On the post the circular nature of atheist ideology this character calling himself "StOoPiD MoNkEy chimes in to show us that he doesn't know what circular reasoning is.his comment:
This example of circular reasoning that your attribute to atheist does not work. What exactly was the evidence that the theist presented. Personal experience perhaps? If that is the case, well then yes...that is not evidence. Please remember, the burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. As far as CARM goes. It has been shown already that Matt Slick is full of it and most of, if not all, his arguments have big issues with them.Here we see the problem immediately. He's reciting slogans form the atheist propaganda wagon without thinking about how they apply or what they mean. For example who has the burden of proof has nothing to do with weather or not the argument they make is circular. The only issue in relation to circular reasoning is "does the premise rest upon the conclusion." I'll show momentarily that in the case I discussed it does. That's a totally separate issue form who has the burden of proof. He says the example of circular reasoning doesn't work but then he doesn't bother to say why. He goes off reciting propaganda slogans and doesn't deal with the issue.
Of course he recites the ignorance programed into him by his atheist brain washers, that personal experience can't prove anything. That has nothing to do with the circular nature of their argument, which is what my blog spot was about.
here is the post in question.
The Circular nature of atheist ideology
Atheism wants to pass itself off as "scientific." So they cling to the scienistic idea that science is the only form of knowledge. They truncate the nature of truth to that which can be produced by their own methods. Anything else they reduce until they lose the phenomena. So at that point atheism can't have truth all it can have is circular reasoning.
atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.
Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.
Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God."
Atheist: Because there can't be any such evidence.
Believer--how do you know that?
Atheist: because there aren't any
Beleiver--what about the stuff I just presented.
Atheist: I disproved that, it can't be evidence because there isn't any.
that little hypothetical exchange Demosthenes the circle in the reasoning, the premise rests on the conclusion because he starts form the premise that there can't be any proof for SN because it's SN and that doesn't issue in proof. The proof of that statement is that based upon excluded all examples, there are no examples. That's obviously circular reasoning; the conclusion is the same as the premise.
it doesn't make any difference if other aspects of theistic argument are wrong or badly done that who has the burden of proof is irrelevant to circular reasoning. he's not even thinking about logic as a subject of it's own, but just as an aid to further propaganda..
(1) Atheists selective rule out as 'fact' anything that doesn't match the ideology.
(2) Atheists reduce to a point of losing the phenomena any phenomena that stands against the ideology.
(3) Atheists use mockery and ridicule to shut down any discussion that is not in line with the ideology.
(4) Atheists exclude from reality any form of knowledge would give results contrary to the ideology.
(5) Atheists construct a false paradigm of knowledge based upon scientistic (not scientific but scientistic) assumptions.
(6) All thinking must be filtered through the ideology of atheistic sceintism.
Here's the rational, logical, factually oriented rebuttal of an atheist on CARMNWRT- not worth responding to. And nothing you've written here changes that. I'll start taking you more seriously as an intellectual once you start addressing our actual arguments.Go back and look over what you just wrote- now apply it to yourself. You do nothing but post ridiculous arguments (like your little "co-determinate" joke), insult people when they present legitimate disagreement, and present strawman versions of atheist's positions. Why on earth would anyone be interested in trying to have a genuine, serious discussion with you?
I asked him what's ridiculous about it:I've explained it to you a million times- strong belief is not controlled for. And, true to form, you've only answered your strawman version of my argument.
Holy Irony Batman, doesn't this actually prove what I was saying? I have 300 studies he has 0. He decides this 'strong belief' which he can't define without a single study to back it up. Isn't this really a case of declaring my fact to be "no facts" because they differ form the ideology?