Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Circular reasoning

One of the most basic logical mistakes that some believers make is a pretty serious one. They use their holy text to prove the existence of their god, then use their god to prove that their holy text is true. You can't do that! It's called circular reasoning, and if they're aware that they're doing it, then it's just intellectual dishonesty.

An example argument goes something like this:

"The bible says there is a god, therefore there is a god. God guided the people who made the bible, therefore the bible is true."

Watch Ray Comfort use the Ten commandments as part of his 'proof' of the existence of (his) god. You can start watching from the 7:00 mark.



While this logic might impress a child in the first half of elementary school, it's a pretty stupid argument for an adult to believe. However, in the defence of the religious believers, it might just be the best evidence they have of their respective gods. How sad.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Really? The Christian argument's that you pick are this? How about you look into actual intellectual arguments for God's existence.

I watched this debate a few months ago, and it is pitiful! (for both sides). Honestly, I do not think that you should take either of the sides of that debate seriously.

Admin said...

I've taken on plenty of other "intellectual arguments" for the existence of gods on this site. Look around. They're all crap. Do you have a new one?

I love you hand-wavers. There's no real evidence at all, so you pretend that by thinking about it really carefully, you can bring your favourite god into existence. Sad and lame.

Admin said...

For starters, I suggest you look at my posts on the Atheist's Riddle, the TAG argument, and on scientific proof vs. religious proof:

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2008/08/atheists-riddle-oh-no-im-so-scared.html

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2008/09/scientific-proof-vs-religious-proof.html

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2009/02/not-slick-enough.html


And I also just love how you've just skipped over one thing. Yes, these are arguments for the existence of one or more gods, but you've used "God" with a capital 'G'. That is, if you think one of these proofs succeeds in bringing a god into existence, you've just assumed that it's yours. Another link for you to check:

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2008/07/most-serious-failure.html

By the way, Ray Comfort used the same circular argument about the Bible and his god during his latest video with Thunderf00t. so he still hasn't learned anything, or come up with any better reason to believe.