What is this? Name that fallacy

[zwanzig]

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

Apologies. I wasn't trying to have other people give me their thoughts so I didn't have to do it myself. I was trying to research and learn about this, had some difficulty on my own finding an exact match, and thought I'd ask for someone to point me in the right direction.

I know it is important to learn this stuff for myself, otherwise, the next time the missionaries come at me with something that sounds appealing, I might fall for it.

[Ahriman]

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

Apologies. I wasn't trying to have other people give me their thoughts so I didn't have to do it myself. I was trying to research and learn about this, had some difficulty on my own finding an exact match, and thought I'd ask for someone to point me in the right direction.

I know it is important to learn this stuff for myself, otherwise, the next time the missionaries come at me with something that sounds appealing, I might fall for it.

Are you reasonably happy with your life the way it is now?

[no one]

Maybe there is some confusion, I'm stating there a good number of religious loons, cannot think for themselves, so they rely on antiquated, trite, nonsense to backup talking out of both sides of their manure spreader.

[Fake Messiah]

Confirmation bias.

Thanks.

Although Confirmation bias is not technically a logical fallacy. But what people are also using during Confirmation bias is Ad hoc rescue, like when that psychic Ingo Swann claimed to have visited spiritually Jupiter, describing it as a sand planet, and when it was discovered that it was a gas planet, he gave an Ad hoc rescue that he was in another star system - so that he can still have a status of a psychic.

[Jehanne]

The feeling I get from it is, there is no "wrong" answer.

Claims that are unobservable, untestable and nonfalsifiable constitute an infinite set; why believe one claim over another?

[Ahriman]

The feeling I get from it is, there is no "wrong" answer.

Claims that are unobservable, untestable and nonfalsifiable constitute an infinite set; why believe one claim over another?

Just go with whichever one benefits you the most.

[Jehanne]

Claims that are unobservable, untestable and nonfalsifiable constitute an infinite set; why believe one claim over another?

Just go with whichever one benefits you the most.

That's the same excuse that people give for taking drugs.

[brewer]

I know it is important to learn this stuff for myself, otherwise, the next time the missionaries come at me with something that sounds appealing, I might fall for it.

Don't take the pretty candy.

[zwanzig]

Maybe there is some confusion, I'm stating there a good number of religious loons, cannot think for themselves, so they rely on antiquated, trite, nonsense to backup talking out of both sides of their manure spreader.

Ahh, I gotcha. Yeah, I can understand that.

[Mister Agenda]

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).

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 think it might be 'Moving the Goalposts'. No matter the result achieved, if it doesn't confirm the arguer's position, they will just change the conditions of victory.