List of common fallacies of Atheists

[tonyrey]

tonyrey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif God! Would you play Russian roulette?

over-simplistic analogy.

I take it that you refuse to play!

To be honest I don’t come down hard either way, but I have heard and read a decent amount of material on ID and opposing theories (namely randomness). IMO randomness sounds far more plausible.

In practice you rely on your intelligence rather than randomness - as we have just witnessed…

Did something come before the elements that combined to form the singularity? Who knows, and for now I lack the capacity to answer that question (and I’m not nearly convinced classical metaphysics provides a sufficient answer either).

It is most singular that for all the achievements of science human beings are incapable of explaining the singularity! Is it self-explanatory? There is no reason to suppose that it is. So the most reasonable explanation is that there is an unknown cause…

Wasn’t it Voltaire who said, if there is no god man would have to invent one anyway (or words to that effect)?

Napoleon.

I’m not sure if I necessarily agree with that; but obviously the certitude of religion makes life more simple to grasp and live for most people.

If you look at the way most people live in our secular society they are preoccupied by the things of this life and not with religion. Churches exist mainly for christenings, weddings and funerals with a perfunctory visit for some on Sundays. Their thoughts rarely turn to religious matters. Death is an unpleasant topic (to be avoided in polite society) and an afterlife is an unnecessary complication… It is far simpler to grasp, and deal with, material reality.

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     
                Do you believe physical energy is the sole type of energy? Of course you do. But how can you possibly **know**?

Do you believe economical money is the sole type of money? Of course you do. But how can you possibly know?

I fail to see how the nature of money is related to the nature of reality.

Energy is a very defined physical term, as is money a very well defined economical term.

“physical” is the key word. That is the very issue at stake which cannot be decided by the simple (in more senses than one) statement:

"There are no other “types”.

Distinction between different sorts of energy (kinetic, potential, …) or money (coins, notes, …) are still physical or economical.

You are obviously incapable of detaching yourself from your assumption that **everything **is physical - even though you have given no reason whatsoever to prove that it is.

 

[Watchman]

… obviously the certitude of religion makes life more simple to grasp and live for most people.

As someone who works daily to understand and live his faith, I can assure you it it would be easier to grasp “it’s all an ultimately unknowable series of physical events” and live however the hell I felt like.

 

[liquidpele]

As someone who works daily to understand and live his faith, I can assure you it it would be easier to grasp “it’s all an ultimately unknowable series of physical events” and live however the hell I felt like.

Why do you think a rejection of religion means you get to (or would) live however the hell you felt like?

 

[Thales]

When I examine religion I don’t generally look at the physics or metaphysics involved (it’s unnecessary & there’s too much speculation involved on both sides to produce anything resembling a productive result). It’s easy enough to simply look at the merits of religion itself. I know many stories in the Judeo-Christian religious scriptures are strikingly similar to earlier mythological stories (such as the myths of the ancient Egyptian god Horus, Sumerian mythology, etc). I also know none of the supernatural claims made by any religion have been replicated, or subjected to rigorous independent scrutiny.

I agree! Religion, especially the Bible and Christianity, is not really concerned with physics or even historical fact. We would be better to focus on its moral teachings and the bigger picture of God in search of man and man’s desire for God. An honest look at Christianity will show that in these areas it has incredible merit, in enriching people’s lives and making for a better world. I’ll leave science, physics, and history to the scientist, physicist, and historian.

Basically, I’m asked to take the word of primitive men, from a superstitious culture filled with all sorts of bizarre religious cults, against all the logical proof that exists. If we were talking about any other subject I would have a slam dunk case. Logically, that should mean I have an even better than slam dunk case here, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Don’t be too quick to judge the men of the past as primitive. They have the same mental capabilities and reasoning power that we do today, just not as much information. The reason you don’t have a slam dunk case with religion is because there is overwhelming evidence in personal and collective experience, written testimony, and an innate insatiable human desire for something not found in our materialistic natural world, albeit with no “proof”. There is thread I started, where I actually am questioning the limits of proof in determining reality and truth. Frankly, I think proof is misunderstood and overrated, and doesn’t need to apply in order for a thing to be true.

Yet the religious argue from ignorance, demand an absurd degree of proof, and act as if these claims are objective fact.

Some do, but not all. Some of the greatest minds in history argued for religion.

 

[reggieM]

Logically, that should mean I have an even better than slam dunk case here, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The idea that God does not exist is an extraordinary claim. It goes against vastly-accepted belief of human society – and provides no proof at the same time. It denies eyewitness accounts, accounts of credible claimants, collaborated eyewitness testimonies, scientific, historical and philosophical evidence. In many cases, atheists claim that there is “no evidence” for belief in God – and they conclude that after evaluating the evidence and then just denying that it exists.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The idea that God does not exist is an extraordinary claim. It goes against vastly-accepted belief of human society – and provides no proof at the same time. It denies eyewitness accounts, accounts of credible claimants, collaborated eyewitness testimonies, scientific, historical and philosophical evidence. In many cases, atheists claim that there is “no evidence” for belief in God – and they conclude that after evaluating the evidence and then just denying that it exists.

the alleged eye witness accounts and corroborated eye witness testimony are either ancient myths from the distant past where its authors claimed hundreds of witnesses existed, or obscure unverified events like Fatima (where we know for a fact there was no unusual solar activity). In other words there is no real evidence; and the way you’re misrepresenting these sort of claims as objective proof or real evidence of some sort is IMO typical of the logical fallacy seen in religious arguments.

In my experience those indoctrinated in religion rarely look at these questions objectively. They always act as pundits (and assume an adversarial stance) rather than discuss things; but if you’d like to try and logically discuss the merits of this “evidence” you elude to, I’m all ears.

 

[yankee_doodle]

As someone who works daily to understand and live his faith, I can assure you it it would be easier to grasp “it’s all an ultimately unknowable series of physical events” and live however the hell I felt like.

Yes but any rational intelligent human, no matter how indoctrinated, can have their faith shaken by learning new information. So is my skepticism anymore of a roller coaster ride than the ups and downs of religious faith? I don’t think so. Moreover, I don’t run around thinking about the origins of the universe all day long, I’m occupied by a thousand other things, like most people.

However, does religion provide a degree of false comfort … of course it does (that’s one reason we invented it).

 

[j1akey]

reggieM:

The idea that God does not exist is an extraordinary claim. It goes against vastly-accepted belief of human society – and provides no proof at the same time. It denies eyewitness accounts, accounts of credible claimants, collaborated eyewitness testimonies, scientific, historical and philosophical evidence. In many cases, atheists claim that there is “no evidence” for belief in God – and they conclude that after evaluating the evidence and then just denying that it exists.

The problem is that the only real “evidence” about the existance of god is book filled with a bunch of stories written by people that though God was angry when a storm came or when crops failed then it was the work of God. Not to mention that every modern religion has basically plaguerized the religions that have come before them and just re-written them to fit their purpose and the next “era” of religions will probably do the same thing.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The problem is that the only real “evidence” about the existance of god is book filled with a bunch of stories written by people that though God was angry when a storm came or when crops failed then it was the work of God. Not to mention that every modern religion has basically plaguerized the religions that have come before them and just re-written them to fit their purpose and the next “era” of religions will probably do the same thing.

That is what you have been programmed to believe by your religion that you probably don’t even know exists.

The proofs for God are far more available than what you have been told and believe. The problem is that once programmed into denying anything that might lead to believing in what some old nasty religion said, you find it difficult to actually think logically and rationally (especially online).

 

[yankee_doodle]

In practice you rely on your intelligence rather than randomness - as we have just witnessed…

now I see why you and that other poster bickered back and forth endlessly. You’re middle name is red herring?

It is most singular that for all the achievements of science human beings are incapable of explaining the singularity! Is it self-explanatory? There is no reason to suppose that it is. So the most reasonable explanation is that there is an unknown cause…

Hmmm, OK let’s look at this rationally. You’re saying because we don’t yet have a mathematical model that can I suppose can simulate the density of the singularity, then that proves god exists. In other words because science hasn’t discovered something yet, it must be god.

Where have I heard that before … hmmm. Oh yeah I remember, the thousands of other religious claims made through history (where they used your same argument) that have since been debunked by science.

Napoleon.

nope, it was actually Voltaire

If you look at the way most people live in our secular society they are preoccupied by the things of this life and not with religion.

makes sense to me

 

[yankee_doodle]

The problem is that the only real “evidence” about the existance of god is book filled with a bunch of stories written by people that though God was angry when a storm came or when crops failed then it was the work of God. Not to mention that every modern religion has basically plaguerized the religions that have come before them and just re-written them to fit their purpose and the next “era” of religions will probably do the same thing.

if freedom remains (and expands), and rational people keep talking, hopefully there won’t be a “next era” of religion?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes but any rational intelligent human, no matter how indoctrinated, can have their faith shaken by learning new information. So is my skepticism anymore of a roller coaster ride than the ups and downs of religious faith? I don’t think so. Moreover, I don’t run around thinking about the origins of the universe all day long, I’m occupied by a thousand other things, like most people.

However, does religion provide a degree of false comfort … of course it does (that’s one reason we invented it).

The word false is assumed. You haven’t disproved the existence of God, and so there is no basis for claiming that it is a false comfort. If you had any respect for us at all i would hope that you would use the term “i believe” at the beginning of any sentence that you cannot prove, since you would surly expect the same of us.

The idea that something provides comfort is not a basis for claiming its falsity. We eat for comfort, we listen to music for comfort, we engage in all sorts of activity for comfort; it is not unreasonable to seek existential fulfillment. I would never dream of calling somebody irrational for eating just because it gave them pleasure. Merely eating or having sex or having a group of friends is satisfying for some in this oddity we call life. But some people are not comfortable with viewing life as merely an opportunity to exploit the senses, pleasuring the senses with finite objects; and thus it is a practicality that they put their hope in a greater good that improves upon the idea of simply living for the moment and on the whims of other peoples desires. In this respect they desire that which gives intrinsic value, purpose and objective meaning to their lives, because this is what fulfills them as people and gives them the confidence and the strength to face existence. If you are happy with not believing then thats your prerogative; but denial alone does not necessarily give you intellectual authority or personal maturity.

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5685115#post5685115)                 
             *In practice you rely on your intelligence rather than randomness - as we have just witnessed...*:)**
                             now I see why you and that other poster bickered back and forth endlessly. You're middle name is red herring?

Now I see why you dodge the issue at stake endlessly. Your full name is Yankee Doodle Dodger! :ballspin:

• It is most singular that for all the achievements of science human beings are incapable of explaining the singularity! Is it self-explanatory? There is no reason to suppose that it is. So the most reasonable explanation is that there is an unknown cause… *
  Hmmm, OK let’s look at this rationally. You’re saying because we don’t yet have a mathematical model that can I suppose can simulate the density of the singularity, then that proves god exists. In other words because science hasn’t discovered something yet, it must be god.

Two problems:

1. There is no reason to suppose mathematical models can simulate physical phenomena ad infinitum.
2. I specified an unknown cause,** not** God.

Where have I heard that before … hmmm. Oh yeah I remember, the thousands of other religious claims made through history (where they used your same argument) that have since been debunked by science.

Where have I heard that before … hmmm. Oh yeah I remember, the thousands of other claims that **science **will ultimately everything.…

Quote:
*If you look at the way most people live in our secular society they are preoccupied by the things of this life and not with religion. *
makes sense to me.

Which makes nonsense of your assertion that “the certitude of religion makes life more simple to grasp and live for most people”!

 

[reggieM]

the alleged eye witness accounts and corroborated eye witness testimony are either ancient myths from the distant past where its authors claimed hundreds of witnesses existed, or obscure unverified events like Fatima

That’s an extraordinary claim. Where’s your extraordinary evidence? You simply dismiss all of the eyewitness accounts as"myths" and claim that the 40,000 who witnessed the Fatima miracle are “obscure”. Your claim is that the billions of people who believe in God also have no personal evidence to support that belief – that’s an extremely extraordinary claim. In this case, you provide zero evidence, much less the “extraordinary evidence” you need to back up a claim like that.

The atheistic opinion is bizarre and far-fetched. It comes with no objective study of religion on a world-wide scope and offers nothing by way of explaining hundred of documented miracles, mystical phenomena, and the virtually universal experience of the divine in human society.

The “answer” that atheism gives is simply to ignore the evidence, dismiss it and then close by ridiculing religion.

That is just a simplistic mind-set.

 

[reggieM]

The problem is that the only real “evidence” about the existance of god is book filled with a bunch of stories written by people that though God was angry when a storm came or when crops failed then it was the work of God.

I mentioned before some very simple-minded thinking. In your case, you think the Bible is the only book in the world that gives evidence of the existence of God.

Clearly, you know very little about religion or the Catholic faith.

If you had a sincere interest in this topic you would admit that and begin to learn about the evidence. But it seems obvious that you’re not interested in learning about Catholicism to that, or any extent.

So, the only real issue is why you’re posting on CAF at all? What are you trying to accomplish?

 

[yankee_doodle]

That’s an extraordinary claim. Where’s your extraordinary evidence? You simply dismiss all of the eyewitness accounts as"myths" and claim that the 40,000 who witnessed the Fatima miracle are “obscure”. Your claim is that the billions of people who believe in God also have no personal evidence to support that belief – that’s an extremely extraordinary claim. In this case, you provide zero evidence, much less the “extraordinary evidence” you need to back up a claim like that.

The atheistic opinion is bizarre and far-fetched. It comes with no objective study of religion on a world-wide scope and offers nothing by way of explaining hundred of documented miracles, mystical phenomena, and the virtually universal experience of the divine in human society.

The “answer” that atheism gives is simply to ignore the evidence, dismiss it and then close by ridiculing religion.

That is just a simplistic mind-set.

first, I’m not an atheist. I don’t make conclusive statements pertaining to whether or not some sort of god might exist. What I do say is religion is readily debunked.

That billions of people believe something to be true is not evidence of anything. Most of the world thought the earth was flat at one point, did that make the earth flat? As far as Fatima, I say obscure because there’s various different accounts of what happened that day, and those visions were confined to the region surrounding Fatima (there were no witnesses in any other region of the world). Moreover, scientists reported that there was no unusual solar activity that day. So it was some sort of localized vision (the sun didn’t actually come hurling toward earth, or spin around in a bizarre manner, since if it did everyone at least in the western hemisphere would have witnessed it).

When we look at Sumerian, Egyptian, and other ancient mythology we can find parallels to virtually every bible story (and we know these stories pre-date their biblical twins).

Sure you could attribute this to coincidence, or you could make the unusual claim that god also appeared to these ancient peoples (albeit they somehow misconstrued his message and created a pagan religious system). Or you can acknowledge that the weight of evidence debunking the veracity of religious claims is so great; that the statistical likelihood of these claims being true is remote (and therefore it’s unreasonable to view these claims as true).

You might not view these parallels as evidence, but logically they are evidence. Is it a coincidence that the virgin birth motif was repeated throughout ancient history (i.e. Horus, Attis, Mithra, etc.). What about the striking similarities between ancient Sumerian and Egyptian mythology and Judaism? Do you think two or three sentences written by Josephus or Tacitus prove a god-man rose from the dead? Or do you honestly find the fact that the resurrecting god-man born of a virgin story isn’t unique in history, irrelevant? BTW, I think there were more like 70,000 witnesses of the event at Fatima (not 40,000)

 

[Watchman]

Why do you think a rejection of religion means you get to (or would) live however the hell you felt like?

Since I was speaking about myself and what I would do, and I consider myself to be the world’s foremost expert on me, I feel secure in my original statement. Are you telling me that you know better? Interesting.

The quote I was responding to said:

… obviously the certitude of religion makes life more simple to grasp and live for most people.

I took the opportunity to inform someone who has evidently not experienced this certitude that his assumptions about the result of said certitude were incorrect. Having experience on both sides of the issue I felt he might appreciate the info. Not sure what your beef might be.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Two problems:

1. There is no reason to suppose mathematical models can simulate physical phenomena ad infinitum.
2. I specified an unknown cause,** not** God.

That doesn’t matter to me (which is why I haven’t based anything I said on speculative mathematical theories, and IMO this sort of speculation is grossly premature anyway). My objections surround religion more directly i.e. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

When I examine ancient Sumerian, Egyptian, or Greek mythology and find numerous parallels to virtually every bible story, it’s clear to me that contemporary religion is merely a monotheistic hybrid of these ancient mythological systems. One coincidence might be explainable, but numerous parallels (including and perhaps most profoundly the resurrected god-man born of a virgin motif) … and the statistical likelihood of the claims made by your religion being true become remote (and therefore unreasonable).

Where have I heard that before … hmmm. Oh yeah I remember, the thousands of other claims that **science **will ultimately everything.…Which makes nonsense of your assertion that “the certitude of religion makes life more simple to grasp and live for most people”!

huh? The funny thing is science continues to debunk the musings of theologians every era. From a geocentric earth to the seven day creation story religion continually changes its position in response to scientific discovery.

A is true because the bible says so. Science proves A is false, oh well that must be figurative (yeah yeah that’s what we meant the whole time, never mind the fact that we persecuted those who asserted A was false in the past).

When you add it up … it becomes silly

 

[yankee_doodle]

As someone who works daily to understand and live his faith, I can assure you it it would be easier to grasp “it’s all an ultimately unknowable series of physical events” and live however the hell I felt like.

funny, I’m not religious and I’m not a criminal, hold a graduate degree (actually two), don’t use drugs, don’t smoke, rarely drink (and when I do it’s a beer or two), exercise five days per week, I don’t have irresponsible sex, I’m a well respected professional in a position of trust, and the list goes on.

Indeed, the most irreligious part of this country (the Northeast) has the lowest divorce rate, its cities have the lowest crime rates (compared to other large cities), some of the highest college graduation rates, the highest per capita income, etc. etc. etc. In fact the most irreligious countries in the world excel in all these statistics as well (Scandinavia). Highest income, lowest crime, low divorce rates, high rankings in happiness surveys, highest education levels, etc.

So real life doesn’t support the inferred premise of your statement.