Complexity? Really?

[Cognostic]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Very well, in which case you and I might as well stop discussing it then, fine with me.

HEY! Cyber!!! We can start a club!

[Cognostic]

@Sheldon

Oh oh oh me me me, I know this one…NO he hasn’t noticed, what do I win?

Though I hate parting with them. You can have a cookie.

[Sheldon]

@Cognostic

Though I hate parting with them. You can have a cookie.

Eyfangew…I will have it with a nice glass of Rioja…

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

So for me God exists and is the source of all there is**, if you don’t share that premise then no argument about the Bible being supernaturally inspired will convince you because you don’t share a neccessary premise.

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."

Dear oh dear…

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

No at all Sheldon…Therefore it is you, it is the atheist who peddles superstitions.

That’s a lie.

Superstition
noun

1. excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural

For the record the reason this is a deliberate lie, is that I do not believe in the possibility of, nor do I revere at all, supernatural claims.

[skriten]

@Sheldon

Dear oh dear…

Yes, too long on a merry-go-round has a tendency to make you say that…

[skriten]

@Cognostic

You can have a cookie.

I like cookies nobody told me there were cookies…I would have tried harder not to hurt anyone’s fee fees…if I had just known…

[Cognostic]

@skriten

I like cookies nobody told me there were cookies

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.

[Cognostic]

@Sheldon

1. excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural

For the record the reason this is a deliberate lie, is that I do not believe in the possibility of, nor do I revere at all, supernatural claims.

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!)

[skriten]

@Cognostic

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.

(hopping excitedly) ooh ooh…pretzels! I want the one with pretzels! It reminds me of the kind of logic I have seen recently!

Edit ( I’m an excellent dancer)

[Cognostic]

@skriten

Edit ( I’m an excellent dancer)

I always knew you belonged in the Secret Atheist Club, no matter what Tin Man, Sheldon, and Old Man had to say about it.

[Sheldon]

@Cognostic

I always knew you belonged in the Secret Atheist Club, no matter what Tin Man, Sheldon, and Old Man had to say about it.

First rule of atheists club!

No one talks about atheist club!

And everyone atheists the first time…

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon

@Sherlock-Holmes

So for me God exists and is the source of all there is**, if you don’t share that premise then no argument about the Bible being supernaturally inspired will convince you because you don’t share a neccessary premise.

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."

@Sherlock-Holmes

Really, I could write a book on some of the characters here. I’d call it The atheists derision of logic.

You don’t say…I think what we are dealing with here is a self awareness bypass, possibly involving the Dunning - Kruger effect.

[skriten]

@Cognostic

I always knew you belonged in the Secret Atheist Club, no matter what Tin Man, Sheldon, and Old Man had to say about it.

(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)

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@skriten

and I don’t have to perform any degrading acts anymore???

They are not degrading they are essential for us all to observe if you are on the square.

[skriten]

Hmmm…you know, I seem to remember some guy I met in Los Angeles in the sixties, named Charlie, saying the same thing…

[Cognostic]

@skriten

the hand signals too?

“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!!!

[Sheldon]

Which bit of “don’t talk about atheist club!” is confusing everyone here?

[CyberLN]

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.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

I’m in good company too, here’s what Prof. Chomsky has to say about this:

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.