Atheist Circular Reasoning

Originally posted by @romans1009
No, it doesn’t amount to the same thing.

Yes, I find the evidence to be overwhelming. When someone mocked me for saying that, I showed how an expert in reviewing evidence felt the same way (along with two other experts.)

That’s not the same as saying everyone should believe the evidence because they and I believe it. It’s to refute the idea that the evidence being overwhelming is worthy of mocking.

So now you're claiming that your point was that your belief that the evidence being overwhelming is not worthy of mocking "because an attorney - who is an 'expert in reviewing evidence' - believes the evidence". Which once again amounts to "simply because it came from the lips of an attorney". No matter how you try to spin it, the basis for your claim is what I've been stating.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why would you want to follow the teachings of Christ if he was just another man like yourself and if he didn't demonstrate his divinity by rising from the dead? The joke is on you.

I see no dead people walking. Monkey wrench there for you, I actually am sorry.

Originally posted by @apathist
I see no dead people walking. Monkey wrench there for you, I actually am sorry.

Believe it or not, the world didn’t begin to spin on its axis the day you were born and the stars twinkled in the nighttime sky before you graced humanity with your presence.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
So now you're claiming that your point was that your belief that the evidence being overwhelming is not worthy of mocking "because an attorney - who is an 'expert in reviewing evidence' - believes the evidence". Which once again amounts to "simply because it came from the lips of an attorney". No matter how you try to spin it, the basis for your claim is what I've been stating.

First of all, Sir Lionel Luckhoo was one of three experts in reviewing evidence, though I realize you like to minimize his standing by just referring to him as “an attorney.”

And second, saying something should be believed and saying it shouldn’t be mocked are two entirely different things. You claimed I said the former when in reality I said the latter.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The point is that since Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney", it is perfectly valid to attack the truth of that claim on that very basis. stellspalfie was attacking the BASIS of Romans' claim. Understand now?

No, because that's not what happened. Stell attacked the SOURCE of Rom1009's information because the source is an attorney.

I could post a CNN article saying the sky is blue. If you allege the claim isn't true because of my lack of integrity or CNN's lack of integrity, then you are committing a fallacy. The sky is blue regardless of who posted the CNN article, and despite the fact that CNN is regarded by rational people as fake news.

Originally posted by @apathist
I see no dead people walking. Monkey wrench there for you, I actually am sorry.

This just in: Jesus often spoke in metaphor.

When Jesus preached His gospel during His ministry, some of the Jews would take His metaphors literally rendering them unable to understand what He was actually trying to convey.

Many Christians continue to make the same mistake.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
No, because that's not what happened. Stell attacked the SOURCE of Rom1009's information because the source is an attorney.

I could post a CNN article saying the sky is blue. If you allege the claim isn't true because of my lack of integrity or CNN's lack of integrity, then you are committing a fallacy. The sky is blue regardless of who posted the CNN article, and despite the fact that CNN is regarded by rational people as fake news.

He’s misrepresenting what I said and my reasons for posting the article with Luckhoo and the other experts.

I was mocked by an atheist troll for saying the evidence for Jesus Christ’s deity was overwhelming and so I posted the article to say, in effect, “Oh yeah? Well these guys who are experts in reviewing evidence think it’s overwhelming as well.”

I didn’t intend at all for people to think I meant they should believe the evidence because somebody else does - no matter who that somebody else is.

I think people should review the evidence for themselves. Unfortunately, the minds of atheists and Christ deniers seem permanently closed on the subject, and their pride won’t allow them to consider the possibility that they’re wrong.

BTW, when I began looking into the evidence of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection, I did so as a skeptic, though I’ve believed God exists for as long as I can remember.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
This just in: Jesus often spoke in metaphor.

When Jesus preached His gospel during His ministry, some of the Jews would take His metaphors literally rendering them unable to understand what He was actually trying to convey.

Many Christians continue to make the same mistake.

So if you agree with what Jesus said and it supports your pre-existing beliefs and doctrines, it’s not a metaphor.

If you disagree with what He said and it doesn’t support your pre-existing beliefs and doctrines, it’s a metaphor.

Gotcha.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
No, because that's not what happened. Stell attacked the SOURCE of Rom1009's information because the source is an attorney.

I could post a CNN article saying the sky is blue. If you allege the claim isn't true because of my lack of integrity or CNN's lack of integrity, then you are committing a fallacy. The sky is blue regardless of who posted the CNN article, and despite the fact that CNN is regarded by rational people as fake news.

Actually it gets to the crux of the matter. Evidently you can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that since Romans' argument is an "argument from authority", it is perfectly valid to attack to the truth of such claims by calling that "authority" into question. Hopefully you'll be able to understand that your "CNN" example is not an "argument from authority".

Also, a bit underhanded of you to edit out part of my post from the "Quoted Post" box. Following is my post in its entirety:

Clearly you need it spelled out in detail.

The point isn't that "So-and-so didn't commit a fallacy, because Roman committed one first". The point is that since Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney", it is perfectly valid to attack the truth of that claim on that very basis. stellspalfie was attacking the BASIS of Romans' claim. Understand now?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Actually it gets to the crux of the matter. Evidently you can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that since Romans' argument is an "argument from authority", it is perfectly valid to attack to the truth of such claims by calling that "authority" into question. Hopefully you'll be able to understand that your "CNN" example is not an "argument from a ...[text shortened]... that very basis. stellspalfie was attacking the BASIS of Romans' claim. Understand now? [/quote]

<<The point is that since Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney"...>>

This is a lie.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Believe it or not, the world didn’t begin to spin on its axis the day you were born and the stars twinkled in the nighttime sky before you graced humanity with your presence.

I know I'm worthless. It occurs to me that you project.

Originally posted by @apathist
I know I'm worthless. It occurs to me that you project.

Saying the world didn’t begin on the day you were born doesn’t mean you’re worthless. It just means you’re not all that and a bag of chips.

Originally posted by @romans1009
So if you agree with what Jesus said and it supports your pre-existing beliefs and doctrines, it’s not a metaphor.

If you disagree with what He said and it doesn’t support your pre-existing beliefs and doctrines, it’s a metaphor.

Gotcha.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Actually I was giving apathist an explanation as to why he hasn't observed any "dead people walking".

Originally posted by @romans1009
Saying the world didn’t begin on the day you were born doesn’t mean you’re worthless. It just means you’re not all that and a bag of chips.

I do like trying to think straight though. I've worked hard at it.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Actually I was giving apathist an explanation as to why he hasn't observed any "dead people walking".

Half the time, I have no idea what he’s saying.