The AntiChrist Fallacies!!

[Lillen]

Here is a list of fallacies the opponents use when arguing against Christians!

1.

Is God able to create a stone to heavy for him to lift?

This is what I call a flipping-the-coin-on-the-edge trick. This mean that both sides are visible, The only way to argue this is to use a flipping-the-coin-on-the-edge answer:

Yes God is able to create a stone that he can lift without having the strenght enough

2.

As far as I know it could have been the flying spagetti monster that created the earth?

This is what I have named the Truckstop-contradiction. The opponent has turn aside for His idea that there is no creation and taken Creationism as a standpoint but using Designator that is nothing compared to the Creator of the bible. It is true the opponent can argue that the Flying Spagetti Monster is something while the facts is that he has left no trace behind him like a holy book or even "fearytales".

3.

We can't know anything!

This is what I call the One-to-Everything contradiction. If we assume that the permiss is true, we can actuall know that the statement in it self is true, and has thus falsified itself.

4.

Science is Facts

This is what I call The-Blind-Scientist-fallacy. While it is a scientists duty to look for what speaks against the truth, and let others confirm the truth, he has used nothing that speaks againt his theory.
To inform our opponents, Theology is a facuality on universities and colleges around the world much of the science behind religion can be proven

5.

Do you have evidence?

This is what I have named the call-for-a-troll fallacy. Usually-call-for-a-troll fallacy is used when a Christian has used a set of symmetric arguments to prove his point, and yet the opponent demands a source for symmetric arguments already used!

6.

Why can't you believe in evolution?

This is what i call the Science-as-a-Secular-Religion-Thinking. While the scientist reconnect to nothing, opponents using this set of thinking has reconnection to science, making science a matter of faith instead of knowledge

7.

Evolution has disproven creation

This is what i refer to as the Illogical symmetry argument. This is illogical because it use another facuality to falsify the the other. Its like disproving Equations with Lex Veneris (lex veneris is a study on how sexual transmitted diseases spread in the biggning of the former century). Equation is math, Lex Veneris is History. Evolution is Biology and Creation is Religion. we use religion to disprove religion, we use math to disprove math, and so on.

 

[Delphiki]

Evolution is Biology and Creation is Religion. we use religion to disprove religion, we use math to disprove math, and so on.

This is probably the only thing in the post that was actually correct.

Since it's correct, and you see the difference, then you agree that creation has no place being taught in a science class, correct?

 

[Lillen]

Since it's correct, and you see the difference, then you agree that creation has no place being taught in a science class, correct?

This is a strawman. You distorted my argument, and now falsifying the perverted argument.

I said, if I wasn't clear with you- Biology is Biology and Religion is Religion, both is actually science - One even have an own facuality on the universities around the world while the other counts as natural science.q

 

[Split Rock]

Hi Lillen

Here is a list of fallacies the opponents use when arguing against Christians!

Most of us here argue with creationists, not necessarily Christians. That includes quite a few Christians, btw. I will address those points that seem to apply to creationists.

2.
This is what I have named the Truckstop-contradiction. The opponent has turn aside for His idea that there is no creation and taken Creationism as a standpoint but using Designator that is nothing compared to the Creator of the bible. It is true the opponent can argue that the Flying Spagetti Monster is something while the facts is that he has left no trace behind him like a holy book or even "fearytales".

Other religions have their holy books as well, some even older than The Bible. Does that mean they are correct as well? The point of the FSM is, there is no physical evidence for any god creating anything.

4. This is what I call The-Blind-Scientist-fallacy. While it is a scientists duty to look for what speaks against the truth, and let others confirm the truth, he has used nothing that speaks againt his theory.
To inform our opponents, Theology is a facuality on universities and colleges around the world much of the science behind religion can be proven

Science is focused on physical explanations based on physical evidence that explain physical phenomena. Religions do not do this and therefore should not be used to expalin physical phenomena. This does not mean that religion does not have its place in theological discussions.

5.
This is what I have named the call-for-a-troll fallacy. Usually-call-for-a-troll fallacy is used when a Christian has used a set of symmetric arguments to prove his point, and yet the opponent demands a source for symmetric arguments already used!

If you do not have a factual basis, then symmetry is irrelevant. How do we test creationist assertions about nature? If we cannot test them, then they are useless to us.

6.
This is what i call the Science-as-a-Secular-Religion-Thinking. While the scientist reconnect to nothing, opponents using this set of thinking has reconnection to science, making science a matter of faith instead of knowledge

Plenty of Christians (the majority on the planet) have no problem accepting evolution. Evolution is accpeted by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Shintos, Agnostics and Atheists a like. No faith is required.

7.
This is what i refer to as the Illogical symmetry argument. This is illogical because it use another facuality to falsify the the other. Its like disproving Equations with Lex Veneris (lex veneris is a study on how sexual transmitted diseases spread in the biggning of the former century). Equation is math, Lex Veneris is History. Evolution is Biology and Creation is Religion. we use religion to disprove religion, we use math to disprove math, and so on.

Certain aspects of creationism have been falsified. This includes a global flood responsible for today's geology, an age of 6,000 years for the earth and universe, etc. Nothing is ever proven completely in science, but evolution and deep time have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Split Rock]

This is a strawman. You distorted my argument, and now falsifying the perverted argument.

I said, if I wasn't clear with you- Biology is Biology and Religion is Religion, both is actually science - One even have an own facuality on the universities around the world while the other counts as natural science.q

Its been many years now since religion was considered "Queen of the Sciences." Usually when we discuss "science" nowadays, it is the Natural Sciences. That said, can you explain to us why Religion should be used to explain natural phenomena, rather than the Natural Sciences?

 

[Delphiki]

This is a strawman. You distorted my argument, and now falsifying the perverted argument.

I said, if I wasn't clear with you- Biology is Biology and Religion is Religion, both is actually science - One even have an own facuality on the universities around the world while the other counts as natural science.q

I only need to look a the OP to see that what you actually said was:

Evolution is Biology and Creation is Religion. we use religion to disprove religion, we use math to disprove math, and so on.

Religion is not science. I'm not sure if a debate opponent being completely incorrect or ignorant to something and me not yet being aware of their error constitutes a straw man.

Feel free to give an example of creationism, as found through the scientific method. How was creationism discovered with scientific means?

Creationism starts with a conclusion, then attempts to find ways to make it true, whether it is or not.
Real science starts with a question, and ultimately discovers the conclusion.

Religion is a belief structure, supported by faith. If it were science, then it wouldn't vary so greatly throughout the world. A biologist in the Philippines will tell you how evolutionary biology works, and it will be the same thing a biologist in the United States. A creationist of beliefs other than Christian will have a profoundly different story to tell than yourself. What about even among Christians? Do Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and you all believe the same thing? Hardly.

It'd be different if science was just "belief", but it's not.

The only manner in which religion relates to science is when it's being studied objectively in a social science.

 

[Delphiki]

Referring back to: "we use religion to disprove religion, we use math to disprove math, and so on."

And science to disprove science?

Then, assuming you're right, that religion is science, you should still have no problem with science proving religious claims to be false.

Hey.. your own words.

 

[Lillen]

Most of us here argue with creationists, not necessarily Christians. That includes quite a few Christians, btw. I will address those points that seem to apply to creationists.

Usually Christians.

Other religions have their holy books as well, some even older than The Bible. Does that mean they are correct as well? The point of the FSM is, there is no physical evidence for any god creating anything.

The oldest copy we have of the old testement is the dead seascrolls that dates 2000 years of age. This is why i argue that the bibel is the oldest holy book. Other religions may well have holy books, but none of those holy books dates to 2000 years.

Science is focused on physical explanations based on physical evidence that explain physical phenomena. Religions do not do this and therefore should not be used to expalin physical phenomena. This does not mean that religion does not have its place in theological discussions.

In that case History, social sciences, Geography and Gastronomy for example, is not science.

If you do not have a factual basis, then symmetry is irrelevant. How do we test creationist assertions about nature? If we cannot test them, then they are useless to us.

Plenty of Christians (the majority on the planet) have no problem accepting evolution. Evolution is accpeted by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Shintos, Agnostics and Atheists a like. No faith is required.

This is irrelevant

Certain aspects of creationism have been falsified. This includes a global flood responsible for today's geology, an age of 6,000 years for the earth and universe, etc. Nothing is ever proven completely in science, but evolution and deep time have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

If I set up that the world is flat and wants to set it up as a scientifical theory we need to look at what speaks against it. In the same manner if i want to argue if the world is round i need to look what speaks against it. Accoridng to Hawkings the world is a hologram. That speaks against both the idea that the world is round, and that the world is flat. It has thus been falsified that the world is round, and it has been falsified that the world is flat... The world is a hologram

[/quote]

And stop charming me, i call that the curse fallcy. The curse fallacy is when you hung up opponents posts in a tree or let your dog eat it. Why not tapping with pigsfeets or lead you astray through other curses cast.

If you wanna curse right, go and buy a world atlas and hung it up in a blatant tree

 

[Delphiki]

And stop charming me, i call that the curse fallcy. The curse fallacy is when you hung up opponents posts in a tree or let your dog eat it. Why not tapping with pigsfeets or lead you astray through other curses cast.

If you wanna curse right, go and buy a world atlas and hung it up in a blatant tree

I'm sorry, but if this is a Swedish figure of speech, I can't make sense of it. on my end it's actually kind of funny in an nonsensism kind of way.

 

[Upisoft]

I said, if I wasn't clear with you- Biology is Biology and Religion is Religion, both is actually science - One even have an own facuality on the universities around the world while the other counts as natural science.q

Religion is not science. It does not make any testable predictions. It says we will go to hell or heaven, but no actual evidence and observation is presented. It says God exists, but you shall not test God. etc., etc., etc.

 

[Lillen]

Theology is a own facuality at the university!!!

 

[Upisoft]

So does literature and art.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So does the art department.

 

[Cabal]

1. This is what I call a flipping-the-coin-on-the-edge trick. This mean that both sides are visible, The only way to argue this is to use a flipping-the-coin-on-the-edge answer:

Well done, you've just shown that God is not omnipotent. Don't think that was what you intended.

2. This is what I have named the Truckstop-contradiction. The opponent has turn aside for His idea that there is no creation and taken Creationism as a standpoint but using Designator that is nothing compared to the Creator of the bible. It is true the opponent can argue that the Flying Spagetti Monster is something while the facts is that he has left no trace behind him like a holy book or even "fearytales".

The point of the FSM is that there are a lot of ideas one could conjure up that make lots of claims but no empirical evidence - but no-one believes the claims attributed to the FSM, so on that basis there is no reason to accept creationism only on assertion without evidence.

3. This is what I call the One-to-Everything contradiction. If we assume that the permiss is true, we can actuall know that the statement in it self is true, and has thus falsified itself.

Ironically, in my experience it's Christians desperately attempting to validate creationism that resort to this one more often. Because science does not know everything, they make the fallacy of claiming that their pet beliefs are true because science does not know everything. It's a non-sequitur.

4. This is what I call The-Blind-Scientist-fallacy. While it is a scientists duty to look for what speaks against the truth, and let others confirm the truth, he has used nothing that speaks againt his theory.

This is an incredibly generalising statement - most good scientists try and disprove their own ideas. More often than not the ones who cherry-pick evidence to support their ideas are the creationists.

To inform our opponents, Theology is a facuality on universities and colleges around the world much of the science behind religion can be proven

Theology is not a science. It is a glorified centre for opinions on a document that is chronically subjective given how awesome people claim it is.

5.This is what I have named the call-for-a-troll fallacy. Usually-call-for-a-troll fallacy is used when a Christian has used a set of symmetric arguments to prove his point, and yet the opponent demands a source for symmetric arguments already used!

Uh, no - asking for evidence is a completely reasonable thing to do when someone makes a claim - particularly if science is under discussion as science relies on evidence. I love how you've essentially just called the disciple Thomas a troll - he asked for evidence of the resurrection, after all.

6. This is what i call the Science-as-a-Secular-Religion-Thinking. While the scientist reconnect to nothing, opponents using this set of thinking has reconnection to science, making science a matter of faith instead of knowledge

I agree - simply asking the question isn't especially convincing, but most creationists make the choice to actively ignore evidence that contradicts the beliefs they already hold to be true (cf. Answers in Genesis' mission statement) - which is extolled as faith, but is the complete opposite of science, so your statement is simply wrong by definition.

7. This is what i refer to as the Illogical symmetry argument. This is illogical because it use another facuality to falsify the the other. Its like disproving Equations with Lex Veneris (lex veneris is a study on how sexual transmitted diseases spread in the biggning of the former century). Equation is math, Lex Veneris is History. Evolution is Biology and Creation is Religion. we use religion to disprove religion, we use math to disprove math, and so on.

Right - except science doesn't disprove religion. Point is, it can't prove it, either. It is what it is - and it is perfectly possible to reconcile contemporary science with Christianity.

The point is, this is just as true for creationists, who think their religious opinions trump science - they don't.

 

[Split Rock]

Usually Christians.

In the USA and Western Europe, yes. Yet they are still a minority of Christians.

The oldest copy we have of the old testement is the dead seascrolls that dates 2000 years of age. This is why i argue that the bibel is the oldest holy book. Other religions may well have holy books, but none of those holy books dates to 2000 years.

Some Hindu holy texts are much older than the dead Sea scrolls.

In that case History, social sciences, Geography and Gastronomy for example, is not science.

History is not science.
Social sciences do use the scientific method, so they are science.
Geography is scientific.
Gastronomy is scienitifc.

This is irrelevant

My post was in response to this post by you:

"While the scientist reconnect to nothing, opponents using this set of thinking has reconnection to science, making science a matter of faith instead of knowledge."

If I set up that the world is flat and wants to set it up as a scientifical theory we need to look at what speaks against it. In the same manner if i want to argue if the world is round i need to look what speaks against it. Accoridng to Hawkings the world is a hologram. That speaks against both the idea that the world is round, and that the world is flat. It has thus been falsified that the world is round, and it has been falsified that the world is flat... The world is a hologram

You have taken Hawkings words out of context. Obviously he does not believe the world is not round.

And stop charming me, i call that the curse fallcy. The curse fallacy is when you hung up opponents posts in a tree or let your dog eat it. Why not tapping with pigsfeets or lead you astray through other curses cast.

If you wanna curse right, go and buy a world atlas and hung it up in a blatant tree

I have no idea what you are going on about with this statement.
I suspect, however, that you don't really want to have a rational discussion...

 

[Split Rock]

Theology is a own facuality at the university!!!

I will respond with a quote from yourself:

This is irrelevant

 

[Cabal]

I have no idea what you are going on about with this statement. I suspect, however, that you don't really want to have a rational discussion...

Yes, I suspect the accusations of "charming" and "cursing" in response to a well-raised point are the defence mechanism here....

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, I suspect the accusations of "charming" and "cursing" in response to a well-raised point are the defence mechanism here....

Honestly, this is one of the weirdest responses I have ever gotten here. And that is saying something!

 

[Lillen]

Well done, you've just shown that God is not omnipotent. Don't think that was what you intended.

he did carrying it didn't he?

The point of the FSM is that there are a lot of ideas one could conjure up that make lots of claims but no empirical evidence - but no-one believes the claims attributed to the FSM, so on that basis there is no reason to accept creationist assertions without evidence

Faith usually works through testemoneys. How does it make you feel knowing that Jesus healed me from my Downs and Developmental Disorder for instance? I can say that Jesus died for my sins, and abolished in his flesh the curse of the law having become a curse for us. Thats recorded in the gospels through testemonys: When studying law, you need to be able both to examine witnessess and examine evidence. Science do not examine witnessess, they examine evidence, while religion examine testemonys.

I was developmental disordered and had downs and was healed. That is something out of the ordenary. is it not?

Theology is not a science. It is a glorified centre for opinions on a document that is chronically subjective given how awesome people claim it is.

Faith is not science. But you can look at theology and religion from two perspective, one due to faith and one in agreement with science - Kurs C i Religionvetenskap (translated Course C in Religionscience) requires you to write a scientifiacal essay using scientifical method, on Uppsala Universistet.

When reading religion, and if i want to do a research on how valdenses were persecuted by the Catholic Church, I need to use the scientifical method in my research or essey. From this perspective Religion is science.

But if we look at at my faith, I do not KNOW God exists, I BELIEVE God exist. As it is written, Therefore it is of faith. Moreover it is written, that For by grace have you been saved through faith and that not of yourself it is a free gift of God and not a result of works that anyone should boast.

Jesus saved me from my downs, and developmental disorder; and he has promised that i will inherit eternal life by my faith in Him.

Uh, no - asking for evidence is a completely reasonable thing to do when someone makes a claim - particularly if science is under discussion as science relies on evidence. I love how you've essentially just called the disciple Thomas a troll - he asked for evidence of the resurrection, after all.

You took that out of context, you out of context taker you. I said asking asking for a source providing you with arguements WHEN the christian already provided you with symmetrical arguements.

I agree - simply asking the question isn't especially convincing, but most creationists make the choice to actively ignore evidence that contradicts the beliefs they already hold to be true (cf. Answers in Genesis' mission statement) - which is extolled as faith, but is the complete opposite of science, so your statement is simply wrong by definition

In the below quote you argue that belifs cannot be disproven by science. You need to rephrase or make yourself clearer.

Right - except science doesn't disprove religion. Point is, it can't prove it, either. It is what it is - and it is perfectly possible to reconcile contemporary science with Christianity.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

he did carrying it didn't he?

The point of the FSM is that there are a lot of ideas one could conjure up that make lots of claims but no empirical evidence - but no-one believes the claims attributed to the FSM, so on that basis there is no reason to accept creationist assertions without evidence

Faith usually works through testemoneys. How does it make you feel knowing that Jesus healed me from my Downs and Developmental Disorder for instance? I can say that Jesus died for my sins, and abolished in his flesh the curse of the law having become a curse for us. Thats recorded in the gospels through testemonys: When studying law, you need to be able both to examine witnessess and examine evidence. Science do not examine witnessess, they examine evidence, while religion examine testemonys.

I was developmental disordered and had downs and was healed. That is something out of the ordenary. is it not?



Faith is not science. But you can look at theology and religion from two perspective, one due to faith and one in agreement with science - Kurs C i Religionvetenskap (translated Course C in Religionscience) requires you to write a scientifiacal essay using scientifical method, on Uppsala Universistet.

When reading religion, and if i want to do a research on how valdenses were persecuted by the Catholic Church, I need to use the scientifical method in my research or essey. From this perspective Religion is science.

But if we look at at my faith, I do not KNOW God exists, I BELIEVE God exist. As it is written, Therefore it is of faith. Moreover it is written, that For by grace have you been saved through faith and that not of yourself it is a free gift of God and not a result of works that anyone should boast.

Jesus saved me from my downs, and developmental disorder; and he has promised that i will inherit eternal life by my faith in Him.



You took that out of context, you out of context taker you. I said asking asking for a source providing you with arguements WHEN the christian already provided you with symmetrical arguements.


In the below quote you argue that belifs cannot be disproven by science. You need to rephrase or make yourself clearer.

Are you actually claiming that you were born with trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), and you prayed to Jesus and you no longer have trisomy 21?