Atheist-Christian Debates

10: Fallacious arguments

"The Beard/Some to all" Fallacy

Looking at a hair and generalizing about the beard. "Because the hair is white, the beard must also be white."

"All followers of Jesus have used Christianity to gain wealth and power."

Not so. The early disciples gave to the poor, not manipulating anyone for the sake of fame or wealth. They earned an honest living, never comprimising God's word. And just because a few Christians fail to be a good example and follow the humble and charitable example of Jesus doesn't mean that the entire religion is corrupt.

"Nativity scenes are historically/factually innaccurate, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the whole lot of Christianity is innaccurate!"

Actually, it's totally unreasonable. Just because the people who make nativity scenes are sometimes ignorant about little historical details doesn't mean that the bible or the religion itself is innaccurate or false. The only thing bad nativity scenes indicate is that people don't know how to make them. Yes, Jesus was born in a cave, not a barn, but that says nothing about the bible or Christianity - only volumes about the artists who made the nativity scenes.

"Is Billy Graham a good guy? Probably so, and in the future, his legacy will probably be favorable and glowingly report his good deeds and ministry. But what if he were discovered in bed with the proverbial `dead girl or live boy'? This has happened to other preachers, and everyone's opinion suddenly changed. From a paragon of virtue and example of moral rectitude to disgraced, defrocked, debauched sinner in an instant. Public opinion decides who is a Great Moral Teacher, not the person in question. Jesus could have been tending to the flock, in a very different manner indeed, but if what happens at night never sees the light of day, it doesn't exist, and everyone believes the preacher is a pure untainted example of virtue."

"Because some leaders get caught doing sinful deeds, that means all of them do, including Jesus." So, you're generalizing about the beard again. In addition to that, you're saying that "because we don't know Jesus had skeletons in his closet, it means he had some," then. That is hardly compelling. Unlike what it says in The DaVinci Code, the gospels don't embellish Christ's divinity. The gospel writers describe him eating, sleeping, living and dying, just like everyone else.

Vague

"Indeed, God seems to take a real interest only after one's soul is at his sufferance."

I fail to understand what this entails, but I'll take a stab at it.

• God doesn't torture people. He may destroy evil people, but he doesn't torture them. See the afterlife section.
• This is an argument based on no evidence, even of the scriptural kind. "God isn't interested in us because He isn't."
• God always has a real interest in our souls. He always wants what's best for us.
• God wants us to be His servants. He may help us more when we do our job, but that doesn't mean He's not interested in us at other times.
• God doesn't create evil. See the problem of evil section.

Ad Ignorantum

An appeal to ignorance. "Because we don't know it, it must be like this!"

"I don't put much `faith' in prophesy in the past. It is too easy to doctor records (or just re-interpret them) to make it come out right. It is also easy to hide books that don't conform to church dogma at the time."

Another fallacy. "Because we don't know if the records have been doctored, they must have been!"

"`God did it' is not a satisfactory answer. For example: `I don't know how gravity works. Welll, it must be that God has put little angels to work holding everything down. Yep - that's it!'"

Ad ignorantum. "Because we don't know how such - and - such works, God must not be involved in the equation!" `God didn't do it' is no more satisfactory than your premise. How does automatically dismissing God and all religious issues solve anything?

"The events and stories of the bible are poorly remembered."

And how do you know they're poorly remembered? Do you know something I don't? Basically, you are arguing that, "because we don't know everything about what happened back then, the bible events must be poorly remembered."

"OK, what if the afterlife is real? It must be so extremely strange (non detectable, survives death, is intelligent, can communicate - even live with - beings outside our experience, detection, or comprehension), that there is NO WAY anything we think we `know' about it will be correct. So why worry about it? What will be, will be."

"Because I don't know, it must be nothing to worry about." You haven't given this much thought. Even a bad preparation for the afterlife is better than none, as you're proposing.

"The events and stories of the bible are misinterpreted."

In other words, "they are misinterpreted because they are." Nothing substantial to this argument, either. Maybe it's a misinterpretation?

"How much evidence of the resurrection remains to be found after all this time? It means nothing."

Lots of opinion, little substance.

"If science cannot prove it, we cannot determine the reality of the soul - or its natural realm, the spirit world. Therefore, as both the Serenity Prayer and the Deteriorata advise when facing the impossible: Give Up."

• "Because we don't know, it must be false!" That's a lousy excuse.
• Your lack of knowledge about the serenity prayer is obvious. The Serenity Prayer is a prayer. Prayers are intended for God. The prayer, then, is supposed to be directed at giving up - to God, not giving up on God!
• The Deteriorata is a joke, and yet you take it as gospel, you take their word on it, even though there's no evidence to support it, even logically. It's just a bunch of jokes and adages.

So, because you don't know, you say it must be true, eh?

"Despite centuries of trying, no one has proven the `spirit world' is `real' in the physical sense-"

Despite centuries of trying, no one has proven the `spirit world' is `fake' in the physical sense, either. A human mind can't imagine a God who can structure the whole universe and still be able to care about the ant crawling around a Coke can. But even though we don't comprehend any human being doing anything similar(knowing the names and personal details of a billion people, etc), it doesn't mean that He can't do that.

"Jesus isn't perfect. I'm sure everyone has done things that are either illegal, immoral or fattening, but most leaves no evidence to be found, regardless of the centuries, or amount of scrutiny after the principals are dead."

In other words, "because we don't know if Jesus had skeletons in his closet, he had them." Sure, just because we don't know if Jesus had some dark secret, he has to have one. Right. Whatever. "Fattening?" Why is that so bad? I have no clue as to how this relates to your argument. What? You mean like a fat man hiding candy wrappers? I'm confused. Fat Christians are no more or less sinful than those who are skinny as a rail. This particular point does not compute. "After the principals are dead." I don't fathom this point, either. Are you referring to the detective, or the victim's death? You can really get away with very little without leaving some kind of evidence. Blood, DNA, hair, fingernail scrapings, fingerprints, shoe prints, fiber evidence...if you have the right tools, you can find lots of evidence. You probably meant to say that a lot of people in ancient Jerusalem did a lot of stuff that was illegal or immoral and got away with it. "Because the science wasn't that good." But, if I'm not mistaken, in that day and age you were guilty until proven innocent. So if you're assumed to be a child molester, you'd promptly be stoned to death anyway. So, what you're saying is that Jesus committed great sins, but people covered them up. You're saying that, the man whom we've applauded as being the most perfect human being for centuries, has some skeletons in his closet. If that's so, then my faith is a lie, because I believe only a perfect man's death can end the need for ritual sacrifice, sacrifice which you think is cruel and horribly unfair. You're also saying that the bible is wrong, because the bible says that a high priest offers sacrifices to pay for his own sin, and never offers his own life for atonement because he himself is sinful. If Jesus is just a regular(sinful) high priest, then, in non-messianic Jewish terms, Jesus was not a good moral teacher. As it stands, the priests in Jesus' time crucified Jesus for blasphemy, a sin. If Jesus is not the son of God, then he's guilty of blasphemy, and not a good moral teacher according to Jewish standards. The public had centuries to dig up dirt on Jesus. The priests of Jesus' time searched long and hard for Jesus' imperfections. They wanted the tiniest thing to condemn him for not being a good moral teacher. The priesthood represented the public opinion at that time. The public, if they had found dirt on Jesus, would have rubbed it in Jesus' face. That's why they said "hosanna" to him on one day and crucified him the next. He disappointed the public, who wanted him to oust the romans. The roman public also had a low opinion of Jesus. If they could have found dirt on him, they also would have brought it to the fore.

"There's not enough evidence for the afterlife, so it's nothing to worry about."

There's not enough evidence for the non-existence of the afterlife. And just because you don't know what's in the afterlife doesn't mean it won't eventually affect you. It is illogical not to choose some kind of preparation for the afterlife, just in case it exists.

"Imposing God on an unknown just creates another unknown. It accomplishes nothing. We don't know how the world got created. Saying `God did it' adds only complexity - not answers."

Imposing atheistic theories on an unknown just creates another unknown. It accomplishes nothing. We know who created the world and why. That's enough. Saying `God didn't do it' adds only complexity - not answers.

"You can't prove the bible is true, so it is false."

You can't disprove the bible, and there is much circumstantial archeological evidence that seems to support it, so you can't totally make that assertion.

This is similar to your arguments about `reality.' One can argue it either way. If there is no difference between luck and miracles, there is no need for the idea of Nogod...or the idea of chance and luck!

"Because astrology, creationism, numerology, and phrenology don't stand up to testing by experiment and challenge by critical rational thought, W. and W. contend that these fields are pseudoscience. Scrutinizing 5 common pseudoscience ideas, the authors reveal fatal flaws in each and suggest how readers can avoid succumbing to such fantastic notions..."

I wouldn't have bothered with this one, except that creationism is involved in the argument. The following are fallacies in this argument:

• "Because they don't stand up to testing by experiment, therefore..." A circular argument based on a dubious premisse. First, we have to establish that creationism indeed does not stand up to testing by experiment. As far as I know, no one has ever disproven creationism.
• "Because they don't stand up to challenge by critical rational thought, therefore..." Another dubious premisse the agnostic tries to use to support his argument. As it stands, my faith has stood up to plenty critical thought over the last several months, and I've found that a lot of these atheistic arguments don't stand up to challenge by critical rational thought, either.
• "Fatal flaws." As if they are truly fatal. I don't have the book with me, but I am certain that even W and W cannot truly disprove the existence of God.
• "Avoid succombing to such fantastic notions." Heavy bias, little substance.

"Because there are differing viewpoints, it means it's not true." Gee, that's logical. The circularity of this argument is obvious in the "because it is" portion.

"If God exists, why all this present worldly rigamarole and misery where we have to do it all by ourselves?"

You have no basis to argue that you have to do everything yourself. I believe we get help from God, that we can do all things through Christ."

"If the soul is not affected by what happens to the brain or body, than Wallah - it isn't responsible for consciousness - the brain is!"

Another astounding leap in illogic. Your conclusion is a large jump from your first premisse.

"I still consider trying to understand things to be the finest use of the mind, but for that to be possible, the `things' have to exist. God doesn't."

Ad hoc procter hoc. To understand everything about God would require the mind of God. The bible indicates that we can't possibly understand everything about an infinite God and his ways. Isaiah 55:8-9, Romans 11:33, 1 Corinthians 13:12. Absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of absence.

"Physical reality is the only thing that matters because it is the only one that can be impartially measured - and that impartiality of time, material, and method"

Could you be any more vague? While claiming impartiality, you are being partial to a belief in the non - existence of God. And if what you say is true, you also should dismiss quantum physics, string theory and other esoteric pseudosciences because they don't deal with the physical world in any tangible sense.

"In all of the history of Man, and all of the millions who dedicated their lives to searching for positive proof, if God were real, the matter would no longer be in dispute. For this logical reason, I assume you mean a `personal god'- a comforting fiction, for those who need one."

God is not a mere `personal' or even `impersonal thing.' He is not a `comforting fiction.' Funny you use the phrase `logic' when your statement isn't. By saying "for this logical reason..." you are suggesting that my statement should mean something other than what I intended, due to a premise which I do not accept. You presuppose God's nonexistence in order to argue that the meaning of my statement should reflect God's nonexistence. A because A. Of course, your argument could possibly make more sense if you merely omitted the `for this logical reason.' Actually, maybe not. It also suffers from ad ignorantum. "Because I don't know, it must be false!"

"(the physical sense is) the only sense that matters"

1. Unless this has something to do with an argument about something in terms of a `spiritual' and `physical sense,' this argument would be solipsism. "The only things that exist are what I personally experience with my senses."
2. If you meant `physical reality is the only thing that matters,' There's a difference between opinion and fact. Your statement shows an emotional bias against anything spiritual without evidence of its nonexistence. You are, in effect, adhering to a faith, a faith of atheism. It is just as logical as believing in God. Who are you to judge the importance or non-importance of spiritual things? If I ever said that physical reality didn't matter, I take it back. I have no authority to judge the physical nor the spiritual, and you don't either.

"Did the crucifixion do anything more than establish a myth that continues to change some attitudes (hopefully for the better) - like prove God exists? No."

Jesus' death didn't disprove God's existence, either. But his ressurrection was a big hint. Besides, proving God's existence wouldn't make the world any better. If all other things you said about the problem of evil are true, it wouldn't make any difference. You'd still be arguing for God's nonexistence. And we wouldn't be able to relate to Jesus if he were too godlike, even if he could `prove' himself like you want him to. We would dismiss what he told us to do as impossible because he'd be doing things humans couldn't do, like flying or making fire rain from the sky or something. If Jesus just came to prove God's existence, it would be nothing more than a magic show, and it would be over, and we'd just go back to our old, evil, sinful lives. Instead of doing that, God took on our frailties and made himself appear as an ordinary, `undivine' human being, so we could see exactly how to obey God, and do it. Cf. Your God is Too Small by J.B. Phillips. The task Jesus fulfilled is much more useful. He made things right between us and God and taught us how to treat people better. So, I say, "Did the crucifixion do anything more than establish a myth that continues to change some attitudes (hopefully for the better) - like prove God exists? Yes." Of course, I know how pointless it is to argue with someone who is so strongly opinionated. They will more than likely respond with something like, "If Jesus proved God's existence (the atheist never explains what exact `proving' would be required, I might add), there would be no more religious wars, because we'd all know who the real God is, and that there is a God." Well, the Israelites had plenty of evidence for God's existence, but what good did it do them? A lot of them still made idols and rebelled against God. So God `proving' himself, whatever that means, wouldn't help in the slightest. God manifested his glory in Jesus, so, He showed himself, though not to subject himself to scientific study or to do mere magic tricks.

"OK, I'll confess. I am a real genuine talking rabbit! Redefining reality will even let you `prove' it. (Or anything)."

From my perspective, it is you who is trying to redefine reality. What you say seems logical until you realize that your argument is based on the point you are trying to prove. You are assuming that reality has the definition you ascribe to it, without anything to support that argument. You are arguing that your interpretation of reality is true "because it is," and therefore mine is "wrong," and the only thing you can say to support that argument is the idea that somehow `everything illogical and improbable must be true' merely because I say something you consider `illogical and untrue' is true.

"If the spirit world is `reality', our `inability' to perceive it means that having a soul conveys no benefit in detecting the truth."

You are assuming that which you are trying to prove. You are assuming that the only benefits and truth one can get are physical. You are assuming that `if science can't detect it, it has no value.' The above statement implicitly assumes that the physical world is the only truth in order to argue that the physical world is the only truth. So, I can say in response: "If the physical world is `reality', our `ability' to perceive it means that not having a soul conveys no benefit in detecting the truth." Your conclusion is groundless, unsupported by any useful premise. All your statement expresses is your own personal bias. What if reality is half physical and half spiritual? 50-50?

"Religion is too complex and dangerous to be the best choice to provide the desired `get thru life' psychic service."

Atheism and agnosticism is too complex and dangerous to be the best choice to provide the desired `get thru life' psychic service.

"Lack of evidence means that we don't have to make a decision about the afterlife."

That in itself is a decision about the afterlife. You cannot not make a decision about it.

"I don't believe the stories about the afterlife because people say that they have to be believed only because they say so."

Your argument is no less circular than the thing you're trying to disprove. By arguing that the bible's authority comes from human beings who "say the bible is true only because they say so," you're assuming that God doesn't exist in order to `prove' that the bible is false. Actually, we should believe because God said so. The universe was formed because God said so. He spoke and it formed out of nothing. In his immense power, all he needed were words, not evidence or materials, to form the universe. The only objection you can logically propose against this is "this is not true, because I say so." So you are being a hypocrite. The only defense against this circularity is your own circularity.

"All my arguments using positions implying God is a Fink, have been of the If-Then logical sort intended to show that because of the impossibilities or cruelties, God does not exist- because if He did, these rotten things would not happen!"

In other words, "God-is-a-cruel-fink-because-he's-a-cruel-fink." "God's-existence-implies-absence-of-rotten-things-because-God's-existence-implies-absence-of-rotten-things!" "Evil implies God's nonexistence because it does." "Because God doesn't exist, evil exists because God doesn't exist." "I don't know what love is, but God isn't loving."

"I'm darned glad there is no irrefutable evidence that gods and afterlives exist."

In other words, "Out of sight, out of mind." Personally, I'm darned glad there is no irrefutable evidence that gods and afterlives don't exist.

"In all of the history of man, and all of the millions who dedicated their lives to searching for positive proof, if God were real, the matter would no longer be in dispute."

1. God would be catering to the whim of the unbeliever to stoop to the level of proving himself to him or her. God has no need to prove himself to anyone. He would also be catering to Satan, because Satan asked Jesus to prove his divinity, and Jesus refused. "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."
2. In order to make this assertion (God doesn't exist because people debate whether he exists), you have to presuppose God's nonexistence. What I mean is, if God exists, it doesn't automatically mean that there would be no dispute over his existence. In fact, life could possibly be exactly the same as it is now.
3. Part of the dispute comes from the failings of human beings. It's impossible to see God when you're blinded by greed or lust or anger. Substance abusers can't see God because their drugs blind them. Matthew 5:8.
4. While you argue, "I dont see see any (proof) despite thousands of years of searching. No gods or wizards, no levitation, shape-shifting, or magic," there's been at least a million people who have seen proof of God. Moses and the Israelites in the desert, the mass of people who witnessed the miracles of Christ, including the resurrection, and the people who have witnessed the presence of God today. The secret is Matthew 5:8.
5. God clearly indicated, in the bible, that nothing is to be added or taken away from his word. If God manifested himself and spoke to people in the scary and awe inspiring fashion he did in the Old Testament, he would merely be repeating himself, because there are no new revelations. Everything he would say would be consistent with what he already said in the bible. This is the Christian view on the matter. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved. Follow the commandments. But Jesus will return from heaven to earth soon. This will be a clearer manifestation of God, and while it won't be a new revelation, it will be a new event on the earth. It won't be an obcure little event. Everyone will know about it, and this event will result in the end of the dispute about God's existence.