Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?
April 10, 2014 at 5:31 pm (This post was last modified: April 10, 2014 at 5:32 pm by DeistPaladin.)
Special Pleading: Asking for a lower standard of evidence for your favorite beliefs than you would apply to anyone else's.
"Those other gods are fake but Jesus is real."
"The Bible says [belief goes here] so it's true. I don't care what the Koran says."
"All those people who died in modern cults are crazy. The early Christians who died for their beliefs proves that Jesus rose from the dead."
Ad Hoc Hypothesis: Spuriously dismissing all contrary evidence by inventing new assertions, often pulled out of one's butt, that the skeptic must now disprove. The object is to wear down the skeptic and eventually force him/her to prove a negative.
Skeptic: Herod died in 4 BCE. Qurinius didn't start his administration until 6 CE. Matt says Jesus was born before Herod died while Luke says Jesus was born during the administration of Quirinius. Christian: Well, maybe Quirinius had an earlier administration in Syria. Skeptic: But Rome never allowed that, lest a governor get too much support from one province. Christian: Well, maybe they made an exception for Quirinius. Skeptic: But Judea was another kingdom under Herod, Rome wouldn't have conducted a census there. Christian: Well, maybe they did anyway and Herod complied. Skeptic: OK, I looked up the information on Quirinius and it says he was governor of another province in modern day Turkey at the time. Christian: Well, maybe he was brought in to administer the census in Syria. And maybe Luke meant "administrator", not "governor". Skeptic: What do you base that on? Christian: It coulda happened. Skeptic: OK, the census prior to 4 BC was in 8/9 BCE. Jesus would have been too old to be "about 30" when John the Baptist was arrested. JtB didn't even start his ministry until 28 CE according to Luke. Christian: Well, maybe Luke meant 37 when he said "about 30". Skeptic: What? That's ridiculous. Christian: Can you prove Luke wouldn't think 37 was "about 30". Skeptic: No one does! Christian: Have you polled everyone on the planet about that? Skeptic: OK, even if that is true, Jesus would have been 37 when JtB started his ministry, not when he finished it. Christian: Well, maybe JtB only had a ministry for a year. Skeptic: Gah! His hugely successful ministry was built in one year? Christian: It coulda happened. Skeptic: Look, John the Baptist was arrested for speaking out against Herod Antipas' marriage to Herodius. We know this marriage and divorce of Antipas' previous wife triggered a war with his neighbor and that battle happened in 37 CE. Why would king Aratas IV wait 10 years before attacking Judea? Christian: It coulda happened.
[...]
The fallacy continues until the Christian "wins" when the skeptic gets frustrated and goes home.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
RE: Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?
April 10, 2014 at 5:38 pm
I saw one today where someone claimed that modern science is incorrect because scientists are sinners so can't possibly be right, and that events in the bible (like Noah's flood) take precedent over everything else and so all science is invalid.
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. - J.R.R Tolkien
RE: Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?
April 10, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Projection: Accusing your opponent of having the very faults you in fact have.
Christians sometimes claim that skepticism is an agenda. When we read the Bible and its horrors of genocide, slavery and rape by Yahweh's orders, it's because we're trying to validate our predisposition against Christianity. However, when they come up with completely obtuse interpretations, like Moses ordered his men to "keep the virgin girls for themselves" it was to use them as maidservants, not sex slaves.
See also the Christian charge that we have a bias against believing in miracles and the supernatural.
Reality: Skepticism is not an agenda. It's the application of critical thought to unproven claims. Further, it's the same approach they take to religions not their own. See also "special pleading".
Bare Assertion Fallacy: Just asserting something to be true and then going from there as if the assertion alone was enough.
Example: William Lane Craig's "Moral Proof" of (his) god.
Step 1: Without God, objective morals can't exist. (assertion)
Step 2: Objective morals exist. (assertion)
Step 3: Therefore, God exists (fallacious conclusion based upon bare assertions).
Step 4: (unspoken) ...and of course, by "God", I mean "Jesus" but that goes without even saying. (bare assertion, invalid assumption)
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
RE: Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?
April 10, 2014 at 5:56 pm
(April 10, 2014 at 5:31 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Ad Hoc Hypothesis: Spuriously dismissing all contrary evidence by inventing new assertions, often pulled out of one's butt, that the skeptic must now disprove. The object is to wear down the skeptic and eventually force him/her to prove a negative.
Skeptic: Herod died in 4 BCE. Qurinius didn't start his administration until 6 CE. Matt says Jesus was born before Herod died while Luke says Jesus was born during the administration of Quirinius. Christian: Well, maybe Quirinius had an earlier administration in Syria. Skeptic: But Rome never allowed that, lest a governor get too much support from one province. Christian: Well, maybe they made an exception for Quirinius. Skeptic: But Judea was another kingdom under Herod, Rome wouldn't have conducted a census there. Christian: Well, maybe they did anyway and Herod complied. Skeptic: OK, I looked up the information on Quirinius and it says he was governor of another province in modern day Turkey at the time. Christian: Well, maybe he was brought in to administer the census in Syria. And maybe Luke meant "administrator", not "governor". Skeptic: What do you base that on? Christian: It coulda happened. Skeptic: OK, the census prior to 4 BC was in 8/9 BCE. Jesus would have been too old to be "about 30" when John the Baptist was arrested. JtB didn't even start his ministry until 28 CE according to Luke. Christian: Well, maybe Luke meant 37 when he said "about 30". Skeptic: What? That's ridiculous. Christian: Can you prove Luke wouldn't think 37 was "about 30". Skeptic: No one does! Christian: Have you polled everyone on the planet about that? Skeptic: OK, even if that is true, Jesus would have been 37 when JtB started his ministry, not when he finished it. Christian: Well, maybe JtB only had a ministry for a year. Skeptic: Gah! His hugely successful ministry was built in one year? Christian: It coulda happened. Skeptic: Look, John the Baptist was arrested for speaking out against Herod Antipas' marriage to Herodius. We know this marriage and divorce of Antipas' previous wife triggered a war with his neighbor and that battle happened in 37 CE. Why would king Aratas IV wait 10 years before attacking Judea? Christian: It coulda happened.
[...]
The fallacy continues until the Christian "wins" when the skeptic gets frustrated and goes home.
I consider this behaviour in the religion memeplex to be homologous to that of mutation in the gene pool. It is essentially random and generally neutral to detrimental to the organism. But when they find an argument which sort of works reliably, it propagates through the system until that argument is fixed and becomes dogma. "There are no transitional forms." would be one such which has outlived its usefulness as generally even the densest religiots have a vague recognition that more transitional forms have been discovered than can be conveniently ignored. Use of such an argument can continue in the really dim ones as sort of a vestigial phenotype.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
RE: Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?
April 10, 2014 at 7:47 pm (This post was last modified: April 10, 2014 at 7:48 pm by Faith No More.)
Not so much a fallacy, but I hate it when you're whittling down their various claims by asking how they know them to be true and they resort to attacking the very axioms we use to survive every day life, i.e. natural laws are consistent, in order to obfuscate the whole argument into an obscure, deeply philosophical discussion and show that much of the very knowledge we have is resting upon shaky foundations. Then they go, "See! We don't really know anything, so I can just assert that my arguments are valid without actually justifying them. And furthermore, just inserting the unfalsifiable solution of god into the equation solves all of those pesky philosophical questions that you non-believers still have to struggle with."
ETA: 9,000, bitches!
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
RE: Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?
April 11, 2014 at 9:35 am
(April 10, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Not so much a fallacy... Then they go, "See! We don't really know anything, so I can just assert that my arguments are valid without actually justifying them. And furthermore, just inserting the unfalsifiable solution of god into the equation solves all of those pesky philosophical questions that you non-believers still have to struggle with."
Presuppositionalism hits not just one fallacy but just about every one.
Non-Sequitur Fallacy: translated to mean "it doesn't follow", this fallacy is where the conclusion has little or nothing to do with the evidence or reasoning offered. In this case how does the apologist get from "you don't know everything" to "therefore, Jesus"?
Bare Assertion Fallacy: Where no evidence is offered and the mere assertion is used to prove the assertion true. In this case, the presup apologist argues various assertions like "knowledge/morality comes from (Yahweh)" and "without (Yahweh), you can't know anything". As Stimbo would say, "citation needed".
Poisoning The Well Fallacy: This is where you try to destroy the credibility of the speaker rather than the argument itself. It's a variation on the Ad Hominem.
This is a popular fallacy for the breed of apologist I like to call "The Pompous Apologist" where, rather than defend his/her religious assertions (because they know they can't), this apologist does on the offensive and finds the weakest link in your chain of arguments and harps on it over and over again. No matter how much that one point may have been beside your main point, no matter how well your argument works even with that weak point discarded, and even if you retract that specific point, they will continue to harp on it repeatedly, implying that the rest of your argument must be flawed.
An example of this fallacy is "Issac Newton believed in alchemy. How crazy is that? Therefore, since he was such a crackpot, his discoveries in the laws of physics must be wrong."
"See, you don't know everything" is another example of poisoning the well.
The Argument from Incredulity Fallacy: Asserting that you can't comprehend how something would work and therefore it doesn't for that reason alone. In this case, "I can't imagine how the laws of logic would work without Yahweh".
The Special Pleading Fallacy: Asking for a lower standard of evidence for your favorite beliefs. In this case, why can't the presup argument be used for Allah, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
The Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: Filling in the blanks of our knowledge with your favorite god or whatever you want to invent. In this case, "we don't know what keeps the universe consistent so JesusDoesIt."
The GodVerbIt Fallacy: OK, this isn't an official fallacy but it should be. Saying "GodVerbIt" whether GodDidIt, GodWillsIt, GodIsIt, etc. doesn't answer anything so just because you can say "GodDidIt" doesn't mean you have an advantage.
Circular Reasoning Fallacy: Where the conclusion is the evidence offered to support the conclusion. In this case, the bare assertion "Yahweh accounts for reason" is supporting the conclusion "that's how we can reason Yahweh exists."
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque: This is translated as the "you too" fallacy, better known to every parent as "c'mon mom/dad, everyone does it". This is where you justify wrongdoing or irrationality on the basis that others do it as well. In this case "everyone has unfounded presuppositions and so does science so my presupposition that Yahweh exists is justified."
Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy: Where the burden of proof is moved to the skeptic instead of the believer, in this case "the skeptic can't account for...". As a skeptic, I don't HAVE to account for why the universe works the way it does, how it was created, where morals come from, etc. and my admission that "I don't know" is not license for the believer to go Argument from Ignorance and say "therefore Jesus".
False Equivalency Fallacy: Where one thing is asserted to be the same or comparable to another without justification. In this case, "you have faith in science and reason which is no different from my faith in the Bible".
Confusion of What Circular Reasoning Means: Claiming that reason is used to prove reason is "circular reasoning" which is a gross oversimplification of the process by which we choose skepticism and science over superstition. I can go into why skepticism is preferable to superstition and how it is not circular to reason this but that's a bit more involved and this post is already long enough.
There may be more fallacies this argument hits but that's enough for now.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
RE: Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?
April 11, 2014 at 9:38 am
(April 10, 2014 at 8:00 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: I sometimes chalk that up to an Argument from Ignorance depending on how they word it.
"I just don't see how my personal experience couldn't have been god talking to me"
Technically, I think that's Argument from Incredulity.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
