right to execute those who commit capital crimes than the Creator of life?

You also forget that the one thing that God has that we do not, is the ability to restore life to those who merit his mercy.
A God who means what he says, and does not just slap offenders on the wrist IS a God worth following. Don't we all wish he would come right now and rid the earth of those who are committing violence and immorality wantonly believing that they have a right to do whatever they like? Do you love this world? I don't...I am sickened by what humans are doing to this planet and to each other.....but its all unbelievers have. Its not all I have.

To think you still believe literally in this flood nonsense! But you do.

But sorry, here's something that you simply ignore (probably because it would be uncomfortable to include it in your thinking): IF God killed everybody on earth (along with all the animals except 2 (or 7) of each, by the way, who certainly weren't "sinners"), then he also killed all those who were born minutes, hours, days, weeks or months before, who also had no time to rack up "capital crimes" as you put it.

And that, like it or not, is judicial murder, and IF your dumb flood is true, then God is guilty as charged.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you believe your child is good at soccer while everyone else thinks your child sucks, who is correct, your belief or the opinion of others?

The stats at the end of the season...

 

[We Never Know]

The stats at the end of the season...

You mean the stats they don't keep because everyone gets a trophy

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In this case we're talking about a demonstrated pattern of behaviour. Skwim is pretty blatantly anti-Christian.

I am Christian, but willing to discuss flaws in Christian theology. Skwim is just here to tell people he thinks they're stupid, though. IMHO.

Maybe, just perhaps, @Skwim is just trying to understand what makes some people believe things that seem impossible to him? Learning through investigation doesn't seem to be a terribly bad thing to me.

 

[Oeste]

'Taint common at all.

Then the converse "Taint common at all".

That's probably because I had to make it up... you know, just like you admitted to making up yours.

The major difference being that while millions assert "The Bible is true because god says so," and "god is true because the Bible says so" I've never heard anyone assert "There is no god because the Bible's not true," or "the bible's not true because there's no god."

The major difference being that while millions assert "The Bible isn't true because God says so" or "God isn't true because the Bible says so" I, like @nPeace, have never heard anyone assert "The Bible is true because God says so" and "God is true because the Bible says so".

And I sincerely doubt you have either.

You miss the forest for the trees.

As such, I sincerely doubt you've heard either.

 

[Deeje]

To think you still believe literally in this flood nonsense! But you do.

You are free to believe that the flood is nonsense. I believe the Bible.....you don't.
We will all find out one day.

But sorry, here's something that you simply ignore (probably because it would be uncomfortable to include it in your thinking): IF God killed everybody on earth (along with all the animals except 2 (or 7) of each, by the way, who certainly weren't "sinners"), then he also killed all those who were born minutes, hours, days, weeks or months before, who also had no time to rack up "capital crimes" as you put it.

The apostle Paul told married Christians: “The unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would really be unclean, but now they are holy.” (1 Corinthians 7:14-17)

Because of the ‘merit’ of the believer, the young children of the union are considered holy, under divine care and protection—not "unclean" as are children who do not have even one believing parent. Children learn what they live and the children of those parents in Noah's day were a really bad role models ensuring that none of their children merited salvation. The children in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah exhibited the same depravity as their parents.....they were not spared either. IMO, this reinforces the importance of teaching children good morals and compliance with God's laws and standards.

God is the Universal Sovereign of all humans living, whether they accept him as such or not. A Sovereign has the right to dictate to his subjects what is law and what penalties are appropriate in any given circumstance. His subjects do not have a right to dictate their own terms of existence. Rebellion cannot not tolerated....so, we either shape up or we ship out.

And that, like it or not, is judicial murder, and IF your dumb flood is true, then God is guilty as charged.

The flood was used by Jesus to picture the situation that would be repeated upon his return (Matthew 24:37-39)....we are seeing it right now. You can deny it all you like....but it doesn't change anything.

 

[Oeste]

he Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

LOLOL.. The chalk cliffs aren't flood sediment. They are plankton skeletons laid down over millions of years.

Who taught you such garbage?

Where does Ken or the article he quoted claim that chalk cliffs are flood sediment? I can't find either statement.

The Black Sea breech was a slow moving flood. People living on the banks had plenty of time to move their herds and families to higher ground.

There were 4 hypotheses that I am aware of and only one appears to have a slow moving flood. Most model have a rapid influx of water:

Four different hypotheses for the Black Sea-Lake level currently exist (see illustration above). One hypothesis assigns the maximum regression to 18,000 14C years, followed by a gradual transgression to the Black Sea outlet (placed at 35 mbsl) and completed before entry of saltwater (Kuprin et al., 1974, Kaplin and Shecherbakov, 1986, Pirazzoli, 1996, Kaplin and Selivanov, 2004, Balbanov, 2007, Sorokin and Kuprin, 2007). A second hypothesis places the maximum regression at 11,000 14C years, recognized as the Younger Dryas period of the late Pleistocene, followed by a rapid freshwater transgression ending at ~ 10,000 14C years ago at the level of the outlet (Bosporus sill) and also completed prior to the connection of the Mediterranean Sea with the Black Sea-Lake (Aksu et al., 2002, Hiscott et al., 2002, Hiscott et al., 2007a, Hiscott et al., 2007b). Yanko-Hombach et al. (2014) and Mudie et al. (2014) have proposed that the surface of the Black Sea-Lake was never lower than 30 mbsl in the early Holocene prior to its evolution to a sea. A third hypothesis also recognizes a regression in the Younger Dryas period, but one that persists into the Preboreal and ends with an abrupt transgression exclusively caused by a cascade of Mediterranean saltwater that begins when the rise of external eustatic sea level reaches the inlet (Lericolais et al., 2007, Nicholas et al., 2011). A fourth hypothesis recognizes a significant regression confined to the Preboreal period, immediately before the rapid transgression from the entry of Mediterranean water (Dimitrov, 1982, Ryan et al., 1997, Major et al., 2002, Ryan et al., 2003, Dimitrov and Dimitrov, 2004, Ryan, 2007, Dimitrov, 2010).​

I'm not claiming a particular hypothesis wrong, but the latest model from Colombia University (US), Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Bulgaria), Varna Regional Museum of History (Bulgaria) and the Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel) support previous rapid flow models which would not have given families "plenty of time" to move to higher ground.

"The flux through the Bosporus at the time of the transgression is likely to have been rapid rather than gradual as erosion, similar to phenomena observed during dam breakage, would increase the depth and width of the inlet allowing more and more water to enter from the Mediterranean." Source. (Marine Geology, volume 383, 1/1/17 pgs 14-34)​

 

[sooda]

Where does Ken or the article he quoted claim that chalk cliffs are flood sediment? I can't find either statement.



There were 4 hypotheses that I am aware of and only one appears to have a slow moving flood. Most model have a rapid influx of water:

View attachment 30228​

Four different hypotheses for the Black Sea-Lake level currently exist (see illustration above). One hypothesis assigns the maximum regression to 18,000 14C years, followed by a gradual transgression to the Black Sea outlet (placed at 35 mbsl) and completed before entry of saltwater (Kuprin et al., 1974, Kaplin and Shecherbakov, 1986, Pirazzoli, 1996, Kaplin and Selivanov, 2004, Balbanov, 2007, Sorokin and Kuprin, 2007). A second hypothesis places the maximum regression at 11,000 14C years, recognized as the Younger Dryas period of the late Pleistocene, followed by a rapid freshwater transgression ending at ~ 10,000 14C years ago at the level of the outlet (Bosporus sill) and also completed prior to the connection of the Mediterranean Sea with the Black Sea-Lake (Aksu et al., 2002, Hiscott et al., 2002, Hiscott et al., 2007a, Hiscott et al., 2007b). Yanko-Hombach et al. (2014) and Mudie et al. (2014) have proposed that the surface of the Black Sea-Lake was never lower than 30 mbsl in the early Holocene prior to its evolution to a sea. A third hypothesis also recognizes a regression in the Younger Dryas period, but one that persists into the Preboreal and ends with an abrupt transgression exclusively caused by a cascade of Mediterranean saltwater that begins when the rise of external eustatic sea level reaches the inlet (Lericolais et al., 2007, Nicholas et al., 2011). A fourth hypothesis recognizes a significant regression confined to the Preboreal period, immediately before the rapid transgression from the entry of Mediterranean water (Dimitrov, 1982, Ryan et al., 1997, Major et al., 2002, Ryan et al., 2003, Dimitrov and Dimitrov, 2004, Ryan, 2007, Dimitrov, 2010).​

I'm not claiming a particular hypothesis wrong, but the latest model from Colombia University (US), Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Bulgaria), Varna Regional Museum of History (Bulgaria) and the Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel) support previous rapid flow models which would not have given families "plenty of time" to move to higher ground.

"The flux through the Bosporus at the time of the transgression is likely to have been rapid rather than gradual as erosion, similar to phenomena observed during dam breakage, would increase the depth and width of the inlet allowing more and more water to enter from the Mediterranean." Source. (Marine Geology, volume 383, 1/1/17 pgs 14-34)​

See #64 and how the Grand Canyon was cut in a few days.

 

[Skwim]

Then the converse "Taint common at all".

That's probably because I had to make it up... you know, just like you admitted to making up yours.

All I "admitted" to was creating the specific circle I posted, not the idea of the circle. As anyone familiar with circular reasoning knows, this one's been around for a long time.

Here are three examples

​

But it's nice to see you fess up to your fib that your made up circle was "another common claim"



.