Introduction

In my continuing series on logical fallacies, today we’re going to explore circular reasoning, more formally known as a “tautology” or a “tautological argument.”

What is a Tautology?

Throughout this post, I’m probably going to mainly use the term “tautology” rather than “circular reasoning” because it’s less to type. Circular reasoning is, like most fallacies, just what it sounds like: Making a circular argument, or when each stage of an argument refers back to the previous stage, or uses the previous stage as justification for that one. You just go around in circles.

Another way in which a tautological argument is used is to simply state the same thing twice, but in different ways. Like saying, “This is a brand-new never-before seen product!” is considered a tautology because “brand-new” and “never-before seen” mean the same thing.

The Example of Biblical Authority

This isn’t directly related to astronomy, but it underlies almost all young-Earth creationist claims and so I’ll put it in here. It would seem that the idea of biblical authority would be better-relegated to my upcoming post on the Argument from Authority, but it actually is a tautological argument as well.

If you ask a young-Earth creationist (YEC), or probably any person who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, why the Bible is true, you will get a tautology as illustrated in the diagram below:

Let’s have a hypothetical conversation:

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

We have entered the tautology. The YEC has not brought in outside information into the argument to back up the claim, they simply continue to go in circles.

Example from Family Life

An example of a tautology that’s closer to the second use I explained above is often found in every-day parlance, especially between parents and their children:

Parent: “It’s bed time, go to bed.”
Child: “Why?”
Parent: “Because I said so.”

Final Thoughts

Circular arguments and/or tautologies are yet another illogical way to argue because they do not bring any new information into the discussion. Rather, they argue what has already been (correctly or incorrectly) stated, and do not back it up with something else.

In mathematical proofs, circular reasoning is a deadly sin; in short, to prove A, you assume A, prove B using A, and then prove A using B. In short, you have assumed A to prove A, but this tells you nothing… so there is no result. Circular reasoning usually results from a long proof in which you make a mistake; it is not as obvious as the above example. However, intuitive circular reasoning is very common; in fact, a large portion of mathematics was developed in this fashion and worked this way.

I will define intuitive circular reasoning as follows: I take an intuitive definition of A (that is, not rigorous in any fashion), then define B in a way that satisfies my intuitive definition of A, then define A rigorously that satisfies my new definition of B. I can generalize this: I use some desirable property B of an intuitive definition A to rigorously define A. This may seem strange, illogical, and completely unnecessary – but let me show some examples.

We define a tangent to a circle as a line which touches the circle at one point. But what is a tangent line to a function? You may say “a line that touches the function at one point” but take this example: Find the tangent line to f(x) = cos x when x = 0. The answer is obviously y = 1 (by differential calculus), but y = 1 touches the function at infinitely many points. You may try to use the derivative, but the derivative is the slope of the tangent line; this is circular reasoning (non-intuitive). So we have this picture in our minds and an intuitive definition of a tangent line. Using this and some elementary geometry we can easily prove that the derivative of a function f(x) at x = a, f’(a), is the limit as h approaches zero of f(x+h)-f(x)/h. Then, we can rigorously define the derivative f’(x) as the above stated limit and the tangent line as the line that intersects a function at the point x = a and has slope f’(a). Is this circular reasoning? The answer is yes and no. Yes, this is intuitive circular reasoning, but circular reasoning revolves around rigor. Recall that our first definition of the tangent line was intuitive; as a result, the second definition is the rigorous definition. In rigorous proofs, we would start with the definition of a derivative, then of a tangent line, and then show the pictorial qualities that accompany our intuitive definition. This order is rigorous and avoids circular reasoning; yet we came up with this proof through what can be considered circular reasoning; this is intuitive circular reasoning.

Let us take a look at area. The area of a triangle is bh/2, rectangle lw, parallelogram bh, trapezoid b(h_1+h_2)/2, rhombus d_1d_2/2, circle πr^2, etc. What about the area under the function t^3 from 0 to x above the t-axis (without integrals)? We cannot define it (recall that my previous blog entry on FTC did not rigorously define area; it was not meant to be intuitive). But we have an intuitive idea, and using this we determine Riemann sums, the definition of a definite integral, and FTC. After this work, we can define area based on FTC and the definition of a definite integral. Once again, we have circular reasoning.

Notice that my above examples have related primarily to the first definition; not the generalization. I will now give an example that is based on the generalization. Take multiplication of matrices. Recall that a matrix is based on transforming vectors; in addition, a matrix multiplied by a vector is another vector. If we compose transformations, the associative property SHOULD hold. This, along with some algebra, leads to our current definition of multiplication of matrices. This rigorous definition is given in all PreCalculus books, unfortunately without any explanation. The beauty behind it is obscured, but it comes through the process of intuitive circular reasoning.

There are many other examples of intuitive circular reasoning; here I have listed a few. Nevertheless, this idea has been instrumental in the development of mathematics through the ages.

Howdy all.  I just wanted to pass along a quick little note to everyone about a regular occurrence among skeptical blogs on the Internet – the Skeptics’ Circle, which is a biweekly blog carnival hosted at Circular Reasoning. Once every couple of weeks or so, a skeptical blog will host a variety of posts about various topics at their site as a way of connecting & sharing info with the wider skeptic community.  The latest edition of the Skeptics’ Circle is at Beyond the Short Coat, a blog about “medicine, skepticism, and other cool stuff as needed”

Anyhow, read on for some good stuff in this latest edition… The 124th Meeting Of The Skeptics’ Circle

The post-modern world is rather fond of saying that there are no absolutes. A logical counter to this is to ask the relativist whether his statement about absolutes is absolute. He is in the difficult position of refuting his own claim whenever he states it. In rational debates this breaks the law of non-contradiction.

For several years, since reading Christian apologists like CS Lewis and Ravi Zacharias, I have been convinced that there is only one internally consistent worldview, and that is the biblical worldview. All other explanations of reason and existence cut the ground out from under themselves. Either the beliefs themselves are self-refuting, like the man who tried to disprove the existence of air; he was using air as he tried to deny it; or they reduce to absurdities; or they never really deal with the fundamental questions, but rely on borrowed but unadmitted presuppositions from other worldviews. In the final case, we consider their beliefs to be arbitrary, rather than rational.

My explanation could not have been termed with such clarity without first reading Dr. Jason Lisle’s new book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Creationists have plenty of evidence for the biblical history of the world. They have evidence contradicting the evolutionary and uniformitarian theories of origins. Bible-believing scientists are even doing real science all the time (science of observation and technological advancement to improve our lives), just as they have done for thousands of years. None of these things convinces a man committed to a naturalist worldview. But no naturalist can debate against the Bible, for evolution, or conduct science of his own without assuming things that can only be true if the things the Bible teaches are true. This is the ultimate proof, to engage skeptics on their worldview.

This method has several advantages. First, it keeps in mind that the motive for Christian apologetics is to glorify God and to invite non-Christians to be saved. Thoughtful meekness is what the Bible directs us to have when responding to critics. The Bible also teaches that if we do not live consistently with our beliefs, our critics have reason to ridicule us and those beliefs. Consistency is a biblical tactic.

Second, the Bible does give instructions for debate. Dr. Jason Lisle has applied two verses in Proverbs to his debating style. Do not let a skeptic convince you to fight on neutral ground when the question you are debating is inherently about the reliability of your ground as opposed to all others. For a Christian to abandon, for the sake of argument, his belief in God and dependence on the account of the Bible, is to surrender before he has even lifted his sword. But we can do an internal critique of the skeptic’s position, making apparent where he contradicts himself or leaves questions unanswered.

Third, and I really appreciate this one, a Christian apologist using these techniques does not need to be a PhD or have memorized an encyclopedia of scientific evidence for Creation. Creation science is valid and interesting, but not every believer is called to that kind of knowledge of the world as he is called to give a reason for the hope that is in him and to preach the gospel to every creature. In my experience, it is great for a philosophical person like me to team up with someone who knows a lot of facts, and to tag-team a discussion. Or I could practice a bit more so that I can have some representative cases of creationism scientifically supported.

The Ultimate Proof of Creation is an interesting book on logic and worldviews, exciting as I think of applying it. Think of watching the Discovery Channel and being able to identify the worldview being used, the presuppositions made, and the logical fallacies committed. This book enables you to do that. Or it can help when you’re trying to stay focused when witnessing to a friend who doubts the Bible. Learn to find ways to tie all questions into a question of faith: do you accept the ultimate standard of God, who created you – or do you reject Him and therefore all that depends on Him (including your will and rationality)?

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn

By Conspiracy Theorist Nicola Novakowsky

I recently visited the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe. I was browsing through their Top 20 Logical Fallacies and I was very confused. They were calling perfect arguments fallacies. Why would they be calling really good argument logical fallacies? It became quite apparent to me that they were calling perfectly good arguments fallacies because they’re trying to dumb down the public!!!

I just want to counter their nonsense and want to share the truth about how wonderful some of these arguments are.

Ad hominem
Honestly, it makes an incredible amount of sense that you’d attack your opponent rather than their argument. Most people you’ll be arguing with will be either evil or naive. Arguing with their opinion/position will be futile. You probably should call them what they probably are: SHEEPLE!

Ad ignorantium
We don’t know for sure that Federal Chairman Ben Bernanke isn’t a Reptilian. Therefore, he definitely is a Reptilian. I mean, this makes perfect sense. I’m failing to understand why this is a fallacy.

Argument from authority
Hmm….I’m almost convinced by this. The fact that the Skeptic’s Guide is so down on it makes me want to believe it more. Personally, I think most people in authority aren’t necessarily right, especially since a lot of them are wrong and evil liars. But I think people like David Ickes are the right authority and should not be questioned because they’re the kind of authority that make you question most authority. Makes sense to me.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
This argument is indisputable since it’s quite clear everything I ever do causes some event since the event came right after what I did. I’m beginning to feel like God. For example, I merely took a nap one Saturday afternoon in 1993. The event of Youtube coming into existence many years after 1993 is proof of how efficacious my causal powers were then and now. My very nap caused Youtube to exist. Don’t worry. You’ll soon realize that post hoc ergo propter hoc is true for yourself too. Don’t let the sheeple steer you in the wrong direction with their illogic.

Slippery slopes
Slippery slopes are pretty reliable. For instance, my friend thinks that my views are just a bit fringe. Pretty soon this same friend of mine will think that I am crazy. Later, she’ll be contacting the local authorities and have me put in some kind of reeducation camp. It’s just a matter of time. It’s just one big slippery slope of truth. I better stop hanging out with this friend of mine.

Tautologies
I am right because I am right. I’m not entirely sure what’s so wrong about this. People call this circular reasoning but didn’t the Ancient Greeks think circles were perfect? Don’t we want our reasoning to be as perfect as a circle? Am I missing something here?

I hope the Skeptic’s Guide fails in its attempt to de-educate everyone. These are really great arguments and only an evil person trying to take over the world would tell you that they’re fallacies. How ridiculous.

Always remember! Do your own research and discover your own facts!

People love a good conspiracy. We are fascinated by the fact that our own government may or may not have assassinated JFK. We are intrigued by Area 51, leading us to believe there’s a least a small chance that the bodies of aliens are stored there. We subconsciously like the fact that there’s something bigger out there and we are able to see a small piece of the puzzle.

With that being said, there is a major conspiracy that over the years I have slowly been made aware of: For thousands of years (since the Creation of the Earth, actually) there has been a plant that has grown naturally and used by people. Oddly enough, a plant that has no natural enemies. (No need for pesticides.) A plant that can grow in most climates. A plant that has been proven to help patients suffering from cancer, emphysema, arthritis, glaucoma, narcolepsy, depression, PMS, AIDS, and  many other medical ailments. Doctors agree, but they mainly agree about the fact that there is no money to be made from it for themselves.

So why suddenly, after thousands of years of use, in 1937 does our government call a plant, placed on this Earth by God, illegal? Doesn’t that seem strange? Calling a naturally growing plant illegal?

So…why is it illegal anyway? That’s a good question that can only be answered in the form of conspiracy.

Oddly, many of the commercials we watch are advertising prescription medicines. They tell us to ask our doctor about it. There’s even a medicine that helps us produce more of our own natural tears, in the event we need a disease. Or grow longer, fuller eyelashes. Very unusual. That leads me to believe there are millions of dollars to be made in the sale of prescription drugs. That is exactly the case.

What if there was a naturally growing pain reliever that anyone could easily grow in their garden? In other words, free medicine. But those words just don’t go together: “Free medicine.” So since prescription drug companies are threatened by this naturally growing medicine, what can be done to stop people from using it? Make it illegal.

Drug testing centers also make plenty of undeserved profit as well since most companies require marijuana drug tests for their employees.  Here’s how this is a scheme:  Traces of marijuana usually stay in the body for 30 days, while the effects of it usually only remain for a few hours.  A man falls off a ladder at work and is injured.  But because he smoked marijuana 3 weeks ago, he forfeits his workman’s compensation insurance when he tests positive.   Marijuana gets the blame for an accident it didn’t cause.  But it becomes the scapegoat.  And as long as companies fear that marijuana will transform their employees into menacing, careless maniacs, drug testing centers will continue to make their easy money from it..

Back in the 1920’s, our Mexican neighbors were a threat as unemployment started to rise. We didn’t want them taking away our jobs. We also didn’t understand their customary plant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8bh35w5Po4 So we gave the plant a scary name. A Mexican word that scares people away. That’s when innocent cannabis began its cursed descent into what  we now know as marijuana.

It’s simple economics. Originally it was banned because we needed to drive back the Mexicans to their own country. Since the plant was part of their heritage, most of them grew it and therefore it was easy to find them breaking the law once the plant was outlawed. And today, it would take away too much money from the prescription drug companies. Not to mention, by it being illegal, it gives work to the government, as they fight the war on drugs. Circular reasoning.

“Table of Contents”

Introduction  http://wp.me/pxqBU-5k

Truth #1: The Profit from Illegalization http://wp.me/pxqBU-4W

Truth #2: The False Floor of the Harmful Gateway Theory http://wp.me/pxqBU-4Z

Truth #3: The Stigma of a Pot Head http://wp.me/pxqBU-52

Truth #4: God was the First Cannabis Grower http://wp.me/pxqBU-55

Truth #5: Society Itself is a Hypocrite http://wp.me/pxqBU-59

Truth #6: Man is Taking Credit for God’s Free Gift http://wp.me/pxqBU-5c

Truth #7: Common Sense and Justice Eventually Prevail http://wp.me/pxqBU-5

Truth #8: Banning Cannabis Keeps Us from Utilizing Hemp http://wp.me/pxqBU-7b

Here is an interview with Dan Brown, author of “The Da Vinci Code”, and other anti-Christian books.

Excerpt:

Interviewer:
Are you religious?

Dan Brown:
I was raised Episcopalian, and I was very religious as a kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Nice boys don’t ask that question.” A light went off, and I said, “The Bible doesn’t make sense. Science makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from religion.

This experience is common in the workplace and in the university.

Cold case homicide detective Jim Wallace writes:

It’s both sad and frustrating that the minister in Dan Brown’s story was unable to provide a defense for the Christian view of origins. Good, critical questions should be seen as an important part of the Christian faith, but too many of us fail to see our faith as evidential. It’s so important for us to be prepared with a response for questions like those asked by Brown as a child. The Christian worldview offers insightful and power answers to questions related to cosmology, teleology and the Big Bang. I can’t help but wonder what might have happened with Brown had the minister simply been prepared.

My personal view is that even those who believe strongly in young earth creationism should be diligent to also teach their children the arguments for a Creator and Designer from mainstream, old-earth science. Mainstream science points strongly to a Creator and Designer of the universe and is compatible with a respectful interpretation of Genesis.

Here are 6 arguments that every young earth creationist should be able to defend.

1. The Big Bang
2. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the Big Bang
3. The fine-tuning needed to provide a habitable galaxy, solar system and planet
4. The origin of biological information in the simplest living cell
5. The sudden origin of the major body plans (phyla) in the Cambrian Explosion
6. The limits of mutation and selection to build up specified complexity

You can read more about these mainstream scientific arguments here. If all your experience learning science apologetics comes from young earth teachers, then you probably will get a huge boost in your effectiveness in the public square by learning these arguments from mainstream science.

I am sympathetic with responsible, well-educated young earth scholars like Dr. Marcus Ross and Dr. Paul Nelson. These scholars acknowledge the real state of the evidence, but are holding out for emerging research that may vindicate their YEC views. They are good scholars, with real degrees, and they are prominent members of the intelligent design movement, which welcomes responsible young earth scholars.

On the other hand, I do not recommend the young earth popularizers like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. Their material is not good preparation for outward-focused engagement about scientific issues. Christian apologetics today is saturated with old-earth arguments, yet virtually no Christian apologist believes in macro-evolution. Old-earth Christians debate against evolution in public all the time. In fact, they lead the fight against evolution.

Young-earth creationism is strictly targeted to Christians

I just glanced at the ICR web site and ALL THREE of their upcoming conferences are being held in CHURCHES. The Answers in Genesis Conference is being held in a church. Ken Ham’s speaking engagements are all in churches. There are no debates with scientists going on at any of these events! Young-earth creationism is strictly for homeschooling and church. It’s not field-tested for use on the battlefield!

Meanwhile, old-earthers like William Lane Craig are debating against evolution at Indiana University against the top evolutionist in the USA, Francisco Ayala. And he debated prominent New Atheist Christopher Hitchens in front of 5000 people earlier this year at Biola University, too. So you must make your choice from this information about what arguments are useful in the real world. What works in public.

Watch a debate, then decide for yourself

All young earth creationists should watch the debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross below. Kent Hovind has a PhD from a Patriot Bible College in Religious Education. Hugh Ross has a BS in Physics from the University of British Columbia, a MS in Physics and a PhD in Astronomy, both from the University of Toronto, one of the top universities in Canada. He did post-doctoral work at Caltech, the top graduate school for science in the world.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8
Part 9 Part 10 Part 11 Part 12
Part 13 Part 14 Part 15 Part 16

Watch the debate, then decide for yourself!

From time to time a puzzle catches my eye and those posts always seem to be popular posts. So here’s another one for you, From the NY Times: Circular Reasoning.

It’s sort of like a crossword puzzle in the sense that each answer feeds into the next, so looking at the clues before and after can help. The hard part is that the clues have so many parts, that even if you get one piece of the clue, it doesn’t mean you’ll get an answer. Here’s an example:

A song with that candy in the title is closely identified with a 1930s actress who later became an American ambassador in Africa. The northern neighbor of the country where she was posted has a two-word name. What’s the second word?

It’s probably not so much what you know, but what you can look up (so Barb, I think you’ll like this one)

So far, I have three answers.

To understand what’s behind the Dawinist’s explanation of morality, we need to distinguish between an assertion and an argument.  An assertion merely states a conclusion; an argument, on the other hand, states the conclusion and then supports it with evidence. Darwinists make assertions, not arguments.  There is no empirical or forensic evidence that natural selection can account for new life forms, much less morality.  Darwinists simply assert that morals have evolved naturally because they believe man has evolved naturally.  And they believe man has evolved naturally, not because they have evidence for such a belief, but because they’ve ruled out intelligent causes in advance.  So the Darwinian explanation for morality turns out to be just another “just-so” story based on circular reasoning and false philosophical presuppositions.

- Geisler, Norm and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, copyright 2004, page 191

By Dan Amoss

“Business is gradually but unmistakably coming out of the depression.”

–Dr. Julius Klein, Asst. Sec of Commerce, September 26, 1930

“It’s very hard not to be bullish today when you look at the fundamental data. You need to be invested right now.”

–Rob Lutts, Chief Investment Officer of Cabot Money Management, August 6, 2009

The rising stock market, itself, is providing some of the very economic data that are inspiring investors to buy stocks. Weird, huh? Unfortunately, this perpetual motion machine cannot, in fact, operate perpetually. Eventually, the real economy will have to get in on the game, or share prices will tumble again.

Blindly optimistic expectations for the economy are driving much of the buying in today’s stock market. Money managers like Rob Lutts, quoted above, represent part of the delusional group-think that is powering the stock market at the moment. I don’t know what “fundamental data” inspires his optimism. Maybe he thinks that government spending is the key to prosperity? Or maybe he thinks the stock market’s rising trend is, in itself, a reason to keep buying stocks.

Lutts reminds me of the many quotes from money managers and government officials in the wake of the huge 50% rally during the end of 1929 and early 1930. Today’s situation is no so very different. We are clearly in an economy-wide deleveraging process that will last for years.

The next few years will not mirror the 1930s exactly, because the government and central bank are debasing the currency to prevent a dreaded debt-deflation spiral. But make no mistake: we will pay for the government’s trillion-dollar bailouts at some point down the road. The price will be an inflationary spiral, at least, if not a full-blown currency crisis. But that’s a problem for another day.

Today, the story is all about “recovery.”

The rising market is driving the majority of the economic data supporting the “green shoots” crowd. The Index of Leading Economic Indicators, which has been pointing up for a few months, is heavily influenced by the stock market. Now, stock market bulls are pointing to the Leading Economic Indicators as a reason to buy stocks. This is very flawed circular reasoning, plain and simple. Meanwhile, the real world economic trends are offering up plenty of reasons for caution.

Here are six “lawn mowers” from the real economy that could easily mow down the green shoots:

1) Stabilizing numbers for continuing unemployment claims are painting a misleading picture. In reality, hundreds of thousands are rolling off of the traditional six months of benefits into extended unemployment benefits rolls. This morning’s payroll data was temporarily inflated by a rebound in auto production from depression levels, and the government’s hiring of census workers. Also, the unemployment rate fell because the number of people actively looking for work keeps falling. There are absolutely no signs that those who were laid off will find a new job anytime soon.

2) The federal government’s income tax receipts are still collapsing. Paycheck withholding tax receipts are still falling sharply. As data services like TrimTabs have demonstrated, income tax receipts are far more accurate gauges of trends in personal income than the highly massaged employment figures from the government. Falling tax receipts translate into a higher threat of confiscatory marginal tax rates in the future, deficit monetization and more inflation.

3) Yesterday’s aggregation of July same store sales in the retail business confirms that end demand for many products remains bleak (aside from auto sales in the “cash for clunker” program, compliments of the ballooning national debt). For perspective, gasoline prices in July 2009 were about 35% lower than the $4-plus per gallon level of July 2008. One would think that this would be a major tailwind for retail, but it’s not.

4) The federal government is spending other people’s money like a drunken sailor, yet a good portion of the sugar high “stimulative” effect of this spending on GDP will be offset by lasting cuts in state and local government budgets.

5) The bond market will continue balking at absorbing trillions in new Treasury bond supply to fund the deficit. Rising mortgage rates, which are tied to Treasury Note yields, will limit the positive impact of refinancing those few homeowners that have any equity left in their homes.

6) Has the market noticed that the FDIC is stalling on its duty to shut down and eat heavy losses at several zombie regional banks – - Corus, Guaranty, and Colonial to name a few? When it does so, it will have to draw down tens of billions of dollars from its emergency line of credit with the Treasury.

These factors all indicate that the economy is most certainly not returning to pre-credit bubble conditions. Yet the stock market is pricing in a return to such conditions.

Don’t trust it.

I have been reading on the different religions. One thing that I noticed was the prominence circular faith has been having in almost all of them.

What is circular faith?

Circular faith is building of a faith on another, which on a roundabout fashion is built on the first. For Example:

Preacher: “This is the only true religion. You have to believe it or go to hell.”

Listener:   “How are you sure?”

Preacher: “So it is said in our book.”

Listener:   “How do I know that your book is true?”

Preacher: “Because our book is the word of god. And it has been proven by many saints, and so it is said in our book.”

Notice that the authenticity of the religion is based on the book, which is the essential part of the religion. The authenticity of the book is based on the word of god and saints, who again are only to be found in the book. Then how can they say that theirs is the true religion?

My opinion

Are we to believe in a book, because “the majority believes it”? Maybe there are a lot of miracles? If they were happening only to members of one particular faith, I can wholeheartedly agree with them.  But that is not to be. I have seen a few. Some where no religion or god was concerned.

If religions are built upon circular faith, then why do they still enjoy such an ardent support? There are many answers. The one that sounds the most reasonable is this. No men are alike. Everyone has wants that cannot be fulfilled easily. Or they have sufferings so grave that they cannot survive alone. They turn to religions, which offer them a god, who will vanquish the sufferings and grant riches, if not now, in the next life.

Those following these religions tend to convert others, so that their book has a massive support. Anyone questioning them will get the answer- “See how many people follow us? Do you think they are all fools?”

This reminds me of the Dilbert Principle: “All men are idiots”.

A sad fact is that most of these religions do not allow any form of questioning. If you question it, you go to hell. So most of the followers never think about the lack of logic in their books.

And to say nothing about the drama that the religions are acting. They kill other people saying that theirs is the true religion, and that god has given them the permission to do whatever they wish.

Conclusion

I don’t know how this is going to end and which book will win the war. But I’m sure that rationality and freedom are the ones to lose the most.

Washington’s impossible equation

When the late Phil Agee described his job application process with the CIA in the late 1950’s, he talked about undergoing repeated lie detector tests where he deliberately lied about various things, just for the hell of it.  He resented being judged by a machine and wanted to see if he could beat it.  At first it seemed that he failed.  The tests were repeated.  Again, an unhappy result.  He was sent home.  Just as he was feeling most desperate, sure he would never be hired and on the verge of admitting what he had done and begging forgiveness, he was suddenly approved.  There are only two ways of viewing such a process.  Either the CIA’s application process is inept, or it deliberately recruits liars.

With that in mind, you have to wonder about the credibility of any former CIA employee, particularly one who has parlayed their CIA career, not into any effort to make amends, as Agee did, but into much more lucrative Washington think-tank work.  As Russell Mokhiber, the editor of Corporate Crime Reporter recently pointed out, “Most people, when they arrive in Washington, D.C., see it for what it is – a cesspool of corruption.” Some “run away screaming in fear,” others “stay and fight back” and the third category “stay and [are] transformed.  Instead of seeing a cesspool, they begin seeing a hot tub.  The result – profits and wealth for the corporate elite – death, disease and destruction for the American people.”

When Mokhiber referred to the American people, he was really talking about U.S. Americans, not the inhabitants of the entire American continent, but the sentiment holds true either way.  The death, disease and destruction emanating from Washington are unconstrained by national borders.

And so it is that one finds the likes of Brian Latell figuratively relaxing with a chardonnay in the Washington cesspool, while he spins the tales his clients want to hear.  “Stovepiping” is what this kind of “intelligence” work was called during the Bush administration, because the predetermined result goes straight up the chimney, uncontaminated by any evidence to the contrary.  Latell is a CIA retiree who augments his pension by scanning news articles about Cuba, the same way he used to scan tailor-made intelligence reports, going on to sell his predictable “analysis” to the highest bidder.  (Latell may actually spend most of his time maintaining his tan in Miami, but he remains a senior, albeit non-resident associate at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, which means he is still umbilically connected to the heart of the cesspool.)

Over the past several years, both through CSIS and the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, Latell has taken on the task of chief marketer for the idea that between Raúl and Fidel Castro, there is a huge, perhaps even biblical conflict.  Raul is the “pragmatic” one, Fidel the “intransigent” one.  Raúl would like nothing more than to turn Cuba into the next China, complete with most favored nation trading status, but Fidel is holding him back.  It’s an idea that apparently sells well among Latell’s corporate media clients (the Wall Street Journal, NBC) desperate for any hint that Cuba’s socialism is moribund, that capitalism with all its attendant glories will inevitably return to Cuba.  Especially once Fidel dies.

Latell’s latest product is no surprise.  He loathes Fidel, and is sure that Fidel is maneuvering to torpedo any possible rapprochement between the U.S. and Cuba. He reaches deep in his vocabulary toolbox to call Fidel “snide,” “arrogant,” “scornful” and “abusive.”  In Latell’s world, Raúl has been trying to open a dialogue with the United States and has been duly chastised and “humiliated” by his brother for his efforts.  This is apparently the kind of analysis upon which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, another adept cesspool lounger, rests her own.

The problem with such “analysis” is that it relies on a worldview that ignores inconvenient facts.  For starters, there is no evidence whatsoever that Raúl feels chastised or humiliated, nor is there any divergence at all between his public statements and those of Fidel.

Latell is untroubled by this, and insists, “recently, Fidel Castro shot down hopes for a better relationship with the United States.”  In case you missed the shootdown metaphor, Latell is happy to club you over the head with it later on, claiming that Bill Clinton was working hard to mend relations with Cuba when suddenly “in February 1996 Cuban MiG fighters shot down civilian aircraft over international waters, killing American civilians.”  Note again, the purposeful reference to “international waters,” something that has been surfacing quite a lot lately, and not purely coincidentally.  Gerardo Hernandez, the Cuban convicted by a kangaroo court in Miami of the preposterous and evidentially challenged claim that he was involved in a Cuban conspiracy to shoot down those planes in international airspace is awaiting word this week from the Supreme Court as to whether it will hear his case.  You may well assume that any mentions of the incident in the mainstream press are meant as a crude reminder to the Justices.

Latell tosses off the remark quite casually.  But for anyone interested in the 1996 shootdown – any non-CIA type, that is, the actual history is a bit more complex. The U.S. Government wheedled, delayed and pressured the U.N.’s ICAO to site the shootdown in international waters, despite the fact that the Cubans provided immediate and convincing evidence to the contrary.  Also, the only wreckage that has ever been found was discovered in Cuban waters, by the Cubans, partly because the U.S. steadfastly refused to look there.  Were it not for the United States’ heavy-handed diplomatic footwork, an entire cascade of events could never have unfolded, beginning with codification into U.S. law of the blockade (which U.S. Americans are constantly soothed into believing is only a simple embargo).  That was followed by the Miami mafia’s seizure of Cuba’s multi-million dollar frozen U.S. bank account, and ended with the torture and victimization of five Cubans, one of whom was Hernandez, arrested for doing what the FBI refused to do – uncover the terrorist plots being hatched in Miami against Cuba.

None of that is of the least interest to Latell.  In his cosseted world, the last fifty years have been a non-stop parade of efforts by the U.S. to mend relations with Cuba, always thwarted by the bearded one.  The nearly 6,000 Cubans who have died or been permanently injured by terrorist actions launched from the U.S. since 1959 are completely irrelevant.  He views any possible negotiation to end the blockade as a simple quid pro quo, whereby both sides have to give a little, to “get to yes.”  We already know what the cesspool thinks Cuba needs to give (for starters, because the real goal is everything): freedom to the Cubans who are currently in prison for taking U.S. money to overthrow their government, an election process that rewards moneyed interests (a.k.a. U.S. style democracy), and human rights, left deliberately vague but presumably similar to those enjoyed by U.S. citizens – the right to be homeless, to be sick and untreated, the right for a woman to sacrifice her career for lack of good, affordable daycare for her children, the right not to be paid when one is injured on the job, the right to remain ignored when one’s government engages in genocidal warfare. Except when the bill comes due. How on earth the U.S. could presume to give lessons in democracy or human rights to anyone is a mystery that can only be explained by the slow cooking of intellects stewed in the cesspool.

Cuba does not owe the United States an apology.  Quite the reverse.

The suffering caused by the blockade is real, although well out of sight for most U.S. citizens, thanks to the prohibitions on their ability to travel to Cuba to see for themselves.  What is truly abusive and scornful is the fact that Cubans are forced deeper into poverty because they must pay premiums to unseen middlemen for every single thing they buy, in order for the middlemen to recover the costs of doing business with the untouchable Cuba.  It is humiliating that Cubans are forced to construct ladders and platforms in their own houses to accommodate their growing familes, until the houses resemble ants’ nests, because there is no money left over from the middleman tax to build housing.  One of the first things the Cuban government has promised to address, were the blockade to be lifted, is the serious housing shortage.

But no, according to Latell and his friends swilling wine in the cesspool, the U.S. Government must maintain this cruel, crippling blockade to use as “leverage” for those other things, U.S. style elections and so-called human rights.  And besides, lifting it would be playing into Fidel’s hands, because then he would be able to claim complete victory, and as long as he’s alive, we must deny him that, no matter what the cost. The irony is that Latell, through his shootdown argument, is also saying that Fidel actually prefers the blockade remain in place, as a useful enemy.  But Latell can’t have it both ways.  What logic is there in keeping the blockade in place as “leverage” if the other side secretly desires for it to be maintained?  This is the crux of the problem in U.S. Government reasoning on Cuba policy.  The people who think this way are chasing their own tail.  As Ricardo Alarcon once pointed out, if this is what you really believe, then put it to the test.  Call the bluff.  Lift the blockade, just for six months, and see what happens.  It can always be reinstated if the results are not to your liking.

We all know that’s not going to happen though. U.S. foreign policymakers and the sycophants who whisper in their ears are not known for their sense of nuance, their innovative approaches, their sense of risk. Risk is anathema to real capitalists. Once all of the shifting demands on Cuba are put aside – get out of Africa, stop supporting Nicaragua, change your political system – Cuba’s original sin remains.  As Gerardo Hernandez put it, “Cuba’s worst crime is to be free and sovereign — without the U.S. Ambassador dictating as he did for about half a century. That’s why Cuba cannot be forgiven; for wanting to have its own system.” And so, when all is said and done, the cesspool remains a warm and relaxing place, the blockade a disembodied “tool.” Latell and those like him who are fully immersed have no interest, financial or otherwise, in stepping outside into the cold air the rest of us breathe, in looking the blockade straight in the eyes. It would be a little like submitting to a really functional gigantic lie detector, and the game would be up.

So let me get this straight. The argument is:  Obama’s a fascist BECAUSE Obama’s a fascist! (Translation: I have no idea what the word “fascism” actually means).

As for the second dude, he needs to learn a bit more about history. Lincoln was also accused by critics of being a tyrant who supported strong federal government. In fact, I seem to remember some unpleasant business about half the country LEAVING THE REPUBLIC because they opposed his “big government” ideas. Lincoln’s assassin even cried out “Sic semper tyrannis!” or “Thus always to tyrants” upon delivering the fatal blow. So even Lincoln had to deal with morons who didn’t understand what terms like “fascist” or “tyrant” actually mean.

But I guess it should have been obvious these douches weren’t big in the brains department when they decided to call themselves “Teabaggers“, right? LOL

Take your pick on favorite definition:

teabagger-  1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as “teabagging” 3) one who has a job or talent that is low in social status 4) a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient. 5) also see “fagbag”, “lamer”, “noob”

. . .

n. A man that dips his scrotum and testicles into the mouth of another person. (as if dipping a tea bag into hot water)

As the ninth in this series of posts on various fun forms of specious logic, this entry will deal with that error in reasoning called Begging the Question, also known as Circular Logic, Assuming the Answer, and Tautological Reasoning, and, for you Latin buffs, because Latin is just way cool, Petitio Principii. Sorry to bust your bubble, (Well, not really, because I’m Troythulu, so there.)but if you say that a particular line of reasoning is ‘circular and begging the question,’ then you have committed a redundancy, as they are the same thing. This is a form of flawed reasoning in which the conclusion is its own premise, and has the general logical structure of: P implies C, C implies P, therefore P. With this fallacy, the premise assumes the conclusion’s truth as a given when instead that’s the very thing that needs to be established, as in the following examples, and no doubt I’ll be stepping on more than a few toes with the first of these:

[1] My religion’s holy book is the directly inspired word of a god, and is inerrant. God said so, according to our sacred scripture.

[2] It is illegal in this town to sell liquor on Sundays because it’s wrong. If it weren’t wrong, it wouldn’t be illegal.

In the case where the colloquial phrase ‘begging the question’ is used in the sense of putting forward a question that begs for an answer, and no argument is presented, circular reasoning is not being used and no fallacy is being committed.

This post has been sitting around unfinished since June.  I’ve revamped the title several times and tinkered with the content, only to end up not satisfied with the end result.  But after reading a few entries in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, this post popped right back into focus.  While it’s initial $20 price point was more than I would ever drop for this particular book, I got it at a bargain book store for $4.99.  I can manage 5 bucks for a browse.

I told my wife awhile back I felt like I’ve lost my faith.  Reading so much about socialist movements (for school) and seeing how closely linked they are to Christianity’s hope for a new world, I realized just how hijacked the teachings of Christ have become by ‘conservatives’ and evangelicals. 

This has been in no way a popular position, straining both family and friendships.

 Like Chris’ earlier posts here, I realized at an early age that church behavior and the Bible weren’t lining up at all and it started a crisis of my faith.  Yet, such a crisis was something you didn’t talk about in the churches I attended.  Or if you did, you had better get over it quick. If you do, then you have the testimony to be a youth pastor!  So I internalized my unsettled issues because for many church services, that is the modus operandi.  Pretend there are no problems.

I have at times toyed with these misgivings of God and Jesus and it is scary stuff.  Like finding your dad’s gun while your parents are away.  You put it away, but you know something powerful and dangerous is in the house now.  But my issues, I have realized, aren’t with God, but with the perverted way we have been taught to learn about and view God.  You can never prove God, though that is really what all the crap in Sunday School is all about.  It all comes down to trying to prove what it is we are supposed to believe.  But it can never be done, unless we use circular reasoning.

An example of how thinking goes wrong in circular reasoning:

God exists.  The Bible says so.  The Bible is inspired/written by God.

Seriously?  What is that, exactly?  What a warped faith.  Is it faith if we can prove it? 

The fact is, we have too much time on our hands.  We being Americans.  Look at us blog.  Look at us buy more crap than we could ever use.  Look at our angst over the complacency of church.  Look at us and our pretend piousness, typing on uber-chic Apple computers, buying greenwashed crap.  All while countless millions go to bed without basic necessities like food, shelter, and clothing.

Emergent or emerging or whatever you want to call it, it’s bull.  We are aren’t unhappy with church, we are unhappy with ourselves.  We have read just enough and seen so little to be dangerous.  Not to ourselves, but to others.  We are ok with leaving the Church (capital ‘c’ as in institution) on the pretext of seeking out something more authentic.  We are not ok with leaving the Church in order to be the church (lowercase ‘c’ as in the people).

I said in a previous post, if the church is worth leaving, then it is worth speaking out against.  Instead of speaking out plainly, like Jesus, the use of saccharine platitudes muddles powerful statements and dulls the edges of ideas that could shed light or real issues with the institution mainstream church has become.  To pretend we agree with or see the point of the church is a simple political maneuver.  In order to eventually take over or at least setup beside that which is disagreed with, you have to play the game.  Jesus never played those games.  And it is unfortunate that emergent is.

But why stop?  Emergent is going to be the next mainstream.  Why?  Because it plays right into a new type of guilt of the upcoming generation..  The guilt of knowing what we are called to do, but not doing it.  The guilt of being part of an empire that exploits and enjoys the benefits of the exploitation while pretending to hate it.  It pretends to be a new way, but really, when the pretty lights dim and all the cool ‘indie’ marketing is ripped away, there is still the same old hierarchy, the same old setup, and the same old complacency of the masses.

Awhile ago, over at Josh Brown’s blog, he was talking about how Emergent may have lost its credibility as a fringe movement because of advertising on Beliefnet.  I won’t even link to it.  I can totally see his point, it is everything that is wrong with the marketing machine that the church has become.  Saint of the Day links, insurance advertisements, movie ads, a God-o-Meter link.  I would laugh, if it was meant to be funny, but it is all under the guise of being ‘religious’ and ‘having a relationship’ with God.  Pandering, pandering, pandering to the masses for money.

Where does it all go?  The tithes, the disposable income, the offerings?  I might go looking, but really, I don’t need to go far to see the newest audio/visual equipment, the newest buildings, the salaries.  So much of the money people give is really for themselves.  But what if ALL, yes ALL of that money went to those things Jesus taught instead?  Listen to Bono over 3 years ago:

I mentioned in an older post, would jesus have been a socialist?, that Michael Harrington (a socialist who had a falling out with other socialists who ended up bombing a few places) became disillusioned by artists only talking and never creating.  How much does that sound like the Church?  Preaching a message, but for the most part not living it out.  Isn’t that why so many of have left?  I love the first few lines of this post from Decompressing Faith:

In my readings and travels (online) I have found something that probably won’t surprise many of you:
There needs to be another space, a place for us.
Not a church, but not NOT a church. Ya dig?
We seem to be always waffling between either going it alone or trying somehow to fit into existing institutions, as if those were the only two options.
Why is this? Isn’t there a third place? Another way?

The idea that Emergent is ‘a conversation’ is past, if it ever was a conversation in the first place.  If it was just a conversation, then the outcome wouldn’t matter.  But the outcome does, and since it does, it is much more than a conversation.  It is a debate, an argument shrouded in the saccharine platitudes that is pretend love.  It matters because it is about number because numbers mean money and money makes the Church go round.    Jesus didn’t try to fix an inherently broken model, he offered a new way.  If people took that way, great if not, he moved on.  If emergent was truly about bringing about a new way of doing things, then they would have just gone and done their own thing.

Instead, the conversation became about justifing themselves to those they thought were ultimately wrong.

It is hard to just go the way you feel the Spirit is leading.  Maybe I shouldn’t put my two cents into the mix.  But my concern with not doing so is that so many others are.  And they are doing so under the guise of being absolute, which isn’t fair to those who are out there searching.   As this conversation over at Bush’s blog shows, the Spirit is subtly quenched while the NT becomes new law as the OT is used as a type of foundation propping up a law system.

 I am not saying emergent is bad; I’m sure the people in that movement believe just as strongly as I believe in mine.  But I am past the conversation.  As emergent becomes the new mainstream, others will eventually start looking for a new conversation as the cycle starts all over again.  Which means all the ugliness, hurt, and twisting of the teachings of Jesus that it takes to bring about a new ‘conversation’ will be present as well.

Finally, here is an interesting post about the future of Emergent Village, producer of the book mentioned at the top.  #4 may not happen yet, but it probably will, like all other hierarchical models.

-mike

When one doesn’t hear what one wants to hear, I suggest one change the topic of conversation immediately. Perhaps this one is a she, and suppose she’s admittedly needy. Validation is required, dear friends. It’s the only way to communicate with her. Otherwise, she retreats to her downtrodden self and she’s worse than where she started. You see, she’s always looking for confirmation that she’s wrong to be positive, that she’s simply pathetic for wanting something better than what she has.

Maybe she needs to hear reality, but that’s a constant swirl in her head anyway. Her reality is confined to circular reasoning fueled not by logic but by fire. And later, when the fire dies down, there’s nothing but to look at those she knows as if they were strangers. They are strangers, really. So I suggest a change of subject to keep things pleasant.

Jesus had silenced the blood lusting Scribes and Pharisees who brought an adulteress to Him.  He showed them their own guilt, and used mercy to do it.  Every guilty person there was shown mercy by Him.

We continue the story, starting in John 8:12:

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

The Pharisees challenged Him on this, saying that Jesus’ testimony was invalid because He was testifying about Himself.  But Jesus Himself had been teaching the principle of valid testimony.  He declared to them that one needs a testimony beyond his own.

The Pharisees were so desperate to trap the Son of God that they made fools of themselves in their efforts.  Unfortunately this still happens even in our day.

People want to discredit God.  They want us to disregard the Bible.  But they make major errors in their efforts (not surprising, since their goal is itself a major error).  One of these errors is to say that the Bible isn’t true because it uses a form of circular reasoning in declaring itself to be true.

But one only needs to look a little deeper to find out the truth of the matter.  From early on the honest Bible reader comes to realize a few things.  They realize that the things the Bible does are things no other book has ever done.  The way it brings good life to people.  The way it harmonizes with itself even though it was written by many men, in many countries, in various languages, over thousands of years… perfect harmony!  It speaks in a way that no other book has ever spoken.  And it gives more information than any man, or even mankind as a whole, will ever be able to completely understand.

The reader will also find that external evidence only grows in its support of the Bible as time goes on.  New discoveries continue to be made that uphold the historical truths of the Scriptures.  The truths in our world and the people in the world are constantly proving God’s word to be indeed from God.  Recorded history supports the life of Christ more than some of the most beloved and indisputably historical people we know of.  History also proves the text of the Bible to be more reliable and authentic than any other work of its kind; the extent of this is so incredible that one has to laugh when they see the figures.

It’s a fool’s game they play today.  It didn’t work out for the Pharisees, and it won’t work for people today.  Every man is confronted with the truth of Christ, and His validity is greater than anything they already trust in.  Whether one chooses to accept or ignore that fact, well that’s up to them.  But we will all give an account one day, and at that point it will no longer be possible to ignore the truth.

Christ told the Pharisees that they would know the truth once He was lifted up.  And we see that it happened too, from their bribing the Roman guards to keep quite about what had happened.  It was so completely obvious that Christ was who He said He was.  It’s still obvious.

All men are capable of ignoring or not caring about the obvious reality that engulfs them.  But men don’t have to be fools if they choose to walk in the light that Jesus gives.

And only He has the words of life!

Within the limits of possible knowledge, epistemologically speaking, I am as certain as a person could reasonably be that Mormonism is not True. Assuming, arguendo, the truth of Christianity, I believe that Mormonism’s claims to truth cannot possibly be true because of fatal flaws in the fundamental Mormon teachings about the Great Apostasy and the Restoration. As the new “discussions” reflect, Apostasy and Restoration are Mormonism’s lynchpins: without a Great Apostasy there was no need for a Restoration, and without a Restoration, Mormonism’s self-justifying truth claims fall apart.

For the Apostasy-Restoration to have happened, the following must be true:

1. Priesthood authority must indeed work the way the Mormon Church claims it does. This actually means that, in fact, the concept of priesthood authority is actually the most fundamental Mormon doctrine, because Apostasy-Restoration presupposes the existence of a priesthood authority that functions the way Mormonism teaches. The thing is, there is almost no evidence from the apostolic era or before (i.e., from the Bible or other contemporary sources) that priesthood authority–if it exists at all–works like that. Mormon scriptures do not count, because for them to be acceptable, Mormonism must be true which means that priesthood must work the way Mormonism says it does (which is what we’re trying to decide in the first place). That is, unless Mormon scripture was somehow independently verifiable, which it most certainly is not.

2. Said priesthood must have been lost in the manner that Mormonism claims. This requires us to believe a claim of Mormonism at face value, which we have no reason to do unless we first accept that Mormonism’s concept of priesthood authority is true and that the Apostasy-Restoration actually happened. Again, if we could verify this loss of priesthood independently, Mormonism would be more credible. But we can’t. Change in doctrine does not evidence loss of priesthood authority, because that requires us to first accept a Mormon understanding of how priesthood works. Ditto for basically every other Mormon evidence of the loss of priesthood leading to the great apostasy. The Bible verses appealed to by Mormonism do not really help, either: taken alone, without presupposing Mormon priesthood authority, and Apostasy-Restoration, they do not by any means necessarily mean what Mormonism says they mean. The fact that the idea of a Great Apostasy was common in the 19th century is also not dispositive. Nobody thinks that anymore. A vague semi-consensus among some–but by no means all–Protestant Christians in the 1800s that something like the Great Apostasy had happened cannot possibly be credible evidence now that it actually did happen. Furthermore, Mormon claims about the loss of priesthood–and what would have had to have happened for such a loss to occur–are facially implausible. Even if we do accept Mormon ideas about priesthood authority and how it works, the likelihood that it would be lost while Christianity would survive is completely unbelievable. I wrote a post awhile back explaining exactly why. I think it is well worth the read.

So we have no reason to believe that priesthood works the way Mormonism says it does or that a Great Apostasy happened, except for circular logic that requires us to first assume the truth of Mormonism. That means Mormonism’s claims are simply not credible unless we believe Mormonism’s claims of authority based on nothing but… Mormonism’s claims to authority. Even the official Way To Truth (read, pray, feel-the-spirit-confirming-the-truth-and-banishing-all-doubt-and/or-contrary-evidence, rinse, repeat ad nauseum) requires us to begin by assuming that Mormonism is right regarding how you find out what is true. Unless you independently think that the Mormon Way To Truth is the right way to truth, or even one of several reliable ways, we have no reason to trust Mormonism when it tells us the way to truth, since it does it based on its own authority, which is what we’re trying to verify in the first place. This is textbook circular reasoning.

As far as independently thinking–i.e. based on something other than Mormonism’s teachings–that the Mormon Way To Truth is in fact the right way, I have a lot to say about that. But for the moment I will merely point out that no other religion or religious leader teaches it. If it was independently verifiable or somehow self-evident, the chances are pretty good that someone would actually have come up with it on their own (and then if Mormonism was really true, it would have to lead them to Mormonism). Good luck trying to argue that this in fact happens.

My dad had many sayings, including: “Blessed are the big wheels, for they will go around in circles” and “Don’t confuse me with facts when my mind is made up.”  The reasoning chart below seems to sum up both of those sayings:

Enjoy!

Poor Jack – at least their aim is horrible.

Monkeys!

Circular Reasoning.

Z-Rox – Coolest flash game ever. Work on your abstract spacial relations.

Rules for Being Human. Learn them, love them.

And, on a holiday note, things we can really be thankful for.

Cigarettes - The Wreckers (Michelle Branch) or coffee and cigarettes - michelle featherstone

I’m trying to quit my addictions.
pour them
throw them
give them.
I’m not as strong as I make myself out to be. 

This good man stands and watches from across the room, same as he as for nearly three months. He wants to know what to do with this enigmatic mystery two feet from an eternity away. Four years here and there’s never been one like her. They come from the same hometown, but a generation apart. She throws her head back and laughs with a genuine ring you hear but never see. Her eyes never match. There’s someone so old in someone so young. He’s watched her take care of and comfort people, he’s taken care of her. He doesn’t understand how he can hold her hand but feel like he’s nowhere near her. 

She knows she’s watched. She never knows when or why but it’s there, she can feel it in their eyes. She’ll listen and find joy in all the little things but in the same thought, spin it around and contemplate the universality, relativity, and futility of it all. She’s got things to say but too much at once, a world with no exit. Maybe she should go back home where people understand, but she knows she’s just fooling herself, she can’t keep running waiting for people to understand. A choice, a path, a life. 

People watch her all the time. They see her all the time, she knows things about their lives, their troubles. She’s greeted and joked and been with nearly all of them. But in return they know almost nothing of her, her past, her present. A familiar stranger, a common unknown. They’re involved in the mystery. 
These quiet nights are all I need (behind the scenes)
You’ll never be alone, but you’ll be completely alone
All these thoughts are nothing but yours
and you’ll never get them out right
make another cliche another attempt
for a fact, for a foundation,
for anything that makes sense
(even this heat is lost on me)  

why do we try to make them happy. 

Hard to Love You – The Wreckers