If anyone's up for a rousing game of count-the-logical-fallacies, I encourage you to check out the ironically-titled Atheism Analyzed blog. Keep an eye out for these:
Appeal to authority: The blogger claims to have once been an atheist, as though that confers validity to the rampant misrepresentations of atheism on the blog.
Shifting the burden of proof: Atheism is consistently misrepresented as a truth claim rather than the conclusion that it is.
Strawman: Lots of things are ascribed to atheism that are not part of its definition.
Non sequitur: Unable to respond to requests to back up the false claims that he makes, the blogger is fond of raising irrelevant points.
Tu Quoque: This is the "oh yeah, and so do you" fallacy, similar to shifting the burden of proof.
Enjoy!
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
An exercise in logical fallacies
I've been looking forward to dissecting
this video for a while. Enjoy!
“An atheist is asked, 'who made you?'
and they answer 'nobody, nothing.'”
Strawman: Atheism makes no claim about
where people come from.
“We, as a creation, are a result of
the Big Bang.”
Assumed Conclusion: We are only a
creation if one presupposes the existence of a creator.
“We are the result of evolution,
which brought life into existence.”
Strawman: Evolution makes no claim
about the origin of life.
“Before the [Big Bang] explosion,
there was a primordial dust cloud.”
Strawman: The Big Bang model explicitly
holds that dust clouds could not have formed until after the Big
Bang. In addition, the model holds that time began with the Big
Bang; since “before” is a concept that depends on the existence
of time, “before the Big Bang” is a nonsensical idea.
“If there is one thing we know from
science, it is that we do not get something from nothing.”
Strawman: The Big Bang does not claim
that the universe came from nothing.
Strawman: Science makes no claim about
“nothing,” since to the best of our knowledge, there are no
examples of “nothing” to test.
“...yet we are to believe that this
supposedly random event led to the perfection of the universe as we
know it?”
Unsupported assertion: No support is
given for the idea that the universe is perfect, nor is any
explanation given of what that means.
“This is an example in which science
contradicts science.”
Oxymoron: While one scientific
hypothesis may contradict another hypothesis or a known principle,
the idea that science as a whole contradicts itself is nonsensical.
“Entropy is the principle that unless
there is greater control over a process, then the process tends to
chaos.”
Strawman: Entropy only hold true in a
closed system, which the universe is not.
“If someone does not control the
chemical reaction, the result is going to be random and chaos.”
False conclusion: Chemical reactions
happen in a consistent, predictable manner.
“If you look at a painting, you know
there was a painter... and yet we are to look at creation and believe
that there is not a creator.”
Assumed conclusion, per above.
False equivalency: We know that a
painting has a painter because it is clearly distinct from nature.
The same cannot be said of natural phenomena.
“Natural selection can explain the
diversity of life... But how can it explain the soul?”
Unsupported assertion: No support is
provided for the idea that such thing as the soul exists.
“You believe in the existence of a
human soul. How do you explain this?”
Strawman: Atheists do not believe in
the existence of a soul.
“How can you explain life as having
evolved?”
Misleading question: The evolution of
life is very well-understood and explained by science.
“By life, I mean the power that gives
the body, once assembled, the power to live.”
Strawman: Bodies are not assembled;
they develop from the union of a sperm and egg cell in a
well-understood and predictable manner.
“All of the world's scientists, over
all of history can make them [“Frankensteins”] live.”
Strawman: Science has not attempted
this in the way that is being suggested. Scientists are, however,
capable of cloning living things.
Strawman: The inability of science to
accomplish anything at its present state of development does not mean
that such a thing is impossible.
“We can not even make the wing of a
gnat in the perfection that it is made by our creator.”
False conclusion: Science is in fact
capable of cloning gnats.
Assumed conclusion: The existence of a
creator has not been established.
“That is why, when a body is dead,
science is not able to revive a dead person.”
False conclusion: Medical technology
can in fact revive a person who has been dead a very short time.
“There are some who accept that
explanation, but I submit to you that it is not of those who are
enlightened.”
No True Scotsman: One cannot be
enlightened and accept a position other than the one advocated.
The video ends with an extended
argument from analogy, claiming that an Arab parable somehow mirrors
reality with no support for the intended connection.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Christian Post Lies About Louie Giglio
A story at Christian Post laments the new "Moral McCartheyism" evidenced by President Obama's withdrawal of his invitation for Pastor Louie Giglio to speak at his inauguration:
"There's been a lot of speculation about the smaller crowd expected for this year's inauguration – and now we know why. The president seems to be disinviting all the Christians! The purging started with Pastor Louie Giglio, who had been scheduled to offer the benediction until homosexual activists dug up a 20-year-old sermon and were shocked to find the Christian minister preaching a Christian message on sexuality. Giglio vanished from the inauguration program 24 hours later, despite his successful ministry for human trafficking victims."
Unfortunately for CP's readership, that's not true. Pastor Giglio withdrew voluntarily after pressure from a Christian group, as reported by a pro-Christian website.
"There's been a lot of speculation about the smaller crowd expected for this year's inauguration – and now we know why. The president seems to be disinviting all the Christians! The purging started with Pastor Louie Giglio, who had been scheduled to offer the benediction until homosexual activists dug up a 20-year-old sermon and were shocked to find the Christian minister preaching a Christian message on sexuality. Giglio vanished from the inauguration program 24 hours later, despite his successful ministry for human trafficking victims."
Unfortunately for CP's readership, that's not true. Pastor Giglio withdrew voluntarily after pressure from a Christian group, as reported by a pro-Christian website.
Comments on the Comments: Jefferson Bible Edition
Over at Christian Post, the comments made by the site's supporters are often as telling as the stories themselves. Below, I will respond to some of comments made on a recent story about the American Humanist Association's new version of the Jefferson Bible. I would love to respond directly on CP, but they have in the past banned me for blasphemy.
John McNama: "It amazes me how the creation thinks it can improve on the Word given by the Creator of all things."
My response: Why? It happens all the time. I assume you have the same criticism of the Conservative Bible Project.
Islanderwaab: "Just imagine a law school been given an edited form of the U.S. Constitution."
My response: The Constitution has been edited 27 times; there's a process in place for that, unlike with religious texts.
Tripoli55: "When the created assumes the role of the Creator, beware."
My response: The idea that creativity is a sin is news to me. Better let everyone who's ever produced an illustrated version of the Bible know.
Bill Halverson: "Surely the Holy Spirit will fill in the parts that are removed. And if the Holy Spirit is denied, then the very rocks will cry out."
My response: Since the Holy Spirit is also God, and God is all-powerful, how would any human being be capable of denying it.
Felshamboy: "So if I understand the humanists, they are making a determination what in the Bible is worthwhile and what isn't."
My response: Of course; everyone does. I've never met a single Christian who's sold everything he owned and given the money to the poor. It's in there.
Russell: "by making up their own Bible they declare that their own thoughts and feelings are their ultimate authority, which is exactly the self-deification of which we accuse them."
My response: Except that they aren't. They taking the existing Bible and removing things from it. So by that logic, everyone who has ever produced an abridged version of the Bible, or published individual sections of it, is guilty of self-worship.
Rfong: "The proof is in how many people actually use it for spiritual edification and growth."
My response: Actually, proof would be evidence that any of the Bible's claims are true. Christians have been very bad at producing such evidence.
Paladin: "yeah that would go right in the trash where it belongs"
My response: Couldn't have said it better! Do that with the parts they removed as well!
John McNama: "It amazes me how the creation thinks it can improve on the Word given by the Creator of all things."
My response: Why? It happens all the time. I assume you have the same criticism of the Conservative Bible Project.
Islanderwaab: "Just imagine a law school been given an edited form of the U.S. Constitution."
My response: The Constitution has been edited 27 times; there's a process in place for that, unlike with religious texts.
Tripoli55: "When the created assumes the role of the Creator, beware."
My response: The idea that creativity is a sin is news to me. Better let everyone who's ever produced an illustrated version of the Bible know.
Bill Halverson: "Surely the Holy Spirit will fill in the parts that are removed. And if the Holy Spirit is denied, then the very rocks will cry out."
My response: Since the Holy Spirit is also God, and God is all-powerful, how would any human being be capable of denying it.
Felshamboy: "So if I understand the humanists, they are making a determination what in the Bible is worthwhile and what isn't."
My response: Of course; everyone does. I've never met a single Christian who's sold everything he owned and given the money to the poor. It's in there.
Russell: "by making up their own Bible they declare that their own thoughts and feelings are their ultimate authority, which is exactly the self-deification of which we accuse them."
My response: Except that they aren't. They taking the existing Bible and removing things from it. So by that logic, everyone who has ever produced an abridged version of the Bible, or published individual sections of it, is guilty of self-worship.
Rfong: "The proof is in how many people actually use it for spiritual edification and growth."
My response: Actually, proof would be evidence that any of the Bible's claims are true. Christians have been very bad at producing such evidence.
Paladin: "yeah that would go right in the trash where it belongs"
My response: Couldn't have said it better! Do that with the parts they removed as well!
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Basic Math Fail at Christian Post
Nothing brings out the Liars for Jesus like the chance to take rights away from people. And the prospect of those people being women gets the good folks at Christian Post so hot and bothered that they lose their grip on basic arithmetic.
A recent article at CP claims that Planned Parenthood gets $1622 from the government for every abortion that it performs. Let's set aside the falsely-implied causal connection (that is, the implication that their funding depends on the number of abortions) and look at the numbers.
First, let's look just at the numbers CP gives (although it should be noted that it cites no source for them). They claim that PP performed 995,687 abortions over a three-year period, including 333,964 in one year. That means that the other two average 330,862 each.
CP then claims that PP gets $547 million dollars over a different two-year period; already, CP's being dishonest by comparing unequal time frames. Dividing the $547 million by $1622, we get 337,238; this is a figure that appears nowhere in the article and is, in fact, even higher than what they claimed.
The article goes on to say that one abortion is performed every 94 seconds. Dividing the number of seconds in a year by 94 gives 335,489, which is also higher than their initial claims. Anyone with a calculator can confirm that CP's math is either in error or a lie. Given the fact that the numbers are probably rectally-derived in the first place, a lie is the more likely conclusion.
Now let's look at the real numbers. CP suggests that 92% of PP's services are abortions. This is brazen bullshit; the real number is 3%. How any self-respecting Christian can tolerate such whopping lies from CP is beyond me.
PP estimates that its contraception and education services have averted 277,000 abortions per year. Dividing the funding figure into that number, we can see that the government gives PP $1975 for each abortion it prevents.
Christians should be celebrating what Planned Parenthood has accomplished with government funding! So why aren't they? Because they recognize that this is a false connection. PP's government funding has nothing to do with the number of abortions it prevents. Guess what? It has nothing to do with the number performed either.
To all Christians who come to this realization: Congratulations; you've just seen through the lies of Christian Post. Now ask yourself why would ever go back to getting your information from such a bullshit source.
A recent article at CP claims that Planned Parenthood gets $1622 from the government for every abortion that it performs. Let's set aside the falsely-implied causal connection (that is, the implication that their funding depends on the number of abortions) and look at the numbers.
First, let's look just at the numbers CP gives (although it should be noted that it cites no source for them). They claim that PP performed 995,687 abortions over a three-year period, including 333,964 in one year. That means that the other two average 330,862 each.
CP then claims that PP gets $547 million dollars over a different two-year period; already, CP's being dishonest by comparing unequal time frames. Dividing the $547 million by $1622, we get 337,238; this is a figure that appears nowhere in the article and is, in fact, even higher than what they claimed.
The article goes on to say that one abortion is performed every 94 seconds. Dividing the number of seconds in a year by 94 gives 335,489, which is also higher than their initial claims. Anyone with a calculator can confirm that CP's math is either in error or a lie. Given the fact that the numbers are probably rectally-derived in the first place, a lie is the more likely conclusion.
Now let's look at the real numbers. CP suggests that 92% of PP's services are abortions. This is brazen bullshit; the real number is 3%. How any self-respecting Christian can tolerate such whopping lies from CP is beyond me.
PP estimates that its contraception and education services have averted 277,000 abortions per year. Dividing the funding figure into that number, we can see that the government gives PP $1975 for each abortion it prevents.
Christians should be celebrating what Planned Parenthood has accomplished with government funding! So why aren't they? Because they recognize that this is a false connection. PP's government funding has nothing to do with the number of abortions it prevents. Guess what? It has nothing to do with the number performed either.
To all Christians who come to this realization: Congratulations; you've just seen through the lies of Christian Post. Now ask yourself why would ever go back to getting your information from such a bullshit source.
Monday, January 7, 2013
No takers, huh...
This blogging thing is new to me, and I've discovered a feature I really like. I can see how many page views each of my posts has received. The most popular one so far: My post asking why Christians oppose slavery when the Bible endorses it.
Yet, despite more people having viewed this post than any other, no one has dared answer it. I can see why. As Christians, they are duty-bound to check out what a non-believer asks in a post called "Perhaps a Christian Could Enlighten Me." But when it turns out to be an uncomfortable question? Forget it.
Easy to be an evangelist until you get challenged, huh.
Yet, despite more people having viewed this post than any other, no one has dared answer it. I can see why. As Christians, they are duty-bound to check out what a non-believer asks in a post called "Perhaps a Christian Could Enlighten Me." But when it turns out to be an uncomfortable question? Forget it.
Easy to be an evangelist until you get challenged, huh.
More nonsense from Christian Post
In an article posted today on Christian Post, Dan Delzell claims that the atheist's rejection of God-claims comes from a "moral resistence" rather than "intellectual reasoning." This is a retread of the old "atheists know there's a god and are pretending there isn't" argument; it's as false as it is tired.
Delzell correctly notes that "even after all the intellectual evidence is presented, many hearers still choose to reject the Gospel." This, we agree on. His conclusion, however, is that this is a result of a desire on the part of atheists to remain immoral, or something.
He's missing the real reason: that none of the "evidence" is really evidence. All Christians have to offer are personal experiences that cannot be verified and philosophical arguments that can all be refuted. There is not a shred of real evidence that any gods exist.
But of course, Delzell can't comprehend that, because his god doesn't allow him to question his beliefs. He can't examine evidence objectively. God MUST exist, so what he offers MUST be valid evidence. So atheists MUST be rejecting it because they want to be bad people, not because they're just unconvinced by the claims of the religious.
Classic example of an Christian projecting his superstitious beliefs on rational people and ending up dumbfounded (and flat out wrong) about why they're being rejected.
Delzell correctly notes that "even after all the intellectual evidence is presented, many hearers still choose to reject the Gospel." This, we agree on. His conclusion, however, is that this is a result of a desire on the part of atheists to remain immoral, or something.
He's missing the real reason: that none of the "evidence" is really evidence. All Christians have to offer are personal experiences that cannot be verified and philosophical arguments that can all be refuted. There is not a shred of real evidence that any gods exist.
But of course, Delzell can't comprehend that, because his god doesn't allow him to question his beliefs. He can't examine evidence objectively. God MUST exist, so what he offers MUST be valid evidence. So atheists MUST be rejecting it because they want to be bad people, not because they're just unconvinced by the claims of the religious.
Classic example of an Christian projecting his superstitious beliefs on rational people and ending up dumbfounded (and flat out wrong) about why they're being rejected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)