Religion is an initial circular argument.

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bearair's picture
Religion is an initial circular argument.

I came across this definition of religion whilst debating on an american forum, the full definition is this,

religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

This definition provided by a Christian appears to me to be utter nonsense, it does not describe religion and is so broad that any circular argument could be a religion. "The red shoes are red" suddenly becomes a religion if I understand it correctly.

Interested in what other people think, is it meaningless rubbish or am I missing a philosophical point.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Cognostic's picture
@Bearair" Religion" isn't

@Bearair" Religion" isn't an argument. It is a system of claims and assertions based on some form of authority; a book, a teacher, a belief.

Next, if the argument is circular, it is by definition a fallacy. "God exists because the bible says he exists." Why trust the bible. "Because God wrote it." How do you know god wrote it. "Because it says it was inspire by god." But how do you know there is a God?" "The Bible says there is a God." .......

Religious assertions may be circular but whatever we are calling a religion is not any kind of "Argument."

doG's picture
Fuck the banana's...you get a

Fuck the banana's...you get a whole banana cream pie for that uncle cog.

Bearair's picture
Thanks @Cognistic I have been

Thanks @Cognistic I have been struggling to articulate a response to this definition, I really need to learn the fundamentals of Logic and Fallacies if I am going to debate with people who come up with such obscure ideas.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
I find this site (they also

I find this site (they also send a daily email) a really good (and oftimes amusing) resource: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies

Cognostic's picture
https://www.nsbsd.org/cms
Cognostic's picture
You Tube for your listening

You Tube for your listening pleasure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3WCvUXRkfY

Sheldon's picture
,cite>"religion is an initial

"religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

This definition provided by a Christian appears to me to be utter nonsense, it does not describe religion and is so broad that any circular argument could be a religion. "The red shoes are red" suddenly becomes a religion if I understand it correctly."

I may have misunderstood, but surely saying religious arguments are circular, is not the same as saying all circular arguments are religions.

Bearair's picture
Thanks Cognostic will look

Thanks Cognostic will look into those later.

Sheldon, my understanding is that he is defining religion rather than religious arguments, he could well be right about religious argument being circular but that does not make it a definition of religion. IMO.

Get off my lawn's picture
Religion is the usage of

Religion is the usage of circular religious arguments, applied religiously?

Peurii's picture
Isn't empiricism a religion

Isn't empiricism a religion according to that definition? You assume the senses portray the world, and prove the world is real by using the senses, and the describe the senses by way of sensual experiences about the world.

Cognostic's picture
@Peurii: MY THOUGHTS ONLY.

@Peurii: MY THOUGHTS ONLY. ( I find myself responding to stuff when I've not much else to do with my day.... so here we go.....

What assertion does empiricism make? "All knowledge is derived from sense experience." (Not True) Justified true knowledge is derrived from sense experience.

Knowledge: Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning. Knowledge can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

I don't think "theoretical" is being used as a scientific term here. "Facts, descriptions, evidence , experience have already been mentioned. I think "theory" refers to personal hypothesis or guess as in "religion, else the sentence is repetitive. Knowledge of God or gods is still in the set of knowledge. It is just unsubstantiated, inane, unproved and silly as it does not require empiricism to be held as true. A dream, a feeling, a delusion, or the whisper of a neighbor is enough to lead one to the knowledge of the supernatural.. No empiricism required,

NEXT: While justified True Belief and Empiricism appear circular, unlike the circularity of the god~bible argument, Empiricism produces results that are measurable, repeatable and predictable. Show me any religion that can do that with the God hypothesis. While indeed it may seem circular we use it because it work, 'and,' it works far better than any God..

Peurii's picture
While I do agree that

While I do agree that empiricism is the way to gain knowledge about the world, it doesn't get us away from the problem of how can we trust our senses to begin with. The problem exists BEFORE any talk about justified true beliefs about the world can be said to even refer to anything. The only way, it seems, is to employ circular thinking, the end result of which is, that our senses are to be trusted, because we sense the effects of our endeavours, which prove our senses, ultimately by using our senses. And thus there is a logical loop inside empiricism. Unless one is a sort of pantheist where there is no difference between the world and cognition.

It's the philosophical problem of Descarte's evil demon or more recently the brain-in-a-vat -problem.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peurii - While I do agree

Peurii - While I do agree that empiricism is the way to gain knowledge about the world, it doesn't get us away from the problem of how can we trust our senses to begin with.

To paraphrase Feynman: it is a tragic loss that the best philosophers who ever existed all perished through starvation, when they were unable to trust their senses that told them there was a steak on their plate; while the rest of us dullards just shrugged and ate the steak.

Cognostic's picture
It does get us away from our

It does get us away from our cognition. We take ideas out of our minds and test them in the only world that is real to us. Whether or not empiricism is real, in the sense that all we sense is real, it is the only game in town. Questioning it becomes a purely mental activity without any means of testing at all. If reality was not real, jumping off a 10 story building would still kill you. THIS IS ALL YOU GOT. Questioning it, does not change it in any way.

The world and our cognition are validated through empiricism. That which can not be validated really does not matter. If you are a brain in a vat, you can not know it. You have no means of testing it. Like the concept of God, it can be rejected until the point in time when evidence appears that will support the position. There are many things we can imagine that could be true. Empiricism, thus far, IS the only game in town. Imagining things to be different does not make it so.

Diotrephes's picture
Religion is a complex issue

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

When you say white supremacy, are the white people you are referring to people of European ancestry?
Was Abraham and Jesus from Europe?
Jews are Semitic, so are all Semitic people white?

Please list a few good examples of verses in the Bible that support white supremacy.

doG's picture
Please list some good

Please list some good examples that support the existence of god.

Jo's picture
@ doG

@ doG

I was addressing the charge of white supremacy in the Bible. Shouldn't we stay on subject?

Tin-Man's picture
Re: doG to Jo - "Please list

Re: doG to Jo - "Please list some good examples that support the existence of god."
Jo's reply to doG - "I was addressing the charge of white supremacy in the Bible. Shouldn't we stay on subject?"

In other words, "Aw, crap.. I don't have anything at all to counter that remark by doG. Therefore, I will quickly deflect/divert/avoid and try to change the subject, hopefully without anybody noticing.".... *crossing fingers*...

Just an observation, to anybody who is interested.....

Jo's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

In a recent Forum (Questions for Supernaturalists) doG counseled me to stay on subject. So I was surprised when he asked me an off subject question. That is why I asked him if we should stay on subject.

Your caricature of my response is another good example of an ad hominem and a hasty generalization fallacy.

arakish's picture
Jo: "Your caricature of my

Jo: "Your caricature of my response is another good example of an ad hominem and a hasty generalization fallacy."

No it is not. You like other Religious Absolutists always prefer your favorite tactics with dodging, deflecting, lying, deception, and treasonous hypocrisy.

Once again, you missed it. Diotrephes was making an analogy about how the Bible promotes ONLY the supremacy of the Hebrews (Jews, Israelites, Whatthefuckeverites).

I still see you have not done as I told you to do: Read the Fucking Bible.

Just like ALL Religious Absolutists, you know less about the Bible, Christianity, and the history of both than us atheists who are always ripping your bullshit ideas, assertions, presupposed assumptions, and preposterous claims to shreds.

Why are you bitching at us for going off subject when you never been on subject?

rmfr

Jo's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

The definition of an ad hominem fallacy is "Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making." https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Ho...

You are attacking me instead of my arguments. That is why it is an ad hominem fallacy.

Dio was not making an "analogy about how the Bible promotes ONLY the supremacy of the Hebrews." He was making a claim that the Bible supports white supremacy. He stated it many times.

You do not have any problem with anything Dio has said on this forum?

arakish's picture
@ Delaware

@ Delaware

The definition of an ad hominem fallacy is "Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making." https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Ho...

I already know about fallacies. You are the one who seems to not have any comprehension and/or understanding of anything that is posted to you. You still in third grade? Read this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dcsdpvl3h6pu373/RhetologicalFallacies2.pdf?dl=0; you just might actually learn something. However, that may also be doubtful since ALL Religious Absolutists drum out a person's capability of critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought. Always remember this Religious Absolutist Delaware: Religion is hell-bent on forcing persons to think only what they wish you to think. Whereas my premise is that it is more important to know how to think instead of being told what to think.

You are attacking me instead of my arguments. That is why it is an ad hominem fallacy.

PROVE IT YOU GOD DAMNED LIAR!!

Dio was not making an "analogy about how the Bible promotes ONLY the supremacy of the Hebrews." He was making a claim that the Bible supports white supremacy. He stated it many times.

And?

You do not have any problem with anything Dio has said on this forum?

Not as much as I have with persons who are Religious Absolutist bigots and dumb asses.

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
@doG: I can do it faster

@doG: I can do it faster than any Christian. Here you go..10 good examples.
1. The trees.
2. Personal revelation.
3. Moved by the Holy Ghost.
4. The unmoved mover because everything has a cause but for God.
5. That being, than which, no greater can be imagined. So imagine God.
7. Pascal's Wager
8. A tornado can not fly through a junk yard and create a 747. Everything is designed therefore a designer.
9. The bible confirms god's existence because God wrote it.
10. The Empty Tomb, and other Minimal facts bullshit.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

You are using cultural relativism by applying your own cultural standard to judge another culture. Can you demonstrate how having white skin in the OT has the same implications and prejudices as in your culture?

Why did you pick and choose between six different translations? What is the purpose of your inconsistency?

You are making an assumption that "chosen" in the verses you referenced means white supremacy. Can you provide evidence that the Jews were chosen because of white supremacy? Was it not instead due to their faith and obedience?

I asked four questions. Why did you only answer one? Here are the other three again.
1. When you say white supremacy, are the white people you are referring to people of European ancestry?
2. Was Abraham and Jesus from Europe?
3. Jews are Semitic, so are all Semitic people white?

Here is the definition of Semitic
Relating to the race of people that includes Arabs and Jews, or to their languages.
Used to refer to races such as the Babylonians and Phoenicians that existed in ancient times.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/semitic

Adams skin color was reddish brown. He was formed from the earth. What color is the earth?
Latin Adam, Adamus, from Ancient Greek Ἀδάμ (Adám), Ἄδαμος (Ádamos), from Biblical Hebrew אָדָם‎ (adam, “earth, man, soil, light brown”), from אדמה‎ (adamah, “red earth, ground”).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Adam

In the Song of Solomon 1:5, Solomon said that he was black and beautiful.

Many of the patriarchs in the OT married or had children with women from Africa. Abraham had children with Hagar and Keturah both from Africa. Moses married Zippora, who was Ethiopian. Jacob had children with two handmaidens from Africa, and these children became the patriarchs of two tribes of Israel.

The Israelite's were slaves on Africa for 300 years. Is it likely that they intermarried? Is it likely that there were children of African ancestry born do to rape?

Having white skin can indicate something negative in the Bible. When God temporarily gave Moses Leprosy in Ex 4:6 his skin turned white. In Rev 6:8, one of the four horses of the apocalypse that carried death and hell, is described as pale.

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo Re: To Dio - "Why did

@Jo Re: To Dio - "Why did you pick and choose between six different translations? What is the purpose of your inconsistency?"

Bwaaaaaaaa-haaaaaa-haaaaaaa-haaaaaaa!!!.... *bending over at waist holding stomach*..... Oh, please.... Stop!.... Bwaaaaaa-haaaa-haaaaa!!!.... *trying to catch breath*..... *gasping*.... Ow... my... tummy..... Bwaaaaa-haaaaa-haaaa!!!..... *deeeeeeeeep breath*..... *slooooooow exhale*..... Bwa-ha... haa... haaa.... ha..... *managing to stand up straight*.... *wiping tears from eyes*.... *still holding stomach*.... Owwwwww..... It really isn't healthy for me to laugh that much without stretching and warming up first.... *schnortal*.... Woooooo..... Damn... Gonna feel THAT tomorrow.... *blowing nose with tissue*..... Phew... So, let me see if I understand this correctly.... Several THOUSAND different Christian sects/denominations, all using pretty much the same bible or slight variations thereof, and each one believing all the other sects are WRONG in their interpretations of said bible..... Yet, DIO is the one being "inconsistent"???..... *chuckle*.... *snortle*..... *schnerkle-schnerk*..... *face beginning to turn purple*............. BWAAAAAAAA-HAAAAAAA-HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!.... *deeeeeeep breath*..... *squeaky voice*.... help........ *collapsing to floor in laughter*.....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
I echo your laughter my

I echo your laughter my friend, it seems that 'Jo' has entirely abandoned his quest for "living in truth" for "living an apologetic lie".

Every time he has made an assertion or claim it has been thoroughly refuted with citations and solid research, bible verses where necessary, but yet, but yet, he continues to make apologetic arguments with little merit.

Well, I have yet to discover an honest theist on these threads. But it is fun all the same.

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

I am glad I can count on you to frequently ask me when I will start living in truth. I have not abandoned my quest for truth, but maybe if you ask me one more time, that will be enough to tip me over.

You don't have any problems with Diotrephes posts on white supremacy in the Bible? He commits no logical fallacies? His arguments are rational? I know he is not a theists, but is he being honest?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

You don't have any problems with Diotrephes posts on white supremacy in the Bible? He commits no logical fallacies? His arguments are rational? I know he is not a theists, but is he being honest?

Dio has many, many good points. He is very learned in Talmudic Lore, Law and the modern pentateuch.
He also has made many penetrating and succinct comments on various topics which I can but applaud and admire his intellect. I have learnt a great deal from some of his posts.

I also think that Dio is bat shit crazy on some of the views/opinions he holds.No doubt he holds the same opinion of some of my views.

What I will not countenance is someone supposedly "seeking for truth" in order not to live a lie calling someone like Diotrephes who only seeks to share his knowledge as less than honest.
Dio is 100% honest according to his lights. You, on the other hand have a lot to prove.

The beauty of these forums IMO is, the only people are the theists, who lift up their precious petticoats and flounce for the exits when they cannot deal with opposing views...particularly when they are backed up by genuine scholarship, citations and of course, facts.

If you don't agree with Dio, then produce a concise, well thought out refutation. Fault his logic and examples.

Do I agree with Dio's proposition that the Bible and Qu'ran are white supremacist?

No.
I think that both volumes are inherently racist, misogynistic and cruel. I don't think they are 'white supremacist' as I understand the term in the 21st Century.
The pentateuch and NT are all about the supremacy and salvation of the Jews.
The Qu'ran sets the Semites (arabs) as the ruling elite.
Both are horrible examples of what humanity can produce.

I shall continue to ask you if you are still living a lie, happy to desist when you accept what the facts and origins of your faith really are.

(Edit: conclusion and tags)

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.