Jump to content


Blaming Religion

  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 January 2018 - 05:27 AM

Fallacious arguments are used against religion, I shall explain the common ones in this thread I read online most days, from a lot of atheists;


The blaming-religion arguments online I read sometimes daily, grow boring, tedious and never fail to make me shake my head at the so called, "rationalists" of atheism, who don't seem to understand anything about logic.
Example 1;
Mike is a religious person 
Pete is a religious person that believes flat earth
Therefore mike can be regarded as being on the same level of crackpottery as pete since they are both religious.
Another bad argument is this;
This/these religious people are stupid, they reject science, they believe the moon landings are fake they don't understand anything properly, therefore religious people are stupid, religion is stupid.
This is the hasty generalisation fallacy, where you argue that because SOME religious people believe in stupid things P and Y, that therefore all religious people do, and the blame can be placed on religion. The blame for religion is NEVER qualified, only asserted.
In actual fact according to ABC level of logic five year olds could understand, all I need to do to disprove such half-witted offerings, is to show there is merely one non-religious person that accepts those beliefs to show the belief isn't coming from religion. So then, if even one flat earther or moon hoax theorist was non-religious, how then can the blame rest within the group, "religious people"? (the head of the flat earthers used to be an evolutionist atheist if I recall correctly)
"Some therefore all" reasoning is one of the most basic inductive mistakes in logical reasoning so it is particularly amusing when those who call themselves the ones of science and rationalism, make such a blundering error.
Another fallacy of blaming religion is this;
Religion is archaic, science and reason are preferable, and based on true knowledge. (you're either of science and enlightened/rational, or stupid and religious) This is the lumping into two groups, a false dichotomy known as a limited choice fallacy where there is no genuine disjunction. A correct disjunctive syllogism provides two premises of which only one or the other can be true. EXAMPLE;
If you are living, you are either under 50 years old, or 50 years or above.
Pete is alive and is not under 50 years old, therefore he is 50 years or above.
The false dichotomy also supposes that "religion" and "science and reason", are mutually exclusive which is another mistake. In fact a popular example atheists cite is Galileo but in fact the belief that the sun orbited the earth actually came from Aristotle. It was only the catholics that argued the bible agreed with Aristotle, but the bible itself doesn't state this and in fact uses phenomenological language. So then atheists tend to PRETEND that it was science versus religion, science versus the bible and that all the religious people involved were all guilty of holding back science. 
WRONG, it was two religious camps both arguing two things, and plenty of bible-believing Christians were on Galileo's side. So then it isn't impossible to accept scientific findings and be religious, that is one error. Another error is called Argumentum ad novitatem, where people argue that only modern and new ideas are correct because they are new and modern, but in fact this is wrong because there are archaic arguments which still hold true today, which are based on knowledge given to us thousands of years ago such as non-contradiction or pi (Archimedes) There is science from the 19th century such as de-phlogistonised air so to speak which still holds true today. (oxygen, or "exotic air")Even the bible clearly speaks of the water cycle.
Religion is to blame for all the violence,. (when for example, a Muslim extremist kills)
All the terrorism seems to be coming from religious people.
Therefore all violence comes from religious people.
(all the science seems to be coming from scientist.
Therefore all scientific discoveries and knowledge comes from scientists.)
I mean to say, are you so dumb that you believe that if a Muslim Jihadist murders people, "religious people" are to blame generally by a stupid stereotyping? Does that include Christian missionaries and Buddhist monks? Can't you even see why you are deliberately making all "religion" guilty of certain things by picking out negative things from minority groups that in some cases believe in only one particular "religion" and even within that religion they are the minority? So you use the term, "religion" as a blanket, if one person religious does negative thing P, you then say it belongs to the group "religion". So then, do you want to see the statistics for genocide for non-religious regimes? Thought not, because there is more bloodshed for non-religious, strictly speaking.
All religion is the same. 
This one actually has some merit but it depends what you mean by, "the same". If you argue all are basically fabrication, all variations of essentially the same thing, while that is a technical possibility, it is a non-sequitur to jump to the conclusion that your theory is correct, without actually knowing. You also have to consider the very great difference in beliefs within, "religion", from atheist pagans that believe crystals can heal, to the worshipping of holy cows, to the creation of wooden or stone idols and naming them as gods, to the one that exactly and correctly describes mankind's overtly sinful nature. :)
Religion as a whole, is either false in it's entirety or one is true (or so it would seem as a provisionally fair axiom or potentially likely one at least). 
If even one religion is true, this means they can't be the same in every way. They are all the same in some ways but not in all ways, and technically if you can't prove there is a difference in the truth value, then you can't tar all with that brush, you can only say how they are the same in those ways you know them to be, such as that we cannot empirically verify any. But if one is true, then it wouldn't matter if the true one shared the same nature in offering us creeds, commands, assertions of the supernatural, and so forth.
DISCLAIMER; I am not saying all atheists argue these things, but it is obviously non-religious people who do, and they are not aware how stupid their arguments are and how they are not all that far off being as stupid as conspiracy theorists. To my mind, though atheists often compare creationists to conspiracy theorists, my evaluations of their arguments tells me that a lot of atheists aren't far off the level of incompetence that comes from conspiracy theorists.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users