If any atheist used any of those arguments, yes it would be circular reasoning. However I don’t know any that do, so ironically this blog is kind of a strawman (just another fallacy). The “the bible is true because it says it’s true” basis for christianity is circular reasoning and this is true however many steps you put in there. Now granted people try to justify the bible based on historical evidence etc but there are problems with those arguments too. But you cannot use the bible as a source of authority to justify the bible as a source of authority without committing a fallacy any more than you can use “there is no god” as a foundation for an argument as to why there is no god.

Is your argument “atheists (supposedly) use circular reasoning so it’s okay when we do it”?

@boricua_chic_2008 - If I claimed that my dog was eaten by a dragon would it be “closed-minded” of you to wait for hard evidence before believing me? Are you closed minded for not believing in allah and vishnu?

@trunthepaige - The problem comes when “it works for me” turns into “it hurts other people”, such as when people suppress science, oppose funding for medical research, promote sex ed courses that result in higher rates of STDs and teen pregnancy and persecute minorities in the name of their beliefs that “work for them”. The 9/11 hijackers had beliefs that “worked for them”. If people kept their religions to themselves then I’d be fine with live and let live. But as long as religious people militantly evangelize and legislate their views onto everyone else I’m going to stand up and disagree.

@summereque - If they were being rude or preachy walking away is fine, but I’ve had people flee from me for saying I was an atheist (and nothing else) when they asked what my religious beliefs were. I’ve had people shut down and pretend I wasn’t there, I’ve had people freak out various ways, and a few times I’ve even been told explicitly that I’m not a person.

@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - ”Here are some other logical fallacies that atheists, liberals and the wacko Christian cult members use:”

You don’t understand most of these fallacies.

“1. Nirvana Fallacy – Solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Leftists use this one against free market capitalism, zero tolerance for federal poverty programs, gun control, etc. All the while they fail to see the total disasters wrought by leftism.”

This I’m not even going to coment on because I can’t even understand what you’re claiming the position of “liberals” is.

“2. False Attribution – The appeal to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source. Atheists almost always refer to themselves as the authority for their own arguments. Most normal people just say, “In my opinion.”

Sources support claims, facts etc, opinions and arguments are weighed on their merits like logical consistency. I do not need to source a logical argument, only a factual claim. And in fact using a source or authority to legitimize an argument is itself a logical fallacy.

“3. Ad Hominum – Instead of sticking to the issue someone will personally attack his opponent.
I get this a lot from the likes of @agnophilo and @mtngirlsouth. They will go to others and call me “the biggest troll on Xanga,” or some such. People who can’t argue their way out of a paper bag use this fallacy when effective argumentation makes them question their own worldview.”

You’ve made dozens of fake accounts, argued with yourself, rec’d your own blogs and been blocked for violating xanga’s terms of service. You are by any definition a troll. If someone called you a troll in lieu of a logical argument that would be a fallacy, but calling a spade a spade is not, in and of itself a fallacy. I usually stop arguing with you when you stop listening to or dealing with my arguments.

“4. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc – Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased and CO2 is a green house gas. Therefore, CO2 is causing global warming. It seems like 98% of Xanga has fallen for this fallacy.”

Global warming and the greenhouse effect are well studied and there are various predictive models used by climate scientists. Their conclusions are based on decades of testing and research, not simply the above sentence.

“5. Argument from Ignorance – Assuming an argument is true or false because it has not been proven true or false or cannot be proven true or false.”

In the case of positive atheism, sure. But almost all atheists are agnostic atheists.

“6. Burden of Proof Fallacy – I need not prove my claim. You must prove it false.
How many times have we all heard 5 & 6 from atheists? Atheists are so far gone that even if you provide proof they won’t believe you.”

Actually shifting the burden of proof is only a fallacy if the burden of proof is on you. Unless the atheist is an idiot they’re not the one making the claim, they’re the one demanding evidence of the theist’s claim so the burden of proof is squarely on the theist.

“7. Moving the Goal Posts – Arguments in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other evidence is demanded. All liberals and atheists I’ve ever tangled with use this one. They have no idea what they are talking about at any given moment so they figure by changing the subject they will eventually trip you up.”

Ironically this one is a hasty generalization.

@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - So if saying that someone doesn’t understand logical fallacies proves they don’t understand said fallacies, then by your own logic you, having just said the same about me, do not understand said fallacies and my original assertion is, according to your own logic, correct.

@summereque - If someone starts evangelizing in an “I’m talking but not interested in listening” sort of way then walk away, but if someone just shares their view and you shut down and run away then you’re the one with the problem. Not saying you are, I’m just saying there’s a difference between being annoyed by a one-way conversation and saying “la la la la I can’t hear you”, which I get all the time, often by people who initiated the debate/discussion.

@Blue_Moon1 - ”The world we live in is full of circular reasoning. People choose what they want to believe, then use circular reasoning to justify it. Not a very good practice, yet a regular practice. For Religious folk of a Christian nature God rejects circular reasoning, and expects one thing FAITH. He expects you to look around you and reason that it all didn’t happen by accident.”

That statement, if correct, supports deism, not christianity.

“Athiests detest this, because they love circular reasoning.”

No actually common logical fallacies are committed by all kinds of people, not just atheists. In fact even this blog starts out with an example of christians using it.

“They demand concrete facts in a world full of abstract thought, and resons. They get angry and demand that the person who believes in God must meet their criteria to prove Gods existance,”

Stereotyping atheists as angry and stupid, nice. And are you saying that god is an abstract concept? If he is then the atheist is right. If he’s an objective being then you’re right. Objective things are in the realm of fact, not abstraction. If god is subjective then he does not exist, except in the mind.

“that the burden of proof is on others who believe. When there is no such burden, except in their mind.”

I don’t think you understand what “burden of proof” means. If you didn’t accept the concept of burden of proof you’d have to accept every claim made by every person and every religious text.

“This country is supposedly based on freedom to think and believe as one desires. That means with true freedom some will believe, others will not. Confidentially the Bible says exactly that, and tells the believer what to do….. ignore the unbeliever.”

One, you’re not exactly ignoring the unbeliever by piling on in a blog criticizing us are you? And two, the bible also says “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1 peter 3:15) The bible is a mass of contradictions, which makes it easy for people to pick and choose what to “follow” and thus “follow” their own opinion and call it god and pretend it’s infallible.

“You will never convince all people. Thus they both should allow each other the freedom to believe what they want….. it would solve so many problems.”

Freedom to believe whatever you want includes the freedom to express that belief, especially on a blog attacking people who believe as I do. I am not violating your rights by disagreeing with you.

“Besides in the end if there is no God, Believers have lost nothing.”

Just the hundreds of millions of people killed and countless others persecuted in the name of god – big whup, right? And they’ve chased their tails in a false worldview losing their one chance to explore life and truth and meaning, wasting their one and only life talking to themselves. Yeah where’s the downside in that? By that logic why not go believe in islam. If you’re wrong who cares, right?

“On the other hand if there is a God the Athiest is in some really deep doo doo.”

Assuming that god is a vindictive egomaniac. If that’s the case I’d say we’re all up a creek.

“That’s not my problem, I’ll leave them to make their own excuses, they’ve had a lifetime to practice, though I don’t think it will help them at that point. Regardless I think we all just need to relax, and not stick our noses so deeply into others business.”

Just publicly bash people who disagree with us, right?

@trunthepaige - I don’t think it’s how strong the belief is so much as how reasonable it is. If you believe something because you think you have to in order to survive emotionally you’re not going to be open to reason and will possibly go the way of the fanatic. When people believe things for logical reasons they can change their view when new evidence arises. When they believe for psychological or emotional reasons (indoctrination being perhaps the most common) then changing one’s mind is often difficult or impossible, and politicians and dishonest evangelists exploit this to no end.

Beliefs can be compared to alcohol. If someone has a drink at a party just for the hell of it it’s not going to do too much harm. But if they drink compulsively to avoid pain or guilt it can destroy their life. Why they drink is as much (if not more) the problem than the drink itself. It’s the same with beliefs. I would rather start out believing something wrong for reasonable reasons than believing the “right” thing for unreasonable ones. Because all worldviews need refinement and course correction now and then.

@trunthepaige - If in the future you could say “some atheists say x” or even “often atheists say x” rather than just “atheists” (implying all of them do) I would appreciate it. I take great pains never to generalize about believers because it stings when people generalize about atheists.

@trunthepaige - Generalizations are never fair. Saying “often atheists say x” is not a generalization (in the sense I’m talking about). Saying “black people are lazy” is a generalization. That statement would never be valid and citing examples of lazy black people doesn’t justify the suggestion that all black people are lazy. It’s the same with suggestions about christians or atheists or anybody else. Unless of course the generalization is by definition correct, ie “all mormons follow the teachings of joseph smith” would be a valid generalization. “All mormons are racist” would not be though.

As for the individual quotes they aren’t examples of circular reasoning, and are the kind of statements that generally sum up a thesis before or after going into detail giving arguments in support of it. If I said “christianity is ridiculous” after talking for half an hour about why I think it was, that would not be a circular argument, but a summation (though my position would be valid or invalid depending on the contents of my arguments).

@Rescued_by_grace - Actually the quotes are just out of context and originally came with actual arguments.

@Rescued_by_grace - An idea being simpler and easier to understand does not make it correct. Relativity and quantum mechanics are very hard to understand, and racism is simple. If you don’t understand all the positions then please suspend judgement on the issue.

@Rescued_by_grace - I’m just saying it’s not good to have strong opinions about things you don’t understand or have little knowledge of. It would be like me having strong opinions about quantum mechanics without knowing hardly anything about it. Any opinions I have about the subject are going to be tentative at best.

@Composing_Life - Not true. This blog is about atheists, not religion. If I write a blog attacking christians and christians defend their position I wouldn’t say “see, you must be drawn to atheism!”

@nyclegodesi24 - 

“In short, I argue “naturalism” means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, “supernaturalism” means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things.”

This seems like a roundabout way of saying “anything subjective that we don’t understand”. That’s not a good definition. Our not understanding something doesn’t fundamentally change what it is. After all when we didn’t understand love we believed in aphrodite and cupid, when we didn’t understand seuzures and mental illness we believed in demon possession (and many still do). Our not understanding these things made us call them supernatural but that label describes us more than it does the things we apply it to. If the defining characteristic of something supernatural is that we can’t explain it, why not use a less loaded term like “mystery”?

@Rescued_by_grace - True. Though some people are comfortable with complex ideas, and not everything can be simplified. So if an idea is over your head (and some ideas are over everyone’s head) the best thing is to reserve judgement.

@flapper_femme_fatale - I don’t either, but to be fair anybody can say “I’m not convinced” to any position. Not that you’re doing so just to be difficult but it’s worth pointing out people do this a lot.

@somewittyhandle - I’mnotugly is loborn, fyi.

@mortimerZilch - So go kill gay men like it says in leviticus. And when did jesus say anything about abortion? You talk about society losing it’s “objective moral standard” when what you’re holding up as objective is just a list of what’s hot and what’s not this decade in christian pop culture. You might as well get your “objective standard” from a fashion magazine.

@trunthepaige - Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

@trunthepaige - There is a big difference between saying “christians are irrational” and saying “x belief is irrational”. If dawkins and harris went around simply slurring christians all the time I would agree that they’d be hacks. But what I’ve seen of them tends to have a lot more substance than that.

@nyclegodesi24 - It’s another way of saying we don’t know their exact mechanism, “they can’t be broken down” means “we can’t currently break them down, we don’t know how”. It’s a description of the limits of our understanding not the phenomenon in question. The same way we once didn’t know how to split an atom and before that didn’t know what atoms were made of, which described our lack of understanding of atomic physics. In fact that was the original definition of the term “atom”, which literally means indivisible – something which hypothetically cannot be further reduced.

@CarelessConfessions - I believe it was einstein who said the only thing that could excuse god is his absence.

@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Right next to the beaker that proves a murder suspect touched a murder weapon. There is no one single experiment, it’s decades upon decades of research into the mechanisms of things like fingerprints and DNA. DNA copies itself and when it does it mutates, those mutations are inherited by one’s offspring and by comparing the mutations we can estimate with a fair degree of accuracy how closely related two individuals are. Do you deny that we can do this? Do you reject maternity and paternity tests? They hold up in courts of law every day. The exact same science is what common ancestry is based on (ignoring for the moment the fossil record, taxonomy etc). You have to accept both or reject both because they’re the exact same thing that establishes the exact same fact (degree of hereditary relatedness) the exact same way.

@trunthepaige - No, the “if god did exist he’d be a prick and you don’t believe in a prick god so shouldn’t you think about that” argument.

@nyclegodesi24 - I’m saying the former (I thought that was clear). So something that cannot (currently) be reduced by us into a logical mechanism is supernatural? Was lightning supernatural 2,000 years ago? We couldn’t reduce it to anything, we had no idea what it was. You said qualia is supernatural, is psychotic rage from god? That’s qualia. Are all the people in nut houses that think god wants them to kill people onto something?

@CarelessConfessions - I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that politics and religion have merged over the centuries. I agree a lot of the bible is just psychology, positive and negative reinforcement, incentives etc.

@Maverick83 - True. Though there’s a difference between attributing something with no logic or evidence to something and actually seeing that thing. When people say “I believe in jesus because I’ve seen him heal people in the hospital who were dying” I always ask “really? You SAW jesus do that? Wow, how’d he look? Did you get his picture? Did you have the hospital save the security tapes? Of course they didn’t see jesus do anything, they just attribute sick people getting better to him the way people attributed lightning to zeus and infatuation to aphrodite.

And if there is a god and he talks to people he must not talk to many because christians don’t even agree with each other. I wanted recently to go to a church and ask the parishioners to participate in an experiment 1) don’t tell anyone about the experiment or talk to anyone about it, 2) go home and pray to god asking him if your church and it’s theology is the correct church/theology. 3) Come back the following day and write the response you get on a piece of paper that will be gathered.

I honestly don’t know what the results would be. I imagine most would play it safe and say “yes”, maybe a few would say no, but I’d bet good money that either way if I did the same study at another church with a different theology I would get similar results, but in favor/against that church/theology.

If someone did this study with different sects the result would be incredibly interesting.