++ Alter Bridge - Fortress ++ PreOrder NOW!!  
Go Back   CreedFeed Community > Community Central > Faith / Religion
Today's Posts «

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-25-2005, 01:05 AM   #1
Lunar Shadow
Lunar Shadow's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,244
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
TOP 9 Apologetic Mistakes

This is a post from another board I frequent and I found it rather interesting so I want you to read and think. This is not meant to be hateful this I will say is a mirror for some of you to see how ridiculous some of your arguments are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


....Note that this is intended for christians to use and ask themselves if they are making this mistake and hopefully some of them might get something out of it , so obviously I wrote this as simple to read as possible .



1 . Quoting the bible when trying to prove a fact to a non believer
Ex -
Non believer: *evolutionary rant*
apologist:Your wrong . The bible never said we evolved from apes , therefore we didnt .

Reason why this doesnt work : As a christian its easy to make the mistake of talking to non believers as you would other christians . Unfortunatly it doesnt work . Telling a non believer that something is false because the bible says so is the same as telling them its false because you dont believe its true . It comes accross to us as an opinion rather then a fact . "Biblical truths" are meaningless to people who dont believe in the bible to begin with . Note that using the bible to claim something is immoral doesnt work for the same reasons .

2. Replying with "love bombing" Rather then giving thought to the topic at hand
Ex -
Non believer: why does *verse 1* contradict *verse 2*
Apologist: It doesnt matter because jesus loves you . once you understand that all problems will go away

Reason this doesnt work : To the non believer , this sort of response comes accross as annoying . Its also seen as a dodge and may possibly convince them that christians dont have an answer and thus the verses really do contradict each other . Bad idea .

3.Threats of hellfire / Using pascals wager / preaching doomsday
Ex 1 -
Non believer : Give me one good reason to believe !
Apologist : Well since you dont believe in an afterlife you have nothing to lose by converting to christianity . Only Jesus can save you from satan .

Reason why this doesnt work : To the average passerby on the street
this might work , but most of the people who come to christian apologetics forums as non christians are experienced skeptics and many of us have college degree's and/or lots of experience in philosophy , biology , theology ect . In other words non believers who come here have heard this kind of stuff literally thousands of times and can easily get around it . Some skeptics will even simply stop reading your post once they realise that its a form of pascals wager and just move on . It a waste of time to even try .

4. The use of presuppositionalism and/or TAG ( Trancendental argument for god ) As the main supporting pillar in almost all your posts
Ex -
non believer : *Long rational argument dealing with deep theological issues*
Apologist : Ha ! You dont even believe in god ! How can you account for the logic you just used to try and debunk his existance ? Only by pressuposing christianity is true can you hope to make sense .

Reason why this doesnt work : First of all , let me just point something out . Almost all skeptics who have dealt with TAG and pressupositionalism consider apologists like the one in the example to be both annoying and completely insane . This is not an insult , its just how most non believers view this . A lot of us consider pressupositionalism to be an attempt to dodge having to use evidence to back up your claims and while we often will carry on debate if you continue to use this apologetic method non believers will often start to ignore you .

Ask yourselves honestly , have you ever seen a single testimony where the recent convert said "TAG and pressupositionalism opened my eyes ! Jesus is lord !" ? I know I most certainly have not , and I have read hundreds of testimonies . There is a reason for why such a thing never happens .

5. Attempt to "mind read" a non believer and claim her/his motives are based on evil and rebellion .
Ex -
Non believer : I would probobly never become a christian since I find it logically impossible
Apologist : No , you are a child of god who has gone astray . The only reason people dont believe is because of a adolescent like rebellion against god and because they wish to sin . Your lying .

Reason this doesnt work : This is similar to mistake #1 . Your trying to use points only supported in the bible to disprove something to a person who doesnt even believe the bible is anything more then another myth . The sooner you start taking non christians seriously the sooner they will start taking you seriously .

6. the "If I can disprove evolution then creatinism becomes true !" attitude .
Ex -
apologist : *Attempts to debunk evolution* therefore , creationism is true and Jesus lives !
non believer : ....... *sigh~ ......

Reason this doesnt work : Sorry , but if even if you did somehow debunk evolution creationsim wouldnt suddenly become the scientifically accepted standard any more then the theory that we all warped into reality through a giant doom bannana . A scientific theory must follow guidlines . If you wish to prove creationsim , then provide proof of creationism ... not proof against other theories .

7. Attempt to enter and debunk an argument about something science related that you clearly know nothing about .
Ex -
non believer : Early plants were very basic in nature , and the reason behind the differance in the existance and structure of cell walls in Plants and animals is ...*rant* .... why plants evolved with the ability to perform photosynthesis ... *rant rant*
Apologist : Thats absurd ! Plants have skin , god gave it to them . Who cares about footosenthisis when we know that ? How can a skeptic such as yourself claim belief in plants magically gaining energy but not in god ?

Reason why this doesnt work : Personally I think this one should be obvious . I exaggerated a bit in the example , but the basic point remains the same . If you wish to debunk something then first you should honestly ask yourself "Do I really understand what this is about ?" . When a christian ( or anyone for that matter ) tries to debunk a scientific theory without any understanding of what the scientific theory is about it becomes very obvious very fast . Total waste of time . This problem happens a lot in evolutionary debates . Please for the sake of us all educate yourself on what evolution is about BEFORE you try and point out holes in it . You will save a lot of time by doing that .

8. Judge a non christian religion on christian concepts

Ex -
Non believer : I am a buddhist. Why should I choose christianity over this ?
Apologist : Because Buddha never died for your sins .

Reason why this doesnt work : Lets use pantheism as an example . If I were to judge christianity on pantheist concepts ( such as god=the universe ) I would conclude that christianity is about worshiping yourself and asking yourself for forgivness . From this I would wrongly conclude that christianity is an arrogant religion . Ask yourself , would you as a christian care if I started a topic and did that ? Probobly not . In buddhism buddha didnt die for everyones sins because according to buddhism nobody had to . Telling a buddhist that buddhism is false because Buddhism didnt follow a specific christian trait is the same as saying its false because you believe that its false . Again , see mistake #1 .


9. The use of PRATTS ( Points refuted a thousand times )
Ex -
Apologist : Since science cannot currently account for the beggining of life , God did it !
Non believer : Oh boy ... God of the gaps™ ... AGAIN ...

Reason why this doesnt work : PRATTS are named for what they really are . Points refuted a thousand times . Most of these are common fallacious arguments used by christians/apologists that have been debunked many many times . If you have something to say , please do a google search on "Points refuted a thousand times" and check to see if you are using a PRATT . If you are , then reply with a rebuttal to the argument against the PRATT . Apologists who use PRATTS constantly without checking to see if what they are saying has been said billions of times before and logically trashed an equal number of times get old really fast and are eventually ignored . Be warned : whenever you use a PRATT you are basically admitting to skeptics that you are either very new to apologetics or you just dont care what they have to say in return . If you want non believers to take your arguments seriously , dont use PRATTS . PRATTS are bad mmmmkay ?

A few classic PRATTS : "Science is a religion too !" , "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics !" , "There isnt enough dust on the moon for the earth to be that old !" , "there were no eyewitnesses for evolution !" ect.


source www.ex-christian.net
__________________
Lunar Shadow
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 02:41 PM   #2
no_fixd_address
USER INFO »
Status: Misconception
Posts: 96
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
Is that from one of those mindless funnymentalist webs?
__________________
“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 03:37 PM   #3
creedsister
creedsister's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Tree of Wisdom
Posts: 8,290
Joined: Oct 2003
Currently: Offline
yes more in Likely they have some HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Awsome ones to choose from
__________________
Hush child I,ll tell you why you have Loved Me when you were weak you have given me unselfishly Kept you From Falling Falling everywhere But Your Kness you set me free to live my life you become my Reason To Survive The Great Divide you Set Me Free Ooh Our Love Is Beautiful Ooh isn,t This Beautiful Child It Seems You Have Been My Everything
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 03:44 PM   #4
Lunar Shadow
Lunar Shadow's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,244
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
Quote: (Originally Posted by no_fixd_address) Is that from one of those mindless funnymentalist webs?

you obviously never visited the source and just made a snap judgement based on the post with out thinking about how true they are or may be. whats wrong?? afiard you might learn something that you don't want to?? if you are such a strong catholic then you should have no problem joining the board on that site and going toe to toe with ex-christians and athiests... there are quite a few calvinists, apologists and so on. On this board so give it a looksee. Like I said you may learn something or teach someone something.
__________________
Lunar Shadow
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 05:14 PM   #5
uncertaindrumer
uncertaindrumer's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,255
Joined: Dec 2004
Currently: Offline
Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist)

1 . Quoting the bible when trying to prove a fact to a non believer
Ex -
Non believer: *evolutionary rant*
apologist:Your wrong . The bible never said we evolved from apes , therefore we didnt .

Reason why this doesnt work : As a christian its easy to make the mistake of talking to non believers as you would other christians . Unfortunatly it doesnt work . Telling a non believer that something is false because the bible says so is the same as telling them its false because you dont believe its true . It comes accross to us as an opinion rather then a fact . "Biblical truths" are meaningless to people who dont believe in the bible to begin with . Note that using the bible to claim something is immoral doesnt work for the same reasons .

This kinda goes without saying. Obviously an atheist won't believe the Bible.

Quote: 2. Replying with "love bombing" Rather then giving thought to the topic at hand
Ex -
Non believer: why does *verse 1* contradict *verse 2*
Apologist: It doesnt matter because jesus loves you . once you understand that all problems will go away

Reason this doesnt work : To the non believer , this sort of response comes accross as annoying . Its also seen as a dodge and may possibly convince them that christians dont have an answer and thus the verses really do contradict each other . Bad idea .

Of course not. More common sense.

Quote: 3.Threats of hellfire / Using pascals wager / preaching doomsday
Ex 1 -
Non believer : Give me one good reason to believe !
Apologist : Well since you dont believe in an afterlife you have nothing to lose by converting to christianity . Only Jesus can save you from satan .

Reason why this doesnt work : To the average passerby on the street
this might work , but most of the people who come to christian apologetics forums as non christians are experienced skeptics and many of us have college degree's and/or lots of experience in philosophy , biology , theology ect . In other words non believers who come here have heard this kind of stuff literally thousands of times and can easily get around it . Some skeptics will even simply stop reading your post once they realise that its a form of pascals wager and just move on . It a waste of time to even try .

The only time this works is the argument about which would you rather do: die an atheist and find out there is a God, or die a Christian and find out there isn't one.

Quote: 4. The use of presuppositionalism and/or TAG ( Trancendental argument for god ) As the main supporting pillar in almost all your posts
Ex -
non believer : *Long rational argument dealing with deep theological issues*
Apologist : Ha ! You dont even believe in god ! How can you account for the logic you just used to try and debunk his existance ? Only by pressuposing christianity is true can you hope to make sense .

Reason why this doesnt work : First of all , let me just point something out . Almost all skeptics who have dealt with TAG and pressupositionalism consider apologists like the one in the example to be both annoying and completely insane . This is not an insult , its just how most non believers view this . A lot of us consider pressupositionalism to be an attempt to dodge having to use evidence to back up your claims and while we often will carry on debate if you continue to use this apologetic method non believers will often start to ignore you .

Ask yourselves honestly , have you ever seen a single testimony where the recent convert said "TAG and pressupositionalism opened my eyes ! Jesus is lord !" ? I know I most certainly have not , and I have read hundreds of testimonies . There is a reason for why such a thing never happens .

More of the same. Nothing new here.

Quote: 5. Attempt to "mind read" a non believer and claim her/his motives are based on evil and rebellion .
Ex -
Non believer : I would probobly never become a christian since I find it logically impossible
Apologist : No , you are a child of god who has gone astray . The only reason people dont believe is because of a adolescent like rebellion against god and because they wish to sin . Your lying .

Reason this doesnt work : This is similar to mistake #1 . Your trying to use points only supported in the bible to disprove something to a person who doesnt even believe the bible is anything more then another myth . The sooner you start taking non christians seriously the sooner they will start taking you seriously .

Again, what's the point of posting this?
Quote: 6. the "If I can disprove evolution then creatinism becomes true !" attitude .
Ex -
apologist : *Attempts to debunk evolution* therefore , creationism is true and Jesus lives !
non believer : ....... *sigh~ ......

Reason this doesnt work : Sorry , but if even if you did somehow debunk evolution creationsim wouldnt suddenly become the scientifically accepted standard any more then the theory that we all warped into reality through a giant doom bannana . A scientific theory must follow guidlines . If you wish to prove creationsim , then provide proof of creationism ... not proof against other theories .

First off, I believe in both Creation and evolution, obviously this came from a rather fundamentalist (or at least ultra conservative) Christian site. Second, like Sherlock Holmes says "If you disprove everything and only one thign remains, then no matter how improbable that one thign must be true". If I can disprove every non-Creationist theory then yes it would prove Creationsism. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to disprove EVERY SINGLE theroy of the millions, so just proving Creationism is easier.

Quote: 7. Attempt to enter and debunk an argument about something science related that you clearly know nothing about .
Ex -
non believer : Early plants were very basic in nature , and the reason behind the differance in the existance and structure of cell walls in Plants and animals is ...*rant* .... why plants evolved with the ability to perform photosynthesis ... *rant rant*
Apologist : Thats absurd ! Plants have skin , god gave it to them . Who cares about footosenthisis when we know that ? How can a skeptic such as yourself claim belief in plants magically gaining energy but not in god ?

Reason why this doesnt work : Personally I think this one should be obvious . I exaggerated a bit in the example , but the basic point remains the same . If you wish to debunk something then first you should honestly ask yourself "Do I really understand what this is about ?" . When a christian ( or anyone for that matter ) tries to debunk a scientific theory without any understanding of what the scientific theory is about it becomes very obvious very fast . Total waste of time . This problem happens a lot in evolutionary debates . Please for the sake of us all educate yourself on what evolution is about BEFORE you try and point out holes in it . You will save a lot of time by doing that .


Well of course yo u shouldn't argue about somethign which you know nothing.

Quote: 8. Judge a non christian religion on christian concepts
Quote: Ex -
Non believer : I am a buddhist. Why should I choose christianity over this ?
Apologist : Because Buddha never died for your sins .

Reason why this doesnt work : Lets use pantheism as an example . If I were to judge christianity on pantheist concepts ( such as god=the universe ) I would conclude that christianity is about worshiping yourself and asking yourself for forgivness . From this I would wrongly conclude that christianity is an arrogant religion . Ask yourself , would you as a christian care if I started a topic and did that ? Probobly not . In buddhism buddha didnt die for everyones sins because according to buddhism nobody had to . Telling a buddhist that buddhism is false because Buddhism didnt follow a specific christian trait is the same as saying its false because you believe that its false . Again , see mistake #1 .

I shouldn't argue based on this; but if I see someone acting immorally according to my beliefs, of course I would think of them as immoral.

Quote: 9. The use of PRATTS ( Points refuted a thousand times )
Ex -
Apologist : Since science cannot currently account for the beggining of life , God did it !
Non believer : Oh boy ... God of the gaps™ ... AGAIN ...

Reason why this doesnt work : PRATTS are named for what they really are . Points refuted a thousand times . Most of these are common fallacious arguments used by christians/apologists that have been debunked many many times . If you have something to say , please do a google search on "Points refuted a thousand times" and check to see if you are using a PRATT . If you are , then reply with a rebuttal to the argument against the PRATT . Apologists who use PRATTS constantly without checking to see if what they are saying has been said billions of times before and logically trashed an equal number of times get old really fast and are eventually ignored . Be warned : whenever you use a PRATT you are basically admitting to skeptics that you are either very new to apologetics or you just dont care what they have to say in return . If you want non believers to take your arguments seriously , dont use PRATTS . PRATTS are bad mmmmkay ?

A few classic PRATTS : "Science is a religion too !" , "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics !" , "There isnt enough dust on the moon for the earth to be that old !" , "there were no eyewitnesses for evolution !" ect.

Sure, whatever. Only problem: Science CAN'T account for the creation of the universe.
__________________
Titans baby, Titans.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 06:22 PM   #6
IvyFairy
USER INFO »
Status: Unspoken
Posts: 44
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
Original Message Taken Down. Sorry People.

Last edited by IvyFairy : 06-26-2005 at 10:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 06:21 AM   #7
Lunar Shadow
Lunar Shadow's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,244
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
Yes IVY but the problem I see at church is not only the misinformation but the Fallacies committed on a minute by minute basis it is enough to make on scream. I mean how many did I count to you last week? 8? 10? Or more? I am just glad that we have chosen not to subject our beautiful daughter to this bull shit rhetoric.
__________________
Lunar Shadow
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 01:45 PM   #8
uncertaindrumer
uncertaindrumer's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,255
Joined: Dec 2004
Currently: Offline
Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist) Yes IVY but the problem I see at church is not only the misinformation but the Fallacies committed on a minute by minute basis it is enough to make on scream. I mean how many did I count to you last week? 8? 10? Or more? I am just glad that we have chosen not to subject our beautiful daughter to this bull shit rhetoric.

Out of sheer curiosity, are you going to bring her up to believe in atheism, or to believe in whatever she wants? I am just curious what you would do. Of course if you think that is a personal matter, do not feel obligated to tell me.
__________________
Titans baby, Titans.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 02:38 PM   #9
Lunar Shadow
Lunar Shadow's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,244
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer) Out of sheer curiosity, are you going to bring her up to believe in atheism, or to believe in whatever she wants? I am just curious what you would do. Of course if you think that is a personal matter, do not feel obligated to tell me.

You are right uncertaindrummer it is none of you business, but since you asked I am happy to tell you. We are razing her the first few years of her life with no religion to speak of but with high moral & ethical values (which is hard when your parents are like mind and you know about that already). When she is old enough to make an informed objective decision than I am more than happy to let her make that move but I am not going to have my child force fed religious rhetoric to poison her decision in the mean time.
__________________
Lunar Shadow
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 04:19 PM   #10
IvyFairy
USER INFO »
Status: Unspoken
Posts: 44
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
Original Message Taken Down. Sorry People.

Last edited by IvyFairy : 06-26-2005 at 11:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 06:22 PM   #11
rabidgopher04
USER INFO »
Status: A Melody
Posts: 442
Joined: Mar 2004
Currently: Offline
Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist) We are razing her the first few years of her life with no religion to speak of but with high moral & ethical values (which is hard when your parents are like mind and you know about that already).
On what principle is a value considered ethical or moral? How do you decide what high morals and ethics are? What is your foundation?
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 11:15 PM   #12
Lunar Shadow
Lunar Shadow's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,244
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
Quote: (Originally Posted by rabidgopher04) On what principle is a value considered ethical or moral? How do you decide what high morals and ethics are? What is your foundation?


First of all morals and ethics are NOT dictated by religion or god or what not. The basic principal from which I operate (or try to) is treating others as you would want to be treated. It is fairly simple I know but quite often the simplest answers are the correct ones. You can also grab ethics from the same principal.
__________________
Lunar Shadow
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 11:33 PM   #13
Lunar Shadow
Lunar Shadow's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,244
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
This Makes 10!

And to make it a top 10 here you go


source www.ex-christian.net

10. Commit an obvious logical fallacy .

Ex -
Apologist : How can you not believe in the bible ? Its the most widely practiced religion in the world
Non believer : *bangs head on keyboard* iasnfsklpdfknc ... Appeal to belief ...

Reason why this doesnt work : While logical fallacies are common and can be found on both sides every now and then , it is when you use one obviously and with total disregard to the rules of logic that causes non believers to step back and feel like they would be wasting their time even trying to carry on a conversation . While it is forgiveable when someone commits a fallacy in a normal and otherwise well spoken argument ( But take note this forgiveness does not suddenly make the argument valid ) It is rarely forgiven when one blatantly makes a rather short argument that is completely fallacious .

How to prevent yourself from making this mistake : Simple , google "logical fallacies" and search through to gain a basic understanding , or better yet take a college class in logic and reasoning . Make sure you think before you create an argument . Here are a few common fallacies to get you started :

Red herring : Changing the subject when you cant answer a question
Example : Bah ! who cares ! You atheists are all a bunch of gay lovers anyways ! ( which changes the subject to homosexuality )

Circular argument : A is true because B is true , and we know B is true because A is true .
Example : The bible is true because God wrote it . God exists because the bible says so .

Ad hominum : name calling to avoid a question
Example : Atheists are evil and only wish to rebel against god . Their logic is a trick of the devil . Philosophy is evil !

Switching the burden of proof : A fallacy that is committed when the side supporting the positive says that if the opposing side cannot prove the negative then the positive becomes true .
Example : You cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore He does.
__________________
Lunar Shadow
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 11:42 PM   #14
Lunar Shadow
Lunar Shadow's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,244
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
ok here is the most complete list of fallacies I can find now I will be the first to admit that I have committed some of said fallacies but I know and you know to (after reading the list) that some of you have as well now lets be big enough to admit our mistakes and move on... and try to operate from a stand point of no fallacies allowed ok?? Is every one with me can we agree on that?? I will hold all of you accountable and point it out if you commit such Fallacies and I expect you to do the same for me. Can we agree on this??


__________________________________________________
List of common fallacies

Compiled by Jim Walker
originated: 27 July 1997
additions made: 26 March 2004

When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypothesis that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:

ad hominem:
Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

argument from omniscience:
(e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

appeal to faith:
(e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.

argumentum ad baculum:
An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)

argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance.

argumentum ad populum:
An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons.

bandwagon fallacy:
concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

begging the question
(or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?

circular reasoning:
stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

composition fallacy:
when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)

confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).

confusion of correlation and causation:
(e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man).

excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."

half truths
(suppressed evidence): An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

loaded questions:
embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

meaningless question:
(e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."

misunderstanding the nature of statistics:
(e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin


source http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm
__________________
Lunar Shadow

Last edited by Lunar Shadow : 06-26-2005 at 11:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 11:44 PM   #15
rabidgopher04
USER INFO »
Status: A Melody
Posts: 442
Joined: Mar 2004
Currently: Offline
Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist) First of all morals and ethics are NOT dictated by religion or god or what not.
tsk. tsk. Please don't read into my post your assumptions. I was just asking what your foundational belief is. I never said nor implied anything about religion or God.

Second, for some people morals and ethics ARE dictated by religion and their belief in God. Simply because you do not believe as such does not justify a blanket statement such as the one you made.

Next question (perhaps we should just split this thread): What happens when someone treats you in a way different than what you would want to be treated? In other words, what if someone is rude or unkind to you (ranging anywhere from mild or severe)? What do you do? What are your principles for that?
Reply With Quote
Post Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 Steve Caponetto. All Rights Reserved.