Apologetics

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-22 04:45pm

That is a fact about ourselves we should all accept, yes.

Now, do you claim to know whether such circular reasoning is why Christians believe?

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-22 04:49pm

You mean to tell us you have never once heard anyone say that? How about "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God?" Do you need things rephrased constantly, or is that just another facet of your nitpicking tendencies?

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-22 05:46pm

Stay on topic, or if you wish to change the subject, at least inform me and explain to me the relevance. What are you talking about now? Are you saying that "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God" is circular reasoning?

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-22 06:45pm

The Apologist wrote:Stay on topic, or if you wish to change the subject, at least inform me and explain to me the relevance. What are you talking about now? Are you saying that "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God" is circular reasoning?

Yes we are, idiot. Figure it out: why should you believe jesus? "Because he's the son of God" How do you know this? "Because he said he was the son of God." It uses the premise that Jesus is the son of God to prove that Jesus is the son of God.

Who wants to bet that that explanation will go right over his head?

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-12-22 06:56pm

The Apologist wrote:Stay on topic, or if you wish to change the subject, at least inform me and explain to me the relevance. What are you talking about now? Are you saying that "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God" is circular reasoning?

*cue ricochet noise*

Sniper! Get to cover!

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-22 08:17pm

You have about 453373834728:1 odds in your favor, there.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-22 08:18pm

The Apologist wrote:Well, since three supposed contradictions have been presented on this topic, I really would appreciate if you told which one you were talking about.

But really, do you even know what it means when two propositions are contradictory?

Just pick one and go with it fucker.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-22 10:46pm

The Apologist wrote:Stay on topic, or if you wish to change the subject, at least inform me and explain to me the relevance. What are you talking about now? Are you saying that "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God" is circular reasoning?

Of course not. It's just extraordinarily naive and poor reasoning. Would you believe David Copperfield is he told you he was the son of God and made one of his sexy assistants disappear?

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-23 01:02am

Yes we are, idiot. Figure it out: why should you believe jesus? "Because he's the son of God" How do you know this? "Because he said he was the son of God." It uses the premise that Jesus is the son of God to prove that Jesus is the son of God.

1. That is not what was said originally. The reasoning first presented was "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God," which by itself is not circular reasoning. What you just presented is one step longer.

2. Amusingly, even your example is not circular reasoning. It would have been, had you added one more propositional function: How do you know that what He says is true? "Because He is the Son of God." So close, and yet so far.

Anyway, what is wrong with circular reasoning? "A, therefore A" is circular reasoning, and is a valid and sound argument, as most circular reasoning is. In fact, the only thing against circular reasoning is that it is usually not convincing in the least.

Of course not. It's just extraordinarily naive and poor reasoning.

It appears as though you and data_link have something to work out between you two.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-23 01:10am

The Apologist wrote:
Yes we are, idiot. Figure it out: why should you believe jesus? "Because he's the son of God" How do you know this? "Because he said he was the son of God." It uses the premise that Jesus is the son of God to prove that Jesus is the son of God.
1. That is not what was said originally. The reasoning first presented was "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God," which by itself is not circular reasoning. What you just presented is one step longer.

It's using hearsay as evidence, which is a logical fallacy. It's also an appeal to authority, to some extent, and in this case, an irrelevant, nonexistent authority. It doesn't even matter which one it is; the reasoning is wrong.

2. Amusingly, even your example is not circular reasoning. It would have been, had you added one more propositional function: How do you know that what He says is true? "Because He is the Son of God." So close, and yet so far.

No, saying "Jesus is the son of God because he said so, and it must be true, since he's the son of God," is circular.

Anyway, what is wrong with circular reasoning? "A, therefore A" is circular reasoning, and is a valid and sound argument, as most circular reasoning is. In fact, the only thing against circular reasoning is that it is usually not convincing in the least.

Conclusions cannot be reached by assuming them to be true as a part of your argument.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-12-23 10:22am

The Apologist wrote:That is a fact about ourselves we should all accept, yes.

Now, do you claim to know whether such circular reasoning is why Christians believe?

Of course not. Christians believe for two reasons:

1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim there's a god, and they've been told from youth that there may be something out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.

2) They are afraid. Usually of their own mortality, but fear nonetheless. If you were afraid of nothing, you wouldn't need gods. Unquestionably.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-23 05:37pm

True to form, the moron took it literally, even when he knew what I meant. You dodged the fucking question.

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-24 01:01am

It's using hearsay as evidence, which is a logical fallacy. It's also an appeal to authority, to some extent, and in this case, an irrelevant, nonexistent authority. It doesn't even matter which one it is; the reasoning is wrong.

But not circular. Concession accepted.

No, saying "Jesus is the son of God because he said so, and it must be true, since he's the son of God," is circular.

That is precisely what I just told you, yes.

Conclusions cannot be reached by assuming them to be true as a part of your argument.

Of course not. Do you have a point? How does this discredit circular reasoning? Is there something wrong with "A, therefore A"?

Of course not. Christians believe for two reasons:

1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim there's a god, and they've been told from youth that there may be something out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.

2) They are afraid. Usually of their own mortality, but fear nonetheless. If you were afraid of nothing, you wouldn't need gods. Unquestionably.

Evolutionists believe for two reasons:

1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim that macroevolution occurred, and they've been told from youth that there may be something evolving out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.

2) They are ignorant. Usually of their own uneducation, but ignorant nonetheless. If you were ignorant of nothing, you wouldn't need evolution. Unquestionably.

Not that I would really know or anything, since I have never really been one myself, but it coheres with my own personal beliefs, so it must be so!

...Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-24 01:06am

The Apologist wrote:
It's using hearsay as evidence, which is a logical fallacy. It's also an appeal to authority, to some extent, and in this case, an irrelevant, nonexistent authority. It doesn't even matter which one it is; the reasoning is wrong.
But not circular. Concession accepted.

Give it up, asshole. You can say "concession accepted" a hundred times, but it won't fool anyone. It is circular logic to say that this particular form of hearsay is something more than hearsay based on its own claims to be something more. You are simply playing sophistic games.

Of course not. Do you have a point? How does this discredit circular reasoning? Is there something wrong with "A, therefore A"?

A therefore A is a tautology and proves nothing. If you are so mind-bogglingly stupid that you don't see the problem with circular reasoning, then there is no hope for you. You can try so very hard to pretend to be intelligent, carefully construct your sentences, lovingly craft your name-dropping of philosophy-babble terms, but none of it means anything when you insist on making an ass out of yourself by defending doctrines which make no sense, and seizing upon nitpicks or semantic loopholes to attack your opponents (do you think it's not obvious?).

...Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?

Because the alternative (that you're simply an idiot) isn't as charitable.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-24 01:14am

The Apologist wrote:But not circular. Concession accepted.

Fine, I'll concede that your reasoning is not fallacious in the way someone else described it to be, but it's still fallacious.

Of course not. Do you have a point? How does this discredit circular reasoning? Is there something wrong with "A, therefore A"?

You asked what was wrong with circular reasoning. I told you.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-24 01:15am

The Dumbass wrote:
Of course not. Christians believe for two reasons:

1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim there's a god, and they've been told from youth that there may be something out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.

2) They are afraid. Usually of their own mortality, but fear nonetheless. If you were afraid of nothing, you wouldn't need gods. Unquestionably.
Evolutionists believe for two reasons:

1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim that macroevolution occurred, and they've been told from youth that there may be something evolving out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.

2) They are ignorant. Usually of their own uneducation, but ignorant nonetheless. If you were ignorant of nothing, you wouldn't need evolution. Unquestionably.

Not that I would really know or anything, since I have never really been one myself, but it coheres with my own personal beliefs, so it must be so!

...Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?

Firstly: the amount of supporters of Evolution is vastly less than the support of any type of a "God" belief. It's hard to fall into a popular-opinion trap when that is not a popular opinion, and the idea is not a "belief" in the first place.

Secondly: there is a large amount of fossils, genetics, and the results of experiments that are evidence for evolution. It does not require, nor want, irrational belief - just understanding of the process.

Wager: The Dumbass will reignite his semantics whoring over the use of "belief" in these posts.

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-24 01:42am

Give it up, asshole. You can say "concession accepted" a hundred times, but it won't fool anyone. It is circular logic to say that this particular form of hearsay is something more than hearsay based on its own claims to be something more. You are simply playing sophistic games.

But the actual inference in question, "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God," is not circular logic. This is all I am arguing.

A therefore A is a tautology and proves nothing.

Um... it proves that if A, then A. This is what is known as a logical proof by identity, or "trivial validity."

Have you ever received any education in formal logic? Because you sound exactly the way I did, before I decided to learn about logic officially, and not rely on my own gatherings.

If you are so mind-bogglingly stupid that you don't see the problem with circular reasoning, then there is no hope for you.

If there is more of a "problem" with "A, therefore A" than that it "proves nothing," I would love to hear it.

...Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?

Because the alternative (that you're simply an idiot) isn't as charitable.

That made no sense. "Because" answers "why" questions; I asked a "what" question. And, the alternative to what?

You asked what was wrong with circular reasoning. I told you.

Well, can you support your position?

And, what does it mean when you say that "there is something wrong" with circular reasoning? Does that mean that it is invalid?

Firstly: the amount of supporters of Evolution is vastly less than the support of any type of a "God" belief.

Unfortunately, we were not talking about "any type of a 'God' belief." We were speaking specifically of Christianity.

It's hard to fall into a popular-opinion trap when that is not a popular opinion, and the idea is not a "belief" in the first place.

Most people who even concern themselves with such matters are involved in intellectual circles - schools, colleges, universities, research. Evolution, I think, is popularly accepted in intellectual circles.

And yes, it is a belief. If you contend that the Theory of Evolution is veridical, then that is your belief.

Secondly: there is a large amount of fossils, genetics, and the results of experiments that are evidence for evolution. It does not require, nor want, irrational belief - just understanding of the process.

Then it is right in league with Christianity.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-24 01:54am

The Dumbass Semantics Whore wrote:
SeebianWurm wrote:Firstly: the amount of supporters of Evolution is vastly less than the support of any type of a "God" belief.
Unfortunately, we were not talking about "any type of a 'God' belief." We were speaking specifically of Christianity.

Yes, but they are predisposed to the idea through the general acceptance of such a belief.

This Fucking Moron wrote:
It's hard to fall into a popular-opinion trap when that is not a popular opinion, and the idea is not a "belief" in the first place.
Most people who even concern themselves with such matters are involved in intellectual circles - schools, colleges, universities, research. Evolution, I think, is popularly accepted in intellectual circles.

And yes, it is a belief. If you contend that the Theory of Evolution is veridical, then that is your belief.

I just won the bet. Are you incapable of not playing semantics games? Because you haven't stopped since you fucking got here.

The Cowardly Heckler wrote:
Secondly: there is a large amount of fossils, genetics, and the results of experiments that are evidence for evolution. It does not require, nor want, irrational belief - just understanding of the process.
Then it is right in league with Christianity.

How the fuck? You've made similar statements before, and then never returned to the thread to corroborate your claims. Is this an indicator you plan to stop participating?

If so, Praise Allah!

Christianity is an inherently irrational belief system. Without actual, physical evidence or falsifiable theories to its name, many accept its truth based on a book and its followers intolerant conversion attempts. There is no reason to believe in a Deity; and if there was, there is still no reason to believe in Christianity as the particular flavor of it.

Edit: removed extra [/quote] tag

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-24 02:01am

The Apologist wrote:
Give it up, asshole. You can say "concession accepted" a hundred times, but it won't fool anyone. It is circular logic to say that this particular form of hearsay is something more than hearsay based on its own claims to be something more. You are simply playing sophistic games.
But the actual inference in question, "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God," is not circular logic. This is all I am arguing.

Yes it is, because you are not truthfully representing the argument. In reality, the argument is "We believe in Jesus because the Bible says he's the Son of God, and we know the Bible is true because it says so." This is definitely circular. Unless you were alive two thousand years ago, you did not speak to Jesus, you do not know what he did or didn't say, and you certainly have no physical evidence, so all you have is hearsay whose inerrancy is based on its own claims of inerrancy.

Have you ever received any education in formal logic? Because you sound exactly the way I did, before I decided to learn about logic officially, and not rely on my own gatherings.

I'm not sure who you're responding to here, but this is typical of your asinine, vague claims of superior knowledge. Not once have you explained any kind of logic to anyone here; you simpy make constant allusions to having superior knowledge of logic even though you consistently fail to demonstrate any (and have even gone so far as to defend the use of circular reasoning). In effect, you generally counter logical arguments with appeals to your own authority which take the form "I know more about logic than you, so I'm right and you're wrong".

If you are so mind-bogglingly stupid that you don't see the problem with circular reasoning, then there is no hope for you.
If there is more of a "problem" with "A, therefore A" than that it "proves nothing," I would love to hear it.

That is problem enough, since the point of an argument is to prove something, and an argument which claims to prove something but which in fact proves nothing is shit.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-24 02:05am

He was responding to you, Wong. Of all the ironies.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-24 03:42am

The Apologist wrote:Well, can you support your position?

That circular reasoning is flawed?

And, what does it mean when you say that "there is something wrong" with circular reasoning? Does that mean that it is invalid?

YES

Jesus Christ Being Fucked by a Bar Stool, you actually claim to have received "formal education in logic"?

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-24 04:01pm

The Apologist wrote:Well, since three supposed contradictions have been presented on this topic, I really would appreciate if you told which one you were talking about.

But really, do you even know what it means when two propositions are contradictory?

Technically?

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-24 04:02pm

The Apologist wrote:Of course I do. No Christians believe that, anyway, as far as I know.

Hm, technically...

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-24 04:16pm

The Apologist wrote:
...Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?

Because the alternative (that you're simply an idiot) isn't as charitable.
That made no sense. "Because" answers "why" questions; I asked a "what" question. And, the alternative to what?

You just shot yourself in the balls. You asked a rethoric question, which means that you weren't expecting any answer (unless you honestly thought that the devil had "possessed" him to think that). "What possessed you to..." equals "Why did you..."

"Why did you think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Chrisian, why I believe what I believe?"

"Because the alternative (that you're simply an idiot) isn't as charitable."

Myself, I wouldn't have put that between parentheses, though. That way I would have emphasized the alternative instead of just adding it as a thought.

Technically!

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-25 07:59pm

I just won the bet. Are you incapable of not playing semantics games? Because you haven't stopped since you fucking got here.

Whom were you betting with?

Anyway, why do you have a problem with semantics, and how have I used it more than anyone else on this topic? Need I remind you that semiotics and logic are closely related studies?

All I am doing is expressing my views, and questioning yours. Are you hostile toward "semantics" because it is a study too intellectual for you?

How the fuck? You've made similar statements before, and then never returned to the thread to corroborate your claims. Is this an indicator you plan to stop participating?

Keep in mind which of us is outnumbered twenty to one.

Christianity is an inherently irrational belief system. Without actual, physical evidence or falsifiable theories to its name, many accept its truth based on a book and its followers intolerant conversion attempts.

Ignorance springs eternal, I guess...

If Christianity has no "actual, physical evidence or falsifiable theories to its name," how does it then follow that it is irrational? And how do you know that many accept it because of a book and conversion attempts?

There is no reason to believe in a Deity; and if there was, there is still no reason to believe in Christianity as the particular flavor of it.

So, what are the winning numbers for California's next lottery?

Yes it is, because you are not truthfully representing the argument. In reality, the argument is "We believe in Jesus because the Bible says he's the Son of God, and we know the Bible is true because it says so." This is definitely circular.

Oh ok, so I am supposed to read your mind, and know exactly what you mean, even when you say something completely different.

Well, I guess I should be able to, since you obviously have the power to read Christians' minds.

That is problem enough, since the point of an argument is to prove something, and an argument which claims to prove something but which in fact proves nothing is shit.

But in fact, "A, therefore A" proves that if A, then A. I thought I already explained this to you. This is the most basic form of logical proof.

YES

Jesus Christ Being Fucked by a Bar Stool, you actually claim to have received "formal education in logic"?

No, I claimed to have decided to learn about logic officially.

Anyway, so you are saying that "A, therefore A" is an invalid argument? Can you explain why?

You just shot yourself in the balls. You asked a rethoric question, which means that you weren't expecting any answer (unless you honestly thought that the devil had "possessed" him to think that). "What possessed you to..." equals "Why did you..."

Not rhetorical, but idiomatic. I think the "what" should stay; it means "what made you think..."

His answer still makes no sense, though.