RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 7, 2011 at 5:13 pm
(This post was last modified: July 7, 2011 at 5:27 pm by DeistPaladin.)
Assumption that Correlation proves Causation
X is assumed to be the cause of a correlation between two events. It may be related or they may share a similar cause or the correlation may be coincidental.
Non-religious example:
"Ice cream sales and rates of violent crime are correlated. Therefore, eating ice cream leads to violent crime."
(in reality, both go up in the summertime, so they share the same cause but one doesn't lead to the other)
Religious example:
"After Protestant Christianity took hold, the Age of Enlightenment followed. Therefore, Christianity brings enlightenment, democracy and the advancement of science."
(in reality, the breaking of Catholic authority also broke their stranglehold on the minds of humanity. The Protestants proved just as anti-intellectual and abusive, but the diffusion of Christian power helped make the enlightenment possible).
No True Scotsman
This fallacy is used to protect a sweeping and universal generalization about a given group. Here's how it works:
1. X is said about group Y
2. Example Z, who is a member of group Y doesn't have the X characteristic.
3. Example Z is dismissed as not being a true member of group Y
Example:
"Christians are loving people."
"How about the burning of witches, tortures during the inquisition, Fred Phelps, etc."
"Oh, those aren't True Christians."
Another example:
"Atheists are people who've never tried to have a relationship with Jesus"
"Most atheists I know are ex-Christians."
"Oh, well obviously they weren't True Christians then."
X is assumed to be the cause of a correlation between two events. It may be related or they may share a similar cause or the correlation may be coincidental.
Non-religious example:
"Ice cream sales and rates of violent crime are correlated. Therefore, eating ice cream leads to violent crime."
(in reality, both go up in the summertime, so they share the same cause but one doesn't lead to the other)
Religious example:
"After Protestant Christianity took hold, the Age of Enlightenment followed. Therefore, Christianity brings enlightenment, democracy and the advancement of science."
(in reality, the breaking of Catholic authority also broke their stranglehold on the minds of humanity. The Protestants proved just as anti-intellectual and abusive, but the diffusion of Christian power helped make the enlightenment possible).
No True Scotsman
This fallacy is used to protect a sweeping and universal generalization about a given group. Here's how it works:
1. X is said about group Y
2. Example Z, who is a member of group Y doesn't have the X characteristic.
3. Example Z is dismissed as not being a true member of group Y
Example:
"Christians are loving people."
"How about the burning of witches, tortures during the inquisition, Fred Phelps, etc."
"Oh, those aren't True Christians."
Another example:
"Atheists are people who've never tried to have a relationship with Jesus"
"Most atheists I know are ex-Christians."
"Oh, well obviously they weren't True Christians then."
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
"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
