Below are a number of logical fallacies that atheists commonly commit.(Logical fallacy 1-5 and 9) were gotten from here
1. Atheists and the fallacy of exclusion
The fallacy of exclusion is a logical fallacy where "Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the 'principle of total evidence.
A . Fallacy of exclusion and the denial that Jesus existed
A classic use of the exclusion fallacy committed by many atheists is the denial that Jesus Christ ever existed.
Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for Jesus Christ living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed
In an article titled Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth, Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:
I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time
B. Unreasonable and inconsistent evidential standards
Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.
Atheists demand proof and evidence for other worldviews, yet there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. Also, despite the abundant evidence for Christianity and the lack of proof and evidence for atheism, atheist reject the truth of Christianity. Atheists refuse to go where the evidence clearly leads.
In addition, when atheist make claims related to naturalism, make personal claims or make accusations against theists, they often employ lax evidential standards instead of employing rigorous evidential standards.
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote a very revealing comment. It demonstrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation — regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
Lewtontin wrote:
“ Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.
”
The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal Nature. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic
C. Atheism and extraordinary claims
Western Atheists often claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", yet they have no proof and evidence that the extraordinary claim of non-life becoming the first life solely through natural processes is true .
2 Atheists and the strawman fallacy
A straw man fallacy (or straw man argument) is a fallacy which occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. It is a caricature of an opponent's argument, a distortion which can easily be "knocked down", i.e., refuted, like a flimsy pile of straw.
A strawman argument is a weakened version of a debating opponent's argument, which lacks the potency of the opponent's actual argument. In debates attended by the unwary, a clever but unscrupulous debater can fool the audience into thinking that the opponent's position has been disproved. Knocking down the powerless straw man takes the place of an authentic contest with the real man.
3 Atheists and the appeal to ridicule fallacy
The appeal to ridicule fallacy, also known as the appeal to mockery and the horse laugh, is a fallacy of relevance. It consists of mocking an opposing argument rather than considering it on the merits.
A. Modern American/British militant atheists and the use of ridicule
The new atheist Richard Dawkins declared to this fellow atheists:
“ I suspect that most of our regular readers here would agree that ridicule, of a humorous nature, is likely to be more effective than the sort of snuggling-up and head-patting that Jerry is attacking. I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt ”
In his article, Mockery — the M.O. for atheists, Matt Barber discusses an incident in which the Freedom From Religion Foundation encouraged atheists to engage in tactics which Barber considers to be acts of hateful mockery.
Hateful mockery can backfire, especially when a group in the minority. Atheists are the least-trusted group in America
4 . Atheism and groupthink
The atheist website Atheist Revolution declared about segments of the atheist population:
“ We've seen various cliques emerge, some of which have largely abandoned critical thinking for dogma. This mutual admiration society strikes me as being antithetical to free thought, as similar ideas are rewarded through promotion while diverse perspectives receive less attention. This sets the stage for a type of groupthink that runs counter to big tent atheism...
By elevating some in our movement to the level of celebrities, I fear we have cheapened it through irrational hero worship.
”
The Shadow to Light Christian blog says about the atheist movement and groupthink:
“ ...more and more of us are starting to view the atheist movement as being cult-like...
It is this irrational hero worship that not only prevents many within the atheist movement from criticizing people like Dawkins and Harris, but it causes them to behave in an overly protective and defensive manner of such leaders, especially when the criticism comes from a theist or accomodationist.
...what we have is a group of people drifting toward group think and hero worship, where a sense of belonging is maintained by erecting online gated communities from which to toss out rhetorical bombs at theists. Yet because this group is only unified by its admiration for its leaders and its hatred of religion, it takes very little to start some nasty infighting. Recognition of such problems is the first step in trying to correct them.
”
The atheist Jerry Coyne said about atheist conferences which he attended:
“ But to me the speakers and talks have often seemed repetitive: the same crew of jet-set skeptics giving the same talks.
...a few things bothered me, most notably the air of self-congratulation (which I excused on the grounds of enthusiastic people finding like-minded folks for the first time), the “fanboyness” directed at some of the famous atheists (they hardly let poor Richard alone, and I’m not sure he liked that!), and the lameness of quite a few of the talks. Again, how much new can you say about atheism?
”
The atheist columnist Galen Broaddus wrote about atheist groupthink:
“ ...I am practically beside myself with rage at how many atheists in the movement have conducted themselves in particular over the past few weeks. These are largely people who openly castigate religious people for their credulity, for their lack of compassion, for their groupthink and wagon-circling — only to perfectly and completely obliviously act out those same behaviors.
5. Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy
The no true Scotsman fallacy is a logical fallacy and more specifically a special case of circular logic. It involves dismissing any counterexamples
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the no true Scotsman fallacy thusly:
“ No True Scotsman
This error is a kind of ad hoc rescue of one's generalization in which the reasoner re-characterizes the situation solely in order to escape refutation of the generalization.
Example:
Smith: All Scotsmen are loyal and brave.
Jones: But McDougal over there is a Scotsman, and he was arrested by his commanding officer for running from the enemy.
Smith: Well, if that's right, it just shows that McDougal wasn't a TRUE Scotsman
A . Atheists attempting to deny/minimize the roles of atheism/atheists in atheist atrocities
Atheist apologists commonly try to minimize or deny the role of atheism/atheists as far as atheist atrocites. It is as if no true atheist could be responsible for mass murder .Atheism was an integral tenet of Maxist-Lennism/Maoist/Stalinism communism
B. Evolutionists who are atheists committing the no true Scottsman fallacy
Seun made this fallacy yesterday .
Evolutionists who are atheists often claim that there are no real scientists who disbelieve evolution. In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."
Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and agnostics .
C. Atheists claiming ex-atheists were never atheists
John W. Loftus, one of the more prominent atheists in the atheist community. The ex-atheist Darrin Raspberry used to write for the atheist John Loftus’ blog site Debunking Christianity. After Raspberry became a Christian Loftus said that Raspberry “was never an atheist in the first place.”
The popular Christian YouTube video creator Shockofgod is an ex-atheist who left atheism because it lacks proof and evidence that it is true, while Christianity offers an abundant amount of evidential support. His YouTube videos have cumulatively received over 25 million views since his YouTube channel's inception Shockofgod won over 70 Christianity vs. atheism debates. There are atheists who claim that Shockofgod was never an atheist .
6 . Atheism and post hoc fallacy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this " ) is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.
Atheists claim that due to the similarities of the bible stories and characters with myths of other religious books which supposedly predate the bible therefore bible stories must have been copied from those mythologies - this is a post hoc fallacy .
Atheists like ifeness and plaetton commit this fallacy a lot !
7.Atheism and appeal to ignorance
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false
Atheists say there is no God because there is no evidence . They say the proposition "There is no God " is true simply because there is lack of contrary evidence . This is a quintessential appeal to ignorance fallacy
8.Atheists and the appeal to emotion logical fallacy
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones or appeal to feels is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.
Many atheists use appeals to emotion/arguments when criticizing the Bible . Seun used this fallacyhere while criticizing the story of The Barbaric Execution Of Ananias And Sapphira in order to win his arguments . Excerpts :
According to Acts 4:32 - Acts 5:11, "there were no needy persons among [the Christians]. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." This was obviously not a sustainable way to do things because eventually, all the rich people in the church would have been reduced to poverty.
Anyway, "a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet" Now there's a lot to like about this couple. First, that they were willing to lose their property to help the needy in the church. Secondly, that they consulted with each other at every step of the way, and acted as one.
But this couple retained a sense of financial responsibility, so they decided to be keep some of the proceeds of the sale for themselves, to take care of their kids , etc. However, God (or someone who knew what happened), told Peter what they had done, and Peter shamed them before the church by revealing their secret. So they cried, repented, were forgiven, and brought the rest of the money to the apostles that evening.
Haha. Just kidding. Peter, the guy who denied Jesus three times and was forgiven, had them killed by the power of the Holy Spirit of God, who is love. First he killed Ananias, and somehow nobody told his wife about his death. Then he killed Sapphira for backing up her husband.
Imagine the sorrow of the parents who brought up Ananias and Sapphira and instilled in them the values that made them successful enough to own property and pious enough to embrace Christianity. Imagine the inconsolable wailing of their kids who would now have to rely on the charity of the same church that killed both of their parents, in order to survive. Consider the eternal burning in hell that awaited the couple
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones or appeal to feels is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.
Many atheists use appeals to emotion/arguments when criticizing the Bible . Seun used this fallacyhere while criticizing the story of The Barbaric Execution Of Ananias And Sapphira in order to win his arguments . Excerpts :
According to Acts 4:32 - Acts 5:11, "there were no needy persons among [the Christians]. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." This was obviously not a sustainable way to do things because eventually, all the rich people in the church would have been reduced to poverty.
Anyway, "a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet" Now there's a lot to like about this couple. First, that they were willing to lose their property to help the needy in the church. Secondly, that they consulted with each other at every step of the way, and acted as one.
But this couple retained a sense of financial responsibility, so they decided to be keep some of the proceeds of the sale for themselves, to take care of their kids , etc. However, God (or someone who knew what happened), told Peter what they had done, and Peter shamed them before the church by revealing their secret. So they cried, repented, were forgiven, and brought the rest of the money to the apostles that evening.
Haha. Just kidding. Peter, the guy who denied Jesus three times and was forgiven, had them killed by the power of the Holy Spirit of God, who is love. First he killed Ananias, and somehow nobody told his wife about his death. Then he killed Sapphira for backing up her husband.
Imagine the sorrow of the parents who brought up Ananias and Sapphira and instilled in them the values that made them successful enough to own property and pious enough to embrace Christianity. Imagine the inconsolable wailing of their kids who would now have to rely on the charity of the same church that killed both of their parents, in order to survive. Consider the eternal burning in hell that awaited the couple
9. Atheism, equivocation and the origin in the universe
Creationist scientists demonstrate that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.
The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) points out that the prominent atheist Lawrence Krauss uses the logical fallacy of equivocation in his failed attempt to explain the origin of the universe. See also: Atheism and logical fallacies
CARM declares:
“ But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, which has the subtitle Why there is something rather than nothing? Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”....
You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book he answers the question that Leibniz posed, but he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum....
Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as:
1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
2. no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
3. something that is nonexistent.
4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.
But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is Aristotle’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”
Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God but also doesn’t like God. Here is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”
The problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned.
All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth
10. Atheism and Kettle logic
Kettle logic (la logique du chaudron in the original French) is a rhetorical device wherein one uses multiple arguments to defend a point, but the arguments are inconsistent with each other.
Example
1.God does not exist
2.Evil does not exist
3.There is no such thing as good
4. God is evil , if he was good , he would not let man suffer
Creationist scientists demonstrate that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.
The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) points out that the prominent atheist Lawrence Krauss uses the logical fallacy of equivocation in his failed attempt to explain the origin of the universe. See also: Atheism and logical fallacies
CARM declares:
“ But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, which has the subtitle Why there is something rather than nothing? Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”....
You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book he answers the question that Leibniz posed, but he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum....
Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as:
1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
2. no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
3. something that is nonexistent.
4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.
But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is Aristotle’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”
Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God but also doesn’t like God. Here is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”
The problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned.
All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth
10. Atheism and Kettle logic
Kettle logic (la logique du chaudron in the original French) is a rhetorical device wherein one uses multiple arguments to defend a point, but the arguments are inconsistent with each other.
Example
1.God does not exist
2.Evil does not exist
3.There is no such thing as good
4. God is evil , if he was good , he would not let man suffer
No comments:
Post a Comment