• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

circular anti-Religion arguments

Some anti-Religion people argue on foolish bases like the below. I can't think of anything else to write in this initial paragraph, so I'm just going to start.

* statistics show that atheists are more likely to respect women's right to abortion. (this one is quoted verbatim.)

What I hear in this is "Your beliefs do not promote the practice of mine, therefore yours are wrong."

* Religion promotes violent action in its own name, like the crusades.

But if the crusaders are right, it may be worth fighting over. this too is outrageously circular.

* Religion jeporadizes the separation of church and state.

And so what if it does? Again, unless Religion is bad for other reasons, It should affect political affairs.
spud_meister;bt2648 said:
Not actually circular logic.
Please raise a real objection instead of just telling me I'm wrong.

When somebody says, "Statistics Show"...yadda, yadda, yadda. Your reply should be, "Please show the source of those statistics." Your response is: What I hear in this is "Your beliefs do not promote the practice of mine, therefore yours are wrong." You're assuming something without asking the poster to support their claim. The claim in and of itself isn't circular until you connect the claim to the reason for making.

The examples you've posted - are making adversarial statements, but the argument used to support their opposition hasn't been provided so it's impossible to know if they are circular by definition.

Circular reasoning is a form of reasoning in which a person tries to prove a point by using a premise which is not different from the conclusion.

In other words, it involves repetition of words or concepts while validating and argument. "He is a morally bad guy because he is wicked". In this sentence, both 'morally bad' and 'wicked' mean the same thing. These words don't really tell anything else about the person in question or in any way says why he's being called 'wicked'.

Example of a hypothetical conversation, which is circular:

Me: Why is the Bible true?
You: Because the Bible is infallible.
Me: Why is it infallible?
You: Because the Bible is the word of God.
Me: How do you know it’s the word of God?
You: Because the bible says it is the word of God.
Me: But how do you know that it’s telling you the truth?
You: Because the Bible is infallible.

Or....things like...

"A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true".

"There isn't a problem with the rule, because if everyone obeyed it there wouldn't be a problem."

"Piracy is wrong because it's against the law, and it's against the law because it's wrong."

"Joe Bob is stupid because he's an idiot."

So I'm a little confused about you claiming that opposing views as listed are circular. Now...obviously if somebody responds to your post with criticism with a statement or comment that they can't support...with anything other than...you're wrong, I'm right...then the argument is rapidly getting circular.
I don't see any reason to bother. if someone wants to poison their mind with irrationality (which religion IS, after all) hey, it's THEIR mind. As long as they dont try to force others into various things, let them be irrational.
Top Bottom