Logical Fallacies - "How to Argue"

Today I came across this rather lengthy article that instantly hit me as sticky material. It was written by Dr. Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Its an all purpose guide to how to formulate a proper argument, and it lists all of the logical fallacies and explains them better than any place I've seen.

Here are a few key portions:

If two people doing the same math problem come up with different answers, how should they respond? Should they each defend their answer at all costs. Or, should they examine each other’s solution to see if one, or both, might contain an error, and then resolve the error to see what the correct answer is?...

...In order for a conclusion to be considered valid all the premises of an argument must be true, and the logical connection must be valid. I use the term “valid” here specifically to refer to such conclusions, because a conclusion may still be “true” even if it is not valid. This is because it is possible to use wrong information, or faulty logic to reach a conclusion that happens to be true. An invalid argument does not necessarily prove the conclusion false. Demonstrating that an argument is not valid, however, removes it as support for the truth of the conclusion.

Breaking down an argument into its components is a very useful exercise, for it enables us to examine both our own arguments and those of others and critically analyze them for validity. This is an excellent way of sharpening one’s thinking, avoiding biases, and making effective arguments...

...Another type of premise error occurs when one or more premise is an unwarranted assumption. The premise may or may not be true, but it has not been established sufficiently to serve as a premise for an argument. Identifying all the assumptions upon which an argument is dependent is often the most critical step in analyzing an argument. Frequently, different conclusions are arrived at because of differing assumptions.

Often people will choose the assumptions that best fit the conclusion they prefer. In fact, psychological experiments show that most people start with conclusions they desire, then reverse engineer arguments to support them – a process called rationalization....

Click to expand...

The section on logical fallacies is the bit I think should be a sticky. It will definitely be one of my references. Heres a bit:

Logical Fallacies

Even when all of the premises of an argument are reliably true, the argument may still be invalid if the logic employed is not legitimate – a so called logical fallacy. The human brain is a marvelous machine with capabilities that, in some ways, still outperform the most powerful of super computers. Our brains, however, do not appear to have evolved specifically for precise logic. There are many common logical pitfalls that our minds tend to fall into, unless we are consciously aware of these pitfalls and make efforts to avoid them.

Because, as stated above, there is a tendency to start with desired conclusions and then construct arguments to support them, many people will happily draw upon logical fallacies to make their arguments. In fact, if a conclusion is not true one must either employ a false premise or a logical fallacy in order to construct an argument that leads to that conclusion. Remember, a valid argument cannot lead to a false conclusion. So in order to avoid using logical fallacies to construct invalid arguments, we need to understand how to identify fallacious logic.

Click to expand...

And then he goes on to list and explain them. These are my favorites:

Ad ignorantum
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.
UFO proponents are probably the most frequent violators of this fallacy. Almost all UFO eyewitness evidence is ultimately an argument from ignorance – lights or objects sighted in the sky are unknown, and therefore they are alien spacecraft.

Intelligent design is almost entirely based upon this fallacy. The core argument for intelligent design is that there are biological structures that have not been fully explained by evolutionary theory, therefore a powerful intelligent designer must have created them.

The Moving Goalpost
A method of denial - arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists. Creationists are most famous for this fallacy. In Darwin’s time they argued that in order for evolution to be true there would need to be a method of inheritance that allowed for new variation to persist and propagate, rather than merely become diluted in the larger population. Mendel’s discovery of “genes” fit the bill. They then argued that if evolution were true there should be many transitional fossils, but no number of transitional fossil discoveries seems to be enough to satisfy them. Intelligent Designers now argue that evolution cannot explain the appearance of biochemical pathways and microscopic structures – but as these pathways and structures are rapidly being explained they simply continue to move the goalpost further and further back.

Click to expand...

Might be a bit too skeptical for some, but does anyone see any problems (errors in his logic) with this list?

The problem is, especially when arguing with theists, not only do they have nothing against logical fallacies, their entire argument DEPENDS on them and nothing you can say will ever change their minds.

You might as well be debating a brick wall.

I wanted this to be about logical fallacies, and the nature of argument, not bashing

Cephus said:

The problem is, especially when arguing with theists, not only do they have nothing against logical fallacies, their entire argument DEPENDS on them and nothing you can say will ever change their minds.

You might as well be debating a brick wall.

Click to expand...

Lets not generalize. For some, but not all. I have actually found that when you sit down with someone and ask them they don't REALLY believe the blatantly illogical stuff.

I believe in the power of reason Cephus. I believe that if my reasons are good enough, you will helplessly believe as I do. Some people are dyed in the wool faith-heads and are beyond reason.

But I feel that most, especially the moderates, just don't want to think about it. Evolution is a very complicated idea to get around, its so much easier to just think that god did it.

I support this to be stickied. Definately worthy. Though much of it is actually common sense. Of course, we only realize that AFTER reading it.

The most popular logical fallacy in this forum is without a doubt...

...Ad Hominum.

Billo_Really said:

The most popular logical fallacy in this forum is without a doubt...

...Ad Hominum.

Click to expand...

Liar! :mrgreen:

Billo_Really said:

The most popular logical fallacy in this forum is without a doubt...

...Ad Hominum.

Click to expand...

**** you, you don't even know what you're talking about 1/2 the time you ****ing **** **** episcopalian ****ity ****!

Re: I wanted this to be about logical fallacies, and the nature of argument, not bash

Lachean said:

I have actually found that when you sit down with someone and ask them they don't REALLY believe the blatantly illogical stuff.

Click to expand...

An awful lot of them really do believe the blatantly illogical stuff though. In fact, Christianity is based on blatantly illogical stuff like rising from the dead, without those beliefs, you really can't have Christianity. I've been debating religion for... oh, gotta be 25 years or so now, since I stopped being a Christian, and you'd be utterly disgusted at the kind of things that a lot of them really do believe.

I believe in the power of reason Cephus. I believe that if my reasons are good enough, you will helplessly believe as I do. Some people are dyed in the wool faith-heads and are beyond reason.

Click to expand...

Faith, by definition, is beyond reason, otherwise it wouldn't be faith. Religion, and I don't mean just Christianity, but all religion, teaches not to question, not to examine, just to believe. If it didn't, then all religion would be extinct today because anyone who gives religion, any religion, a cursory logical examination is going to say "what the hell is this nonsense?"

But I feel that most, especially the moderates, just don't want to think about it. Evolution is a very complicated idea to get around, its so much easier to just think that god did it.

Click to expand...

But self-imposed ignorance is not a logical position to take either. Just because it's easier to ignore reality and go skipping down the primrose path of ignorance doesn't mean it is acceptable to do so. Most theists have never stopped to think about their beliefs because their religion teaches quite explicitly that questioning is a sin. The first step away from religious ignorance is the idea that if religion is true, it should be able to stand up to a vigorous examination. As soon as they find out it is not, religion is doomed.

Good article. Although I don't think "moving the goalposts" is a real logical fallacy itself, it's just a phrase for changing the rules or standards of a situation, usually to work in your favor. Maybe each time you change your argument you're making a new fallacy, but I've never thought of "moving the goalposts" to be fallacious, just assholish.

Anyhow, having read much about logic and fallacies myself, it's very frustrating to listen to people use logical fallacies in their arguments, and it can be even more frustrating trying to explain to them why their arguments are invalid. But I have to realize that it's impossible for any human to be logical all the time. I must admit I catch myself making these mistakes as well - and that's ok, as long as I can look back and recognize when I've made mistakes. I don't think most people know what logic actually is, or realize how illogical they are, by nature.

I've also found that even if you break down some one's argument logically, you usually still can't WIN the argument, unless you break down their pride and ego as well. Have you ever started arguing a point, realized in the back of your head you were wrong, but "stayed the course" anyway to avoid admitting your mistake? I have plenty of times, hehe.

Looks stickworthy to me.:mrgreen:

Cephus said:

The problem is, especially when arguing with theists, not only do they have nothing against logical fallacies, their entire argument DEPENDS on them and nothing you can say will ever change their minds.

You might as well be debating a brick wall.

Click to expand...

The existence of God is most commonly a premise, not a conclusion, and a premise need only be supported enough to be reasonably assumed, not conclusively proven. If you don't find the evidence substantial enough to make the existence of God a reasonable assumption, then you will inherently disagree with a theist's argument.

Around here we have people who literally can not agree that 1 = 1, and thus can not agree that 1 + 1 = 2. On one side you have the argument "1+1=2, it's basic math, simple as that", while on the other you have "1/0 = unsolvable, so 1+1=n, not 2".

Gota love this place.

This is a thread about Logical Fallacies Jerry

What Cephus was talking about where you quoted him was not relevant to your reply. He was speaking on how closed minded people are who say "This is what I believe, and NOTHING you can say will change my mind." No matter the logical fallacy you point out in their argument.

What did his post have to do with god's existence being a premise?

Jerry said:

The existence of God is most commonly a premise, not a conclusion, and a premise need only be supported enough to be reasonably assumed, not conclusively proven.

Click to expand...

The existence of god is a hypothesis, and a conclusion. I do not see how they could be considered a premise (presumed to be true) when the very premise is the focus of such debates. People conclude that god exists based on the complexity in the universe (argument from personal incredulity), personal experiences, etc...

Jerry said:

If you don't find the evidence substantial enough to make the existence of God a reasonable assumption, then you will inherently disagree with a theist's argument.

Click to expand...

What is the evidence?

Jerry said:

Around here we have people who literally can not agree that 1 = 1, and thus can not agree that 1 + 1 = 2. On one side you have the argument "1+1=2, it's basic math, simple as that", while on the other you have "1/0 = unsolvable, so 1+1=n, not 2".

Gota love this place.

Click to expand...

For example?

Re: This is a thread about Logical Fallacies Jerry

In thought experiments we can assume "God exists" as a premise is true, but when making an argument to a skeptical disbeliever of your god, you cannot state that as one of your premises and your conclusion, thats circular logic.

Sure you can use it as a premise for other arguments, but it may be a false premise, and unless you're speaking to fellow theists, it may invalidate your argument.

Jerry said:

If you don't find the evidence substantial enough to make the existence of God a reasonable assumption, then you will inherently disagree with a theist's argument.

Click to expand...

That's because a theist doesn't have an argument, they have a baseless claim, backed up by nothing but wishful thinking. The claim that God exists is no more worthwhile than the claim that Krishna exists or Enki exists or Bigfoot exists. Just saying "I want to believe X, therefore X is real" is worthless, no more valid than claiming you have an invisible gnome living on your shoulder. Why should anyone take you seriously?

The answer, since this is a thread about logical fallacies, is that they shouldn't. No objective evidence = no acceptance of claim.

What, you think I didn't know that? Don't go there.

Lachean said:

What did his post have to do with god's existence being a premise?

Click to expand...

In my experience with Cephus he has argued that the conclusion that God exists is not supported, and I point out here that God's existence is commonly a premise, not a conclusion, so the format of his arguments are going in the wrong direction to begin with.

Aside from that, however, the belief in God is not established through scientific data, so arguing against someone's belief with such is folly to begin with.

Lachean said:

The existence of god is a hypothesis, and a conclusion. I do not see how they could be considered a premise (presumed to be true) when the very premise is the focus of such debates. People conclude that god exists based on the complexity in the universe (argument from personal incredulity), personal experiences, etc...

Click to expand...

Grosse Generalization.

Your claim here is to broad, as the existence of God could be a premise and not a conclusion on some debates, while a conclusion and not a premis in others.

Lachean said:

What is the evidence?

Click to expand...

See below.

Lachean said:

For example?

Click to expand...

I couldn't find it on the thread search engine, sorry, but Jallman is one such individual who claims to know how to divide one of my peanut butter and honey sandwiches by zero so that somehow I will magically have less than the 2 sandwiches I made.

The anti 1=1 argument rested upon a flaw in our understanding of math, not a mathematically falsifiable equation.

Cephus said:

That's because a theist doesn't have an argument, they have a baseless claim, backed up by nothing but wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

Depending on the debate a theist would reference the Declaration of Independence, scripture (because the theist accepts it as a trusted and valid source) or any number of other sources.

Cephus said:

The claim that God exists is no more worthwhile than the claim that Krishna exists or Enki exists or Bigfoot exists.

Click to expand...

God put atheists on this world for a reason, so I respect your opinion as such.

Cephus said:

Just saying "I want to believe X, therefore X is real" is worthless, no more valid than claiming you have an invisible gnome living on your shoulder. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for everyone, and I don't read your posts as though you speak for anyone other than yourself, but I can't name one single theist who says "I want to believe X, therefore X is real", and you haven't quoted anyone saying such a thing, so you're argument doesn't follow.

Cephus said:

The answer, since this is a thread about logical fallacies, is that they shouldn't. No objective evidence = no acceptance of claim.

Click to expand...

It's absolutely fine to reject another's evidence and therefore their claim, but the notion that there is no evidence is simple inaccurate.

Below is a sample of such evidence, and by no means is the entire body of evidence out there; only what this member has composed for a single post.

Claims in the likeness of "There is no scientific evidence to support or even suggest the existence of God"......

Jerry's Debate Politics Standard Issue Response #6: said:

A few references:
Gregg Braden
Dr. Dean Radin
Jeffrey Long
Kim Sharp
Stan Tenen
William Tiller, Ph.D
Amit Goswami, Ph.D.
John Hagelin, Ph.D
Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D
Dr. David Albert
Dr. Masaru Emoto
Stuart Hameroff M.D.
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover
Dr. Daniel Monti M.D.
Dr. Joseph Dispenza, D.C
Dr. Candace Pert
..and my personal favorite....
Biocybernaut Institute

All anyone can actually do is consider what science and faith offer, and apportion an individual measure of personal comfort. To ascribe our present circumstances with an absolute certitude in either methodology is simply impossible... as each person's portion of truth is both individualistic and unique.

Click to expand...

It's not enough to *prove* the existence of God, so my SIR is not an argument leading to a conclusion. There is enough evidence to make the assumption of God reasonable, and use that assumption to form other lines of reasoning.

Re: What, you think I didn't know that? Don't go there.

Jerry said:

In my experience with Cephus he has argued that the conclusion that God exists is not supported, and I point out here that God's existence is commonly a premise, not a conclusion, so the format of his arguments are going in the wrong direction to begin with.

Click to expand...

I believe he was referring to debates where the existence of god is the focus of the debate. In such an instance, one cannot use god's existence as a premise, for if it is also his conclusion, the debater is using circular logic.

Jerry said:

Aside from that, however, the belief in God is not established through scientific data, so arguing against someone's belief with such is folly to begin with.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Expecting evidence for ones claim that god exists is "folly"? I don't know what you think it takes to convince a skeptic, but evidence to support ones claim is my standard.

Jerry said:

Grosse Generalization.

Your claim here is to broad, as the existence of God could be a premise and not a conclusion on some debates, while a conclusion and not a premis in others.

Click to expand...

Notice where I said "when the very premise is the focus of such debates." I meant the existence of god being the topic or focus of the debate. This would be circular logic, as above.

Jerry said:

See below.

Click to expand...

There was no evidence below.

Jerry said:

I couldn't find it on the thread search engine, sorry, but Jallman is one such individual who claims to know how to divide one of my peanut butter and honey sandwiches by zero so that somehow I will magically have less than the 2 sandwiches I made.

The anti 1=1 argument rested upon a flaw in our understanding of math, not a mathematically falsifiable equation.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by any of this, but if you need Jallman's council or his source to prove that A doesn't = A (I prefer A=A rather than 1=1) i'm patient, take your time. But I want that "evidence."

Jerry said:

It's absolutely fine to reject another's evidence and therefore their claim, but the notion that there is no evidence is simple inaccurate.

Below is a sample of such evidence, and by no means is the entire body of evidence out there; only what this member has composed for a single post.

Claims in the likeness of "There is no scientific evidence to support or even suggest the existence of God"......

It's not enough to *prove* the existence of God, so my SIR is not an argument leading to a conclusion. There is enough evidence to make the assumption of God reasonable, and use that assumption to form other lines of reasoning.

Click to expand...

The statement that there is no evidence is not inaccurate, it is true. What you posted you've posted before to me, and when I asked you didn't clarify how all these links/people are evidence.

Again I ask you, what evidence is there? I have seen NONE and I have looked HARD. So have people like Dawkins, etc...

Jerry said:

Depending on the debate a theist would reference the Declaration of Independence, scripture (because the theist accepts it as a trusted and valid source) or any number of other sources.

Click to expand...

Just because the theist accepts it as a trusted source doesn't give anyone else any reason to. They do not count as evidence, if the bible says its the inspired word of god, that doesn't mean that it is. Thats circular logic again. Those scriptures are wrong and immoral in many other discrediting ways.

Jerry said:

God put atheists on this world for a reason

Click to expand...

C'mon Jerry how is that an argument? Thats using god as a premise in a debate about his existence again. Unstated major premise (that god in fact exists.)

Re: What, you think I didn't know that? Don't go there.

Lachean said:

I believe he was referring to debates where the existence of god is the focus of the debate. In such an instance, one cannot use god's existence as a premise, for if it is also his conclusion, the debater is using circular logic.

Click to expand...

This is true. I agree.

Lachean said:

Are you kidding? Expecting evidence for ones claim that god exists is "folly"? I don't know what you think it takes to convince a skeptic, but evidence to support ones claim is my standard.

Click to expand...

Well see, here again unless your name is aquapub or similar your average theist isn't going to try and convince a skeptic that God exists. Trying to convince a skeptical atheist that God exists is like trying to convince a clinical paranoid that they should trust you:

Skeptical Atheist: "Prove to me that God exists."
Me: "I can't. You're skeptical."

....is just like.....

Clinical paranoid: "Why should I trust you?"
Me: "You shouldn't. You're paranoid."

...not that atheism is a disorder or anything...

You're an atheist, you're not supposed to believe...now if you were agnostic then maybe we could talk, because an agnostic hasn't made up his mind. I've made up my mind, and so have you, and I'm just fine with that.

Diversity is what makes America great.

Lachean said:

Notice where I said "when the very premise is the focus of such debates." I meant the existence of god being the topic or focus of the debate. This would be circular logic, as above.

Click to expand...

In debates on rather or not God exists you are correct. I didn't realize that that was the only debate topic you were refering to. I apologize.

Lachean said:

There was no evidence below.

Click to expand...

In the future I will be clearer, saying something like "Please see post 16 for "Jerry's Debate Politics Standard Issue Response #6:"; which I will repost for the convenience of the casual reader here:

Jerry's Debate Politics Standard Issues Response #6: said:

A few references:

Gregg Braden

Dr. Dean Radin

Jeffrey Long

Kim Sharp

Stan Tenen

William Tiller, Ph.D

Amit Goswami, Ph.D.

John Hagelin, Ph.D

Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D

Dr. David Albert

Dr. Masaru Emoto

Stuart Hameroff M.D.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover

Dr. Daniel Monti M.D.

Dr. Joseph Dispenza, D.C

Dr. Candace Pert

..and my personal favorite....

Biocybernaut Institute

All anyone can actually do is consider what science and faith offer, and apportion an individual measure of personal comfort. To ascribe our present circumstances with an absolute certitude in either methodology is simply impossible... as each person's portion of truth is both individualistic and unique.

Click to expand...

Lachean said:

I don't know what you mean by any of this, but if you need Jallman's council or his source to prove that A doesn't = A (I prefer A=A rather than 1=1) I’m patient, take your time. But I want that "evidence."

Click to expand...

With your further encouragement I set out to find the argument I mentioned even though the only I could think of to find it was a shot in the dark and could take quite a long time. I looked up "find more posts by Jerry" and went to the last page intending to start there and work up. Lucky me, I found what I was looking for on the second to last page.

Here is a link to Jallman's sourced argument that 1 does not = 1:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/19242-question-anti-abortion-people-44.html#post556174

Lachean said:

The statement that there is no evidence is not inaccurate, it is true. What you posted you've posted before to me, and when I asked you didn't clarify how all these links/people are evidence.

Again I ask you, what evidence is there? I have seen NONE and I have looked HARD. So have people like Dawkins, etc...

Click to expand...

I accept the fact the fact that you either do not understand or do not accept the sources I gave, but to go into the level of explanation required of skeptical atheists would require a thread per each source I gave, taken one at a time, and I have a life. That's why I don't try and convince anyone here that God exists, I know that even if such a thing were an attainable goal, I don't have the time to see it through.

Lachean said:

Just because the theist accepts it as a trusted source doesn't give anyone else any reason to. They do not count as evidence, if the bible says its the inspired word of god, that doesn't mean that it is. Thats circular logic again. Those scriptures are wrong and immoral in many other discrediting ways.

Click to expand...

I take a different approach to showing that scripture is credible. I don't site here and say that the product is the best because the product's commercial just said so. I'll take a single news event, depending on what a given thread is about, and simply point out that scripture told us that it was going to happen thousands of years ago. Like the reformation of Israel, and not just it's reformation, but details around it's reformation, like the 6 day war.

I do the same with Gay marriage, abortion, NAFTA, and a few others which escape me at the moment.

Lachean said:

C'mon Jerry how is that an argument?

Click to expand...

It's not. It's my not challenging your opinion and point of view of the matter.

You're equating skepticism to Clinical Paranoia?

Jerry said:

Well see, here again unless your name is aquapub or similar your average theist isn't going to try and convince a skeptic that God exists. Trying to convince a skeptical atheist that God exists is like trying to convince a clinical paranoid that they should trust you:

Skeptical Atheist: "Prove to me that God exists."
Me: "I can't. You're skeptical."

....is just like.....

Clinical paranoid: "Why should I trust you?"
Me: "You shouldn't. You're paranoid."

...not that atheism is a disorder or anything...

You're an atheist, you're not supposed to believe...now if you were agnostic then maybe we could talk, because an agnostic hasn't made up his mind. I've made up my mind, and so have you, and I'm just fine with that.

Click to expand...

You speak as if I wouldn't change my mind the moment I came across evidence. I am not a closed minded person.

Agnosticism answers the epistemological question of what can be known. We are all agnostic about the infinite number of things that cannot be known, whether or not we believe makes us atheist or theist.

If there is evidence in favor of a creator, and it is authentic, my skepticism doesn't matter. It doesn't prevent me from recognizing truth, it protects me from baseless claims.

And I would NEVER say that "this is what I believe, and nothing you can say will change that."

Re: What, you think I didn't know that? Don't go there.

Jerry said:

I take a different approach to showing that scripture is credible. I don't site here and say that the product is the best because the product's commercial just said so. I'll take a single news event, depending on what a given thread is about, and simply point out that scripture told us that it was going to happen thousands of years ago. Like the reformation of Israel, and not just it's reformation, but details around it's reformation, like the 6 day war.

I do the same with Gay marriage, abortion, NAFTA, and a few others which escape me at the moment.

Click to expand...

Amendment;

Zechariah 14:12;
This is the plague with which the LORD will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

We know from this passage, in context, that a Middle Eastern power will become a grave threat to Israel, and when they do, Israel will respond with Nuclear weapons.

When, and I say when and not if, when this happens DP will be swarming with people talking about it, and assuming I have access to a computer at the time (as opposed to being deployed since I'm joining the service next summer) I will be quoting this passage again as witness to the credibility of scripture; though atheists will still not listen.

Re: What, you think I didn't know that? Don't go there.

Jerry said:

Amendment;

Zechariah 14:12;
This is the plague with which the LORD will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

We know from this passage, in context, that a Middle Eastern power will become a grave threat to Israel, and when they do, Israel will respond with Nuclear weapons.

When, and I say when and not if, when this happens DP will be swarming with people talking about it, and assuming I have access to a computer at the time (as opposed to being deployed since I'm joining the service next summer) I will be quoting this passage again as witness to the credibility of scripture; though atheists will still not listen.

Click to expand...

This is another thing that scares me, self fulfilling prophecies, and people who see a silver lining in the end of the world. You speak as if you're expecting it rather than caring to prevent it.

Re: What, you think I didn't know that? Don't go there.

Lachean said:

This is another thing that scares me, self fulfilling prophecies, and people who see a silver lining in the end of the world. You speak as if you're expecting it rather than caring to prevent it.

Click to expand...

Me too. Some of my fundamentalist friends believe that ME war is the foretold prelude to the second coming, judgement against all the heathen, and the glory of heaven to them. If they are not downright eager to get this war started, they aren't eager to avoid it. I wonder if the same sentiment drives some of the warmongers on this board who just can't wait to get started on the next war in the ME.

Re: What, you think I didn't know that? Don't go there.

Lachean said:

This is another thing that scares me, self fulfilling prophecies, and people who see a silver lining in the end of the world. You speak as if you're expecting it rather than caring to prevent it.

Click to expand...

Well, you calling it a self-fulfilling prophecy is another problem, as such deliberate mischaracterizations add complications to any conversation. When you mislabel things like you did here, we have to stop the conversation and clarify that single point, which throws the whole thread off. I don't know why you chose to do that, but it would be best if you didn't.

Re: What, you think I didn't know that? Don't go there.

Iriemon said:

Me too. Some of my fundamentalist friends believe that ME war is the foretold prelude to the second coming, judgement against all the heathen, and the glory of heaven to them. If they are not downright eager to get this war started, they aren't eager to avoid it. I wonder if the same sentiment drives some of the warmongers on this board who just can't wait to get started on the next war in the ME.

Click to expand...

What is a "ME-war"?

Re: What, you think I didn't know that? Don't go there.

Jerry said:

Well, you calling it a self-fulfilling prophecy is another problem, as such deliberate mischaracterizations add complications to any conversation. When you mislabel things like you did here, we have to stop the conversation and clarify that single point, which throws the whole thread off. I don't know why you chose to do that, but it would be best if you didn't.

Click to expand...

I don't have any reason to believe any Biblical prophecies are any more likely or have occurred than those of Nostradamus, or chance. People take vague passages like yours that can be interpreted to mean many things. And whats worse, rather being opposed to and actively trying to do something about it, if you REALLY believe it is impending, you appear to take almost desire it and would allow it to happen, for the sake of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

I don't see why you put any stock in that scripture, despite so much damning evidence.

Saying that Israel is going to use Nukes against its enemies is like saying America is going to be attacked again. As long as you do not state a timeline, the inevitability of such events approaches 100%. Thats the kinda easy crap psychic apologists fall for.