tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post5383739423901973057..comments2023-11-22T09:00:59.909-08:00Comments on Atheistwatch: The Circular nature of atheist ideologyJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-20111017132414428452011-11-12T07:46:26.187-08:002011-11-12T07:46:26.187-08:00I appreciate that you think you are apologizing. s...I appreciate that you think you are apologizing. so you know you were wrong at some level. I accept except I'm not sure what you are apologizing for because you essentially say "but you are dense" so you not apologizing.<br /><br />Your assertions about how arrangements are to be presented are right if we were in an academic journal in a formal setting dealing with real arguments. we are not.<br /><br />we are on a message board (blog same deal) dealing with the way atheists reason on message boards.<br /><br />my presentation was informal and geared to the way conversions develop on a message board. because that's the way the fallacy is developed. so I want people to know it when they see it.<br /><br />You have no come to terms with the facts of the argument. The fact is there are some good scientific evidences for miracle that get sloughed off without investigation on the basis of past denial of evidence, which itself is based upon the same prejudice.<br /><br />claims of miracles in the old days were not scientific but neither was their rejection.<br /><br />there is no basic scientific evidence that miracles don't happen. the only reason naturalists turn them down is because they violate the ideology fo naturalism. that's it period. there are not disproofs of miracles.<br /><br />It's true that not all evidence of miracles is good. There are bad evidence but even the good one's are dismissed with no hearing.<br /><br />when good evidence exists it's just refused. atheists dogmatically refuse to accept that it could be valid. They don't look at it they rule it out dogmatically because it violates their paradigm.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-62285758053126649722011-11-12T07:23:50.837-08:002011-11-12T07:23:50.837-08:00Metacrock,
You have misinterpreted and made assum...Metacrock,<br /><br />You have misinterpreted and made assumptions from the very beginning and that is where I think the miscommunication is. Yes I did initially start off by saying you were dense. And I must apologize and rephrase or rather extrapolate on my meaning. In the argument you were presenting, yes I feel that you were being dense. It had nothing to do with not understanding circular logic or that I believed that you should just give up belief. And as far as I can understand it, I have a pretty firm grasp on the subject of burden of proof. But we will get back to that in a moment.<br /><br />On the topic of atheist circular reasoning. My statement was not about your beliefs. We hadn't even reached that part. I was basically showing that your argument or example was structurally unsound. Here is why.<br /><br />1. To present an argument that atheist use circular reasoning you must provide examples of what you are talking about. Just saying that the atheist does not accept evidence with out eluding to the evidence that the theist is presenting. For example. I cannot be justified in saying theist use circular reasoning just because I feel they do.<br /><br />Atheist: Here is the evidence for my non belief in god.<br />Theist:I don't except that answer, etc.<br /><br />Using that argument worded in that way, then yes, the response does seem circular. First we have to have a guideline. In this instance the base is evidence. Then it must be determined what is acceptable evidence and what is not acceptable evidence. From there the argument can be started with clear guidelines on definitions and parameters. Would you not agree?<br /><br />As far as CARM goes. I dont' read CARM that often but I do remember an argument that Matt Slick had with Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience, on the argument of TAG. I do know that Matt Slick when back and changed the writing in CARM after his premise had been dismissed as not viable. That in itself is not a bad thing because science itself changes theories based on evidence. But what makes it bad is that he maintained his position during the show and then went quietly to change the CARM site.<br /><br />But anyway. This is my challenge to you. What argument do you have where atheist use circular reasoning or logic. Let's talk about it and see if it is true?StEwPiD_MoNkEyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03435545514445372195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-86752006117966632292011-11-11T04:28:13.216-08:002011-11-11T04:28:13.216-08:00you are aptly named stupid. you really don't u...you are aptly named stupid. you really don't understand the nature of argument and you really should be wasting people's time with your middle school understanding.<br /><br />get through high school, learn something, they try flapping your unread gums.<br /><br />you wouldn't know what circular reasoning is if it bityou in the ass.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-58056953492302703472011-11-10T15:36:24.087-08:002011-11-10T15:36:24.087-08:00You are dense.
1. This example of circular reaso...You are dense.<br /><br />1. 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.StEwPiD_MoNkEyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03435545514445372195noreply@blogger.com