I might be having a brain stall but I was trying to define or label a certain argument and I'm at a loss. Maybe you guys could help me out.

The feeling I get from it is, there is no "wrong" answer. For instance, in Mormonism, the big spiel for investigators to the religion is for you to read the entire Book of Mormon and then pray to know if its true or not. There's no "it's not" answer. If you pray and the Holy Ghost gives you a warm feeling, then you know it's true. If you pray but don't feel anything, or you pray to know if the book is a lie and get a good feeling for that, then you just did it wrong or you didn't humble yourself enough to be open to God's Spirit.

brewer also posted an example of this same thing in the stupid stuff religious people say thread(in fact, it made me remember my trouble defining what this is).

(September 6, 2021 at 6:55 am)brewer Wrote: Person lives: God was watching over them, it's a miracle.

Person dies: God called them home for a reason.

So, what is this called? Help a guy out. Is it circular reasoning? Is it confirmation bias?

I refer to it as basic apologetics.

(September 6, 2021 at 7:35 am)Ten Wrote: brewer also posted an example of this same thing in the stupid stuff religious people say thread(in fact, it made me remember my trouble defining what this is).

(September 6, 2021 at 6:55 am)brewer Wrote: Person lives: God was watching over them, it's a miracle.

Person dies: God called them home for a reason.

So, what is this called? Help a guy out. Is it circular reasoning? Is it confirmation bias?

Confirmation bias.

(September 6, 2021 at 7:47 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Confirmation bias.

Thanks. The missionaries stopped by last weekend (or it might have been before last; they were looking for my mother but she wasn't home so I took the opportunity to engage them). This "read the book and pray" crap came up and it reminded me of this "there's no 'it's wrong' answer you could get" fallacy but I couldn't think of what it was called or why it was wrong to frame the inquiry of truth that way. So, I let it go and we talked about my issues with the repentance process and blood magic instead. But it's been bugging me.

Growing up with this confirmation bias as my mode of thinking, I have difficulty articulating why it is incorrect to frame the inquiry of truth this way. Like, its wrong because you can't ask a question and have only one possible answer? Does that sound right?

(September 6, 2021 at 8:14 am)Ten Wrote:

(September 6, 2021 at 7:47 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Confirmation bias.

Thanks. The missionaries stopped by last weekend (or it might have been before last; they were looking for my mother but she wasn't home so I took the opportunity to engage them). This "read the book and pray" crap came up and it reminded me of this "there's no 'it's wrong' answer you could get" fallacy but I couldn't think of what it was called or why it was wrong to frame the inquiry of truth that way. So, I let it go and we talked about my issues with the repentance process and blood magic instead. But it's been bugging me.

Growing up with this confirmation bias as my mode of thinking, I have difficulty articulating why it is incorrect to frame the inquiry of truth this way. Like, its wrong because you can't ask a question and have only one possible answer? Does that sound right?

I have heard similar claims from Jehovah's Witnesses, to wit: "All you have to do is open your heart to Jesus and you will immediately feel his presence and love!"

This claim can be made for reading the Bible or praying. In each case, the claimants are trying to set up an experiment by which they cannot lose. If you follow their instructions to the letter with no positive results, they will make up excuses. They have a whole repertoire of excuses:

"You doubted."
"You didn't pray honestly."
"You didn't pray hard enough."
"You have already hardened your heart against God."
"You're an atheist. You don't really know how to open your heart to Jesus."

I once told a pair of evangelicals who were trying to convert me that I'd be willing to get down on my knees with them and pray for Jesus to come into my heart, but if nothing happened, they would have to admit that I was right that God does not exist, and they were wrong. Of course, they wouldn't accept my challenge. They never do. 

(September 6, 2021 at 8:14 am)Ten Wrote:

(September 6, 2021 at 7:47 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Confirmation bias.

Thanks. The missionaries stopped by last weekend (or it might have been before last; they were looking for my mother but she wasn't home so I took the opportunity to engage them). This "read the book and pray" crap came up and it reminded me of this "there's no 'it's wrong' answer you could get" fallacy but I couldn't think of what it was called or why it was wrong to frame the inquiry of truth that way. So, I let it go and we talked about my issues with the repentance process and blood magic instead. But it's been bugging me.

Growing up with this confirmation bias as my mode of thinking, I have difficulty articulating why it is incorrect to frame the inquiry of truth this way. Like, its wrong because you can't ask a question and have only one possible answer? Does that sound right?

Isn't it a logical fallacy to assume a question must have more than one answer?

(September 6, 2021 at 9:19 am)Ahriman Wrote: Isn't it a logical fallacy to assume a question must have more than one answer?

When it comes to confirmation bias there usually is always one predetermined answer, like "God is good" no matter the circumstances.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-18942.html

---

(September 6, 2021 at 8:14 am)Ten Wrote: Like, its wrong because you can't ask a question and have only one possible answer? Does that sound right?

The number of possible answers does not create the fallacy.

Begging the question.

The inability to form thoughts of your own, leads to arguing for whichever side of the coin faces up in that particular moment.