Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The comments on any article about religious law justifies religious law.
I know there has to be a logical fallacy here that I'm just not seeing. Any ideas?
It sounds like assumption of what is being argued. I suppose the argument was 'Why is it necessary to have religious law?' To protect religion from attack. The attacks on religion prove that the law is needed. However, provided it is done in a reasonable manner, why shouldn't religion be attacked? Presumably because it is deserving of immunity. But who says so and why? Only those with a belief in it and a vested interest in keeping it immune from attack by passing laws to protect it.
So it does seem that it is assuming as a given the need for protection) by way of proving that the protection is needed. Circular logic.
It sounds like assumption of what is being argued. I suppose the argument was 'Why is it necessary to have religious law?' To protect religion from attack. The attacks on religion prove that the law is needed. However, provided it is done in a reasonable manner, why shouldn't religion be attacked? Presumably because it is deserving of immunity. But who says so and why? Only those with a belief in it and a vested interest in keeping it immune from attack by passing laws to protect it.
So it does seem that it is assuming as a given the need for protection) by way of proving that the protection is needed. Circular logic.
Thank you.
When they suggested that to me, the first thing that I did was try it with something else. Like The comments on any article about hate speech justifies hate speech. I thought it might be a form of circular logic or Affirming the consequent.
The comments on any article about religious law justifies religious law.
Are you running up against presuppositionalism? Something like "you can't event talk about [law/logic/morality] because without god you have no basis for thinking these things exist"?
If so, the logical fallacy is "making crap up". More specifically, assuming that god exists until proven otherwise. It's a giant game of shifting the burden of proof.
Argument from ignorance, (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
inconsistent comparison, Kettle logic, mind projection fallacy - the world the way I see it IS how it really is, and I will justify what I believe because it has not been proven false so therefore I can continue on.
True, true as well as Q, P can be false simply put fables and used for affirmation, under the complicated premise "anything historic" is true - therefore using a double collective............ug, it can just get so complicated. lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.....ug, it can just get so complicated. lol
