Circular reasoning fallacy…conclusion assumed in the premise.
"The circular reasoning fallacy is an argument that assumes the very thing it is trying to prove is true. Instead of offering evidence, it simply repeats the conclusion, rendering the argument logically incoherent.
People may commit circular reasoning fallacy unintentionally because they are convinced of their own assumptions and take them as given. Sometimes, circular reasoning is used deliberately to mask the speaker’s lack of understanding or evidence."
These were just baked. Hard and crunchy on the outside, soft and moist on the inside, And, surprise! They are cream filled. The one with rainbow sprinkles is mine. Tin Man always goes for the ones with nuts, Next I will teach you the happy cookie dance.
I Concur: 'Excessively credulous, and an overreliance on solipsistic claims, false comparisons, intentional obfuscation of facts, and continuous assertions of knowing the unknown. Because we can not know anything, all knowledge of anything is weighted the same.Therefore your unqualified, unverified opinion is as valid and supported as those of science. (Pure bullocks!)
(sniff sniff…) Uh, you mean…I will have access to the invisible handbook?…and, and the list of snappy retorts? (tearing up)…Surely I am not worthy of the secret handshake and other non-existent things?? the hand signals too?
…and I don’t have to perform any degrading acts anymore??? (eyes watering in appreciation)
.
.
Edit (I can’t wait to try on my robe)
“The hand signals?” Who told you about the hand signals? Damn blabber-mouths! How in the hell is anyone supposed to run a secret club with everyone on the site talking about it!!!
Talk of The Atheist Club belongs in the Lounge, not in the Debate forum. The Lounge has been swept for listening devices and is safe. The Debate forum is open and anyone can listen in. Please take take of the Club over to the Lounge.
For the record he’s an agnostic atheist, something you have decried as dishonest when others here have stated the same, odd that.
I also found this, and given (Sherlock-Holmes’s) posts were demonstrated to be relentlessly irrational, it seems very apropos, from Chomsky:
"QUESTION: Do you recognize or acknowledge the spiritual life, and is it a factor in who you are?
CHOMSKY: By the spiritual life, do you mean the life of thought and reflection and literature, or the life of religion? It’s a different question.
QUESTION: The spiritual dimension in terms of religion. Is that at all a factor?
CHOMSKY: For me, it’s not. I am a child of the Enlightenment. I think irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon, and I try to consciously avoid irrational belief. On the other hand, I certainly recognize that it’s a major phenomenon for people in general, and you can understand why it would be. It does, apparently, provide personal sustenance, but also bonds of association and solidarity and a means for expressing elements of one’s personality that are often very valuable elements. To many people it does that. In my view, there’s nothing wrong with that. My view could be wrong, of course, but my position is that we should not succumb to irrational belief."
Maybe he (Sherlock-Holmes) is “in good company” with Chomsky, but not about religion.
And life is not supernatural, rather destroying your hyperbolic claim that the origin of everything must be supernatural, you can’t have it both ways.
As was lightning once, thar she blowssss…god of the gaps ahoy!
Is life natural? Only you have repeatedly asserted it can only have had supernatural origins, which is it I wonder?
No, like you…
Magic
noun
the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Only in making bald claims to possess them, quelle surprise.
I am a genius with an IQ of 220, and Nobel prize in some “stuff”, but I have no interest in evidencing discussing those claims.
I have cured cancer, but I am waiting for sceptics to come on board.
Yeah, like me curing cancer…
This is getting spooky…
Tell it to a crocodile…
I’ve decided to interpret that as false, and if your rationale has any merit then my interpretation is no less valid than anyone else’s. Or we can weigh claims based on objectively evidence. I assume you simply don’t worry about seeing a doctor when ill, as anyone’s subjective opinion will do?
As objectively as I am able, and thus without your emotional closed minded bias in favour of your a priori belief in a deity.
Yes that’s the sort of bias I mean, and when you present some objective evidence we can see how I examine it, and then comment objectively, until then you’re simply using a poisoning of the well fallacy, your claim this applies only to people who don’t share your theistic belief (atheists) is of course a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Please explain your own criteria for recognizing evidence for wapadooks. He was funny fair play…
Obviously because we all lack belief before we start to examine claims, it’d be pretty bizarre to form beliefs for things we can’t define, or even comprehend evidence to support, as you seem to be suggesting I do.
Cough bs cough…
I believe the world is not flat and not at the centre of the universe, are you seriously going to claim this is equally as subjective as the best colour is blue? Funnier and funnier, but the same false equivalence he tried to peddle at the very start, we’ve seen this canard floated by too many apologists.
Sherlock… another ignorant responder who does not understand Occam’s Razor.
This is not the same thing as saying life ‘only’ comes from life. It is not the same thing as saying life ‘cannot’ come from inorganic matter. This amazing law that he cited, and that he thinks is so important, is a simple observation. “Life comes from life.” Well, “DUUUUHHHHHH!” Give the man a lollypop and send him to his room.
nobody told me there were cookies…I would have tried harder not to hurt anyone’s fee fees…if I had just known…
