.
A few months ago, a religious organization left a circular in my mailbox. This is of course illegal, but that is not our main concern here. It asked, "How do you view the future?" It went on to make a number of claims from the Bible about a glorious future that awaits some of us.
It then asked, "Can we really believe what the Bible says?" It then quoted a few verses from the Bible to support its claim that we can believe what the Bible says.
Why would anyone accept this perfectly circular support for this circular circular?
Tcg
A perfectly circular circular.
Moderator: Moderators
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
A perfectly circular circular.
Post #1To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1392
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 170 times
- Been thanked: 579 times
Re: A perfectly circular circular.
Post #21[Replying to post 1 by Tcg]
To be fair to JehovasWitness, his first reply appeared genuine: it’s not unreasonable to ask for specific details.
The circular “you first� nature of the debate in earlier post is perhaps a little ironic, but could be easily avoided with zero loss of face on your part if you did in fact confirm the circular’s contents.
To be fair to JehovasWitness, his first reply appeared genuine: it’s not unreasonable to ask for specific details.
The circular “you first� nature of the debate in earlier post is perhaps a little ironic, but could be easily avoided with zero loss of face on your part if you did in fact confirm the circular’s contents.
