Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
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."
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
Posts: 15755
Threads: 194
Joined: May 15, 2009
Reputation:
145
RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 7, 2011 at 9:18 pm
(This post was last modified: July 7, 2011 at 9:19 pm by Violet.)
(July 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Appeals to solipsism when confronted with irrefutable counters to their argument.
"Well, we can't really "know" anything." (except what they know about god..apparently)
Do not mention solipsism in a thread on this forum. They should all be hung for their faithlessness and their ego.
(July 7, 2011 at 5:13 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: 2. Example Z, who is a member of group why doesn't have the X characteristic.
Why --> Y
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Posts: 7388
Threads: 168
Joined: February 25, 2009
Reputation:
45
RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 8, 2011 at 4:10 am
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2011 at 4:11 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
(July 7, 2011 at 1:59 pm)searchingforanswers Wrote: good thread. while i have nothing to contribute i like how you explained it easily with apologetic examples. looking forward to reading more My favourite is "God of the gaps" aka 'argument from incredulity' and 'argument from lack of imagination", a form of argument from ignorance.
What the persons is actually saying is; "I'm too ignorant, too unimaginative or too stupid to think of anything else ,therefore God did it".This is the most common argument used to claim a miracle.
Re miraculous cures.
Ask the believer: "Why does God hate amputees? He's never regrown an amputated limb"
LOURDES
Since 1858,when Bernadette Soubirous saw her lady,over 200 MILLION people have visited Lourdes .The Catholic Church has recognised a total of----67 cures.
In general medicine, the rate of spontaneous remission is accepted as 1:30,000 (conservatively) that equals 3.3 per 100,000 ,33 per million which is 660 in 200 million. I think that's right. Makes 67 look pretty pissy and makes God look really, really mean.
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 9, 2011 at 10:16 am
Can anyone identify this fallacy for me:
Christian apologists sometimes use "fulfillment of prophecy" as proof that the Bible is true. Muslims and Christians will sometimes cite verses of their own respective scriptures to assert "scientific knowledge". The problems with a lot of these claims are varied but sometimes it's the case that they've taken some poetic or vaguely worded passage and interpreted it in such a way as to retrofit it to what we know now to be true.
People who believe in horoscopes or the prophecies of Nostradamus often use the same fallacious reasoning. They look back on past events and retroactively interpret the passages in order to make them fit.
Once I tested this line of thinking by an experiment. I imagined that I believed my Dilbert monthly calender would predict the events of the coming month but the joke that was featured that month. Sure enough, I could always look back on the previous month and selectively find some event that vaguely fit the joke if I interpreted the joke in the right way. The conclusion was that you could make anything seem "prophetic" if you look back at past events with sufficient bias.
This line of thinking is clearly fallacious but I don't know what it's called.
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
Posts: 12231
Threads: 324
Joined: April 14, 2011
Reputation:
140
RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 9, 2011 at 10:19 am
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2011 at 10:25 am by Napoléon.)
(July 9, 2011 at 10:16 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Can anyone identify this fallacy for me:
Texas sharpshooter fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
Quote:The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning.
Posts: 312
Threads: 18
Joined: May 30, 2011
Reputation:
12
RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 9, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Quote:Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation not causation): X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y
Wikipedia
Quote:Regression fallacy: ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Wikipedia
Frequently called the 'first cause' argument.
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
Einstein
When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down happy. They told me I didn't understand the assignment. I told them they didn't understand life.
- John Lennon
Posts: 12231
Threads: 324
Joined: April 14, 2011
Reputation:
140
RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Texas sharpshooter sounds better.
Posts: 97
Threads: 8
Joined: May 22, 2011
Reputation:
4
RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 9, 2011 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2011 at 4:54 pm by bbrettle.)
thanks alot this is a great thread
"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss." -Cypher (the matrix)
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 9, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Confirmation bias?
Posts: 18503
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: Common Apologist Fallacies
July 9, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Some apologetic arguments have more than just one fallacy, but yeah, I think its Post hoc ergo propter hoc, twisting the vague babble passage and putting a cause, substituting correlation with causation.
|
![[Image: bloodyheretic.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img849.imageshack.us%2Fimg849%2F8673%2Fbloodyheretic.png)
