attempts to make circular reasoning valid by fundies

[future colours]

Ive noticed something alot of fundies try to make circular reasoning valid, so what are some of the best ways to refute these dumb arguements other than just laughing your ass off? like this http://www.frontlinemin.org/apolpresupp.asp? and what about when they claim using logic to prove logic is circular?

[future colours]

oops sorry i think i accidentally put this in the wrong forum, can any mod help me put in it the right place?

[Witchyjoshy]

This can go in a number of forums (FSTDT Lounge, Religion and Philosophy, FSTDT Discussion)

Which would you prefer?

[future colours]

i think religon and philosophy would be the best

[Witchyjoshy]

Abracadabra, didgeridoo

I moved this topic for you!

(...I don't think anyone will get that reference)

[future colours]

well it rhymes

[the_ignored]

When it comes to dealing with presuppositionalism, you may want to look at this refutation by Dawson Bethrick, as well as the many posts by Stephen Law.

[hrep drep]

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL515BB2B62E8AAAE3

This is a very good series on dealing with Presuppositionalism, but make sure you watch every single video and pay attention to them.

The thing about Presuppositionalism is that its very structure doesn't allow you to get away with the standard arguments against it, as it's not designed for intellectual merit but rather to silence criticism. Consequently, it's necessary to approach the issue with Counter Apologetics; applying Presuppositionalism to Metaphysical Naturalism or what have you.

[the_ignored]

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL515BB2B62E8AAAE3

This is a very good series on dealing with Presuppositionalism, but make sure you watch every single video and pay attention to them.

The thing about Presuppositionalism is that its very structure doesn't allow you to get away with the standard arguments against it, as it's not designed for intellectual merit but rather to silence criticism. Consequently, it's necessary to approach the issue with Counter Apologetics; applying Presuppositionalism to Metaphysical Naturalism or what have you.

Yes, exactly.

Here are a few examples of how a presupper argues: all thanks to that Sye TenBruggencate fellow that Stephen Law and Dawson Bethrick had to deal with...before Sye showed up, Dan was an evidentialist.  No more.
http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.ca/2013/02/the-bad-guys.html?showComment=1362446320194#c5017201022488999535

Just read on from that link. 

[future colours]

this reminds me of the chat i had with Jason Lisle , feel free you guys to join in... its of course mindnumbing stupid and circular but i guess its worth a look just for a quick laugh.....http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/its-not-human-reason-vs-gods-word/

[the_ignored]

Looks like Tony Miano, a former stooge of Ray Comfort, is joining the circular-reasoning circle jerk.  He's got a positive review of one of Sye TenBruggencate's videos out.

[rageaholic]

It's apologetics.  They come up with stupid theories and try to convince people they're valid with faux intellectual lingo and "facts".  If they wanted to convince people that the sky was really pink, they'd pull the same tricks.  Can't say it would be any more assine than the shit they come up with. 

[the_ignored]

this reminds me of the chat i had with Jason Lisle , feel free you guys to join in... its of course mindnumbing stupid and circular but i guess its worth a look just for a quick laugh.....http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/its-not-human-reason-vs-gods-word/

661 comments?  Too late for me to jump in on that one.


So, I jumped in on this one.  Too bad it's a year old!  I didn't notice until after I posted.

[future colours]

well somebody has responded to your message, so you are no longer ignored