This is a "professional" argument but so jaw-droppingly... I was about to say "stupid" but that's not the right word.
Arguments like "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" or "People don't die for a lie?" are examples of stupid arguments, the first being born of ignorance of science and the latter of a willingness to accept folklore as history. These "arguments" merit a face palm but at least they're coherent enough to earn one.
Even "tide comes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication" rises to the level of stupid, demonstrating both ignorance of science and the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
The worst argument I've ever heard is the "presuppositionalist" argument. I think "inscrutable" is a better word to use here. It's so incoherent that there isn't anything to examine. Best as I can tell, the "argument" goes something like this:
1. Without God, we can't know anything.
2. By "God" we of course mean "Jesus".
3. You admit you don't know everything.
4. Since you don't know everything, how can you be sure of anything?
5. I don't have that problem because I can say God(Verb)It.
6. GodDidIt, GodWillsIt, GodIsIt, GodDoesIt, GodYattaYattaIt, etc. There, everything in the universe has been explained.
7. You don't know everything, therefore Jesus.
The reaction is best summed up by "Diana Trent" in "Waiting For God":
"Jane, did I black out for 15 minutes while you explained your logic?"
Arguments like "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" or "People don't die for a lie?" are examples of stupid arguments, the first being born of ignorance of science and the latter of a willingness to accept folklore as history. These "arguments" merit a face palm but at least they're coherent enough to earn one.
Even "tide comes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication" rises to the level of stupid, demonstrating both ignorance of science and the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
The worst argument I've ever heard is the "presuppositionalist" argument. I think "inscrutable" is a better word to use here. It's so incoherent that there isn't anything to examine. Best as I can tell, the "argument" goes something like this:
1. Without God, we can't know anything.
2. By "God" we of course mean "Jesus".
3. You admit you don't know everything.
4. Since you don't know everything, how can you be sure of anything?
5. I don't have that problem because I can say God(Verb)It.
6. GodDidIt, GodWillsIt, GodIsIt, GodDoesIt, GodYattaYattaIt, etc. There, everything in the universe has been explained.
7. You don't know everything, therefore Jesus.
The reaction is best summed up by "Diana Trent" in "Waiting For God":
"Jane, did I black out for 15 minutes while you explained your logic?"
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
