List of common fallacies of Atheists

[anEvilAtheist]

Saying that textual variants are so severe that we have no clue what the authors of the New Testament actually wrote. Just because there were a lot of different versions doesn’t show that it’s unreliable.

For example, Bart Ehrman criticizes the reliability of scripture, but once said that “besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic compares numerous scriptural quotations used in commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”

 

[Matthias123]

Sorry for being late, I just saw the thread.

haha first thought “I love this guy”

 

[Matthias123]

If an atheist is simply one who lacks a belief in God, they do not have to believe that they ought not to form a belief. If someone has no beliefs, then they lack belief in God, but don’t have a belief one way or another about whether he should be believed in. So I think it’s false that atheism is a faith or requires faith. However, based on how you’re defining faith, I think that almost all atheists have faith in something.

Yes, I am taking that off of there. It is more trouble then it is worth. Although say I don’t have a belief that the best use of a LED flashlight is in 30% illumination. I think if it was a pressing issue I would need to have a reason not to have a belief on this issue. I mean what if I was a firefighter and I needed to know?

I am willing to concede that the idea that Weak Atheism is a faith is extremely far fetched and is not really important. It is really only useful if you want to use it in a style over substance argument, which is bad reasoning anyways.

I think Strong Atheism is a faith; however I doubt there are many Strong Atheists. I know that even Dawkings is a Weak Atheist. To quote the God delusion “I think there is a very low probability of God existing” (quote is off the top of my head from reading a book about the God delusion. He was giving a “Atheist scale” and said he was a 6 on the scale")

 

[tonyrey]

If an atheist is simply one who lacks a belief in God, they do not have to believe that they ought not to form a belief. If someone has no beliefs, then they lack belief in God, but don’t have a belief one way or another about whether he should be believed in. So I think it’s false that atheism is a faith or requires faith. However, based on how you’re defining faith, I think that almost all atheists have faith in something.

Indeed! We all have to have faith in the power of reason. Otherwise we are being unreasonable…

 

[Matthias123]

Indeed! We all have to have faith in the power of reason. Otherwise we are being unreasonable…

I disagree partly. First of all we are to be realistic as to the ability of human reason. One must ask the question, how good is human reason at discovering objective truth? In all honesty when you think about it, human reason is a rather feeble thing. For example, look at all the philosophical ideologies they are. There are differences in philosophical positions because of human error.

One could say that overestimating the ability of human reason would be unreasonable.

I think most atheists think that the human reasoning faculties have much more ability then they actually do, and make the assumption that anything mysterious, or out of our comprehension, is false. (Not all do)

We have been able to gather much information about our natural world, through the natural sciences. Assuming the metaphysical truths that we hold are valid, they would seem to indicate that our reason can be efficient at discovering objective truth. All I am saying is lets not get too caught up in ourselves, much of what we know is still being supported by faith.

For example, how do you know that you are not just 5 min old with the appearance of age? How do you know that other brains exist other then your own?

Reason is not able to establish such truths with certainty – we hold such beliefs on faith. So if our reason cannot come to the conclusion that our surroundings are not an illusion, I don’t think there would be much argument that our reason is a rather feeble thing.

Now I am not against reason at all, all I am saying is that we should be realistic.

 

[tonyrey]

Reason is not able to establish such truths with certainty – we hold such beliefs on faith. So if our reason cannot come to the conclusion that our surroundings are not an illusion, I don’t think there would be much argument that our reason is a rather feeble thing.

Now I am not against reason at all, all I am saying is that we should be realistic.

Everything comes down to faith in the end but I think you will agree that the success of science makes it highly improbable that our surroundings are an illusion. We seem to be very efficient at multiplying illusions! We shouldn’t overestimate the power of reason but neither should we underestimate it. I am are using it to reach the conclusion that everything comes down to faith in the end and you are using it to reach the conclusion that our reason is a rather feeble thing. It can’t be all that feeble!

 

[redhen]

Some atheists are non-practicing Catholics, who had perhaps some bad experiences at their parish, therefore God doesn’t exist.

 

[Newbie2]

If an atheist is simply one who lacks a belief in God, they do not have to believe that they ought not to form a belief. If someone has no beliefs, then they lack belief in God, but don’t have a belief one way or another about whether he should be believed in. So I think it’s false that atheism is a faith or requires faith. However, based on how you’re defining faith, I think that almost all atheists have faith in something.

Is that kinda like “You can choose a ready guide in some Celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice*”?

*Lyrics to “Freewill” by Rush

 

[hippyprincess]

Yes, I am taking that off of there. It is more trouble then it is worth. Although say I don’t have a belief that the best use of a LED flashlight is in 30% illumination. I think if it was a pressing issue I would need to have a reason not to have a belief on this issue. I mean what if I was a firefighter and I needed to know?

I am willing to concede that the idea that Weak Atheism is a faith is extremely far fetched and is not really important. It is really only useful if you want to use it in a style over substance argument, which is bad reasoning anyways.

I think Strong Atheism is a faith; however I doubt there are many Strong Atheists. I know that even Dawkings is a Weak Atheist. To quote the God delusion “I think there is a very low probability of God existing” (quote is off the top of my head from reading a book about the God delusion. He was giving a “Atheist scale” and said he was a 6 on the scale")

I think you mean Dawkins, as in Richard Dawkins. Stephen Hawkings and Richard Dawkins are two seperate people, not a morph.

 

[Matthias123]

I think you mean Dawkins, as in Richard Dawkins. Stephen Hawkings and Richard Dawkins are two seperate people, not a morph.

haha woops

 

[Matthias123]

Everything comes down to faith in the end but I think you will agree that the success of science makes it highly improbable that our surroundings are an illusion. We seem to be very efficient at multiplying illusions! We shouldn’t overestimate the power of reason but neither should we underestimate it. I am are using it to reach the conclusion that everything comes down to faith in the end and you are using it to reach the conclusion that our reason is a rather feeble thing. It can’t be all that feeble!

Reason has the ability to provide reasons for belief. I agree that there is a danger in underestimating human wisdom. I advocate a realistic position. With human reason we are playing with probabilities. The probability of everything being an illusion is negligible. However, the idea that human reason can come to discover objective truth as certain would require one to define what one means by “certain”. If one means no potential for error, my position is that the only thing that can be known for certain is that the person exists (cargito ergo sum) and that a pure actuality exists, that is being itself.

My intention is not to philosophically undermine science or human reason but to demolish the doctrine of the agnostics:

“.According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits.”

 

[tonyrey]

My intention is not to philosophically undermine science or human reason but to demolish the doctrine of the agnostics:
“.According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits.”

Agnosticism is a speculative position which is rarely practised. In order to live we have to make decisions on the basis of what we believe and value. Jesus said we are either for Him or against Him. It is impossible to be neutral because to ignore Him is to regard Him as unimportant. If we never pray we obviously regard prayer as unnecessary and useless. If we rarely think of God we obviously regard His existence as unlikely - which is not the balanced view of a person who is genuinely open to the possibility that He may exist. A sincere agnostic prays regularly on the off-chance that his prayer will be answered :“Dear God, if You exist help me to believe in You and to do what You want me to do. Amen!” How many so-called agnostics do that?!

 

[celluloid]

I am trying to create a list of fallacies commited by atheists. Unfortunately I can’t think of any more off the top of my head. (It is like 90F here in Vancouver Canada, we are in the middle of a heat wave =p)

This is what I have so far:

Atheist here. I’ll comment on each.

**1. There are Christians that deny evolution, therefore all Christians deny evolution.
**I’m an atheist and I know very well that some Christians believe and understand evolution.

2. There are Christians that are not reasonable; therefore all Christians are not reasonable.
I’m an atheist, and I know there are reasonable Christians.

3. Some Christians partake in pseudoscience therefore all science done by Christians is not to be trusted.
Many discoveries have been made by Christians, including virtually all early western science. Most if not all atheists know this.

4. Atheism is void of magical beliefs. (Style over substance. The word magical is employed to make the reader feel like a fool if he does not believe in the doctrines of Atheism. Christianity is not magical.)
While I think the comparison to a wizard’s magic and God’s miracles is a fair comparison, it is true that “magic” is used more as ridicule, as in comparing God to fairies, elves, etc.

5. Atheism is not a faith. (It may not be a religion because weak atheism is the absence of belief, but it is a faith.)
My own feeling is that atheism is not provable and God’s existence is a matter of judgment. But atheism requires less faith in the plain meaning of the word “faith” and “Faith” as in a religious fervor does not apply to some atheists who would actually prefer there to be a God.

6. God doesn’t exist, because if God existed there would be observable proof. (The existence of God is not dependant on the existence of observable proof)
But to have a positive belief does require observable proof.

7. If God existed you wouldn’t be able to have as must fun. (Appeal to consequences. What you want has no bearing on the existence of God.)

True, but Christians appeal to consequences such as on moral grounds.

8. Most current scientists are not Christians; therefore Christianity is contrary to science.
It does not have to be contrary, agreed.

9. Most of the current famous intellectuals are not Christian; therefore Christianity is false and is not for intelligent people. (Appeal to popularity)

Or appeal to authority. But this is where common sense and formal logic may disagree. You could also claim that because doctors recommend not taking a certain drug that it is a logical fallacy to avoid that drug on that basis. It is generally wise to heed the advice of wise people or people with experience.

**10. Stephen Hawking (or another famous intellectual) says that God does not exist, therefore God must not exist. (Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physics, not a philosopher. His opinion on whether God exists does not to carry very much weight because he is not an expert in that particular field of study.)
**
I would argue that philosophers may not be suited to answering such questions because of their sometimes poor understanding of particular scientific concepts.

11. Richard Dawkings says that Divine Providence did not cause Evolution; therefore there is no intelligent design. (This is fallacious because Dawkings is not a theologian or a philosopher. He does not understand exactly what Divine Providence is, so he is not competent to say that it is not occurring.)

Dawkins. He speaks for himself.

12. God doesn’t exist. If you say he does you must not be very intelligent. (The persons intelligence has no bearing on whether God exists or not. This is also apealing to phycological factors instead of providing suporting evidence.)

This is a repeat of #2.

**13. You may argue that abortion is wrong but you are a Christian so you have to say that. (ad hominem abusive fallacy)
**
This has nothing to do with the existence of God or atheism.

**14. We cannot currently prove some parts of the bible, so they must not have happened.
**
If some things in the bible were proven to be false (literalist world wide flood), then it is not proven that some parts of the bible are true.

**15. A proposed miracle could have been explained naturally some way, therefore it must have been natural and not supernatural.
**
If I explain how Uri Geller bends spoons naturalistically, have I any reason to believe he does so with his mind power?

**16. There are no immaterial beings in existence because we cannot detect them. (That is the whole concept of them being immaterial.)
**
What is the difference between immaterial beings and imaginary beings?

Link to a list of logical fallacies:
onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

Just to add, I think there are many controversies in philosophy, more so than in science. Pure philosophy has many gaps for theists to exploit.

 

[Benadam]

celluloid
Thanks for that post

These views reflect a balanced approach to ideas and represent an opportunity that should be appreciated. And…Who doesn’t appreciate the opportunity to engage another person in a sincere exchange of ideas?

What is the difference between immaterial beings and imaginary beings?

 

[Dameedna]

1. Atheism is not a faith. (It may not be a religion because weak atheism is the absence of belief, but it is a faith.)

Errm…Athiest here. This above is the only statement that I would agree to with all your supposed athiest arguments. Atheism is not a faith. It’s a lack-of. And the ultimate questions of existance, we usually put down to a “We don’t know”. This is not “faith” it’s an acceptance of a lack of knowlege.

And seriously, Stephen hawkings say’s there’s no God so there musn’t be? Are you kidding? Who say’s that?

I wonder if people make up these arguments about so called athiest views, so they can then poke fun at them and feel better about themselves. In fact, I strongly suspect this is exactly what people are doing.

Don’t worry, athiests do the same thing. We are all human after all.

 

[wanstronian]

I must admit, I’m slightly confused by the OP.

Either it’s a perfectly serious post that the author literally believes is true of atheists, or it’s a list of common fallacies attributed to, rather than *committed by, *atheists.

If the former, then it’s a nonsensical waste of time. If the latter, it’s good to see that a theist can recognise the misrepresentation of the atheistic point of view.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
**16. There are no immaterial beings in existence because we cannot detect them. (That is the whole concept of them being immaterial.)
**
What is the difference between immaterial beings and imaginary beings?

. . …

I would suggest that it is the similar to the difference between radio waves and mental telepathy.

 

[AnAtheist]

I think Strong Atheism is a faith; however I doubt there are many Strong Atheists. I know that even Dawkings is a Weak Atheist.

Speaking of fallacies, that statement contains at least two of them:
appeal to numbers
appeal to authority

And I am not quite sure whether “I think A is B, therefore …” qualifies for a third one, amphiboly perhaps.

 

[AnAtheist]

I would suggest that it is the similar to the difference between radio waves and mental telepathy.

Radio waves are NOT immaterial.

 

[Benadam]

Quote:

What is the difference between immaterial beings and imaginary beings?

Ah, imaginary being is dependent on and exists through the operation of a corporeal organ immaterial being is not dependent on matter organic or otherwise to exist.