I would like to dedicate this thread to discussing the fallacies committed in pro-religious debates, discussions, etc. If you are a pro-theist, please feel free to dispute what you think others are saying and give logical, well thought-out reasons for why you think whatever it is that you believe.
Carbon 14 isn't used simply by itself (Why religious fools like to pick on it is beyond me!)
I think this site said it well on how creationists fail to see it's not used for everything. Like how a ruler isn't use to measure then length of a cell. So using such logic we can't rely on rulers to measure the length of anything because it doesn't work for everything. Keeping with the theme of this thread I know that's got to be a fallacy but I can't think of what it's called.
The Bible trumps physics, chemistry, astronomy, economy, archeology, cosmology, geology, anthropology, biology, linguistics and dendrochronology every time. Because we all now that a 3000 year old book -written by unidentified persons- is more reliable than thousands of scientific studies, conducted by experts in their fields. Oh, and only Americans believe the Young Earth Fable - it's frivolous considering it a theory-; I wonder, why is that?
Oh, and only Americans believe the Young Earth Fable - it's frivolous considering it a theory-; I wonder, why is that?
I would think there are plenty of people from other countries who believe it given not all Christians are American. One example I can think of off the top of my head would be the pope.
I would think there are plenty of people from other countries who believe it given not all Christians are American. One example I can think of off the top of my head would be the pope
. No, no the Roman Catholic Church, accepts the possibility of theistic evolution. I attended Catholic Sunday School in Italy (the Pope's country), no one said that Earth is 6000 years old. Personally, before creating an account here, I had never heard of creationism. Like not all Christians are American, not all believe in Young-Earth Creationism; as a matter of fact Young-Earth Creationism is primarily an American phenomenon. Read this article ps. There is an other country where Evolution is highly criticized; Saudi Arabia.
No, no the Roman Catholic Church, accepts the possibility of theistic evolution.
Someone should tell my grandmother. Though your right, young earth creationism is fundamental Protestant view. I would still wager there are non Americans who believe it though. In fact some of it's origins can be traced back to England. Calculations on the age of the Earth based on the Bible were done by Archbishop James Ussher. Apparently it wasn't until geological evidence presented in the 18th and 19th century the idea of Genesis as literal was abandoned and it took on a more metaphorical role. It would see creationism today had a re-emergence in the US around 1910. So I guess that's why it's mostly in the US.
Personally, before creating an account here, I had never heard of creationism.
I didn't hear about creationism until about 6-7 years ago myself. I was surprised it was something going on for so long.
Though your right, young earth creationism is fundamental Protestant view.
I am not a big supporter of the Catholic Church, nevertheless I have to applaud that they declared Evolution as worthy of study and thus ending the Creation-Evolution debate in Roman Catholic countries.
I would still wager there are non Americans who believe it though.
Sure there are some persons who believe this, but they are considered crackers. Young Earth is not at all mainstream outside the USA.
Calculations on the age of the Earth based on the Bible were done by Archbishop James Ussher.
Aye, I have to mention though, that if I am not mistaken he was Protestant.
It would see creationism today had a re-emergence in the US around 1910. So I guess that's why it's mostly in the US.
There is the theory, that in the USA some persons opposed Darwin's ideas because -according to them- the German WW I aggression resulted from a Darwinian doctrine (i.e. Survival of the Fittest)
There is the theory, that in the USA some persons opposed Darwin's ideas because -according to them- the German WW I aggression resulted from a Darwinian doctrine (i.e. Survival of the Fittest)
It also relied upon gene theory, psychiatry, and socio-ecomomics. We still embrace them. We the ambigous, demonizing, half-blind people of America. God bless us.
There is the theory, that in the USA some persons opposed Darwin's ideas because -according to them- the German WW I aggression resulted from a Darwinian doctrine (i.e. Survival of the Fittest)
Actually it was based on the ideas of eugenics, which were very prevalent at the time.
I think it is funny that this is a post on a flash video game website which has nothing to do with your topic and your commenters are more than likely to be teenagers who likely don't even know what the word 'fallacy' means. I would highly encourage you to go to forums such as that of Reasonable Faith (reasonablefaith.org) or Stand to Reason (str.org).
I am a devout Christian who does not believe the universe is 6,000 years old but believes that there is a lot more reason to put your faith in God than atheistic evolution.
As far as the link that was first posted, I agree with the list of fallacies (With an asterisk on #1 and #6) but do not believe that those who argue for theism on a scholarly level commit these fallacies much more often that those of the atheist who love the added Ad-Hominem of course.
*#1 - I would say that if an argument is logically valid, the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises then we can trust that it is true. I agree that just because can't prove God doesn't exist doesn't mean he is there, but there are clearly no viable arguments which don't push logically invalid views such as materialism or scientism. If an argument is true, we can accept and believe it while still searching out alternative explanations, that is an attribute of intellectual honesty. You don't have to be 100% sure of something to be obligated to believe it, only 51%. I believe in God in relation to Christianity but also believe I could be wrong; but until the evidence stacks up against my faith I will continue to hold it.
*#6 - I agree with this but not sure how much in relation to God. Either he exists (A) or he does not (Not A) as far as the Law of Non-Contradiction states. If there is a third option, what is it? Again, somewhat like my addendum to *#1, until we discover the third option (If it exists) we have good reason to believe the side with the most evidence. To put 'blind faith' into a yet to be discovered element puts you in the same boat as the theist, but I don't believe my faith is blind.
If you want to respond to this, please contact me at my site, protheist.com. I would love to engage this further, but not on a site aimed towards kids and employees who should be working
P.S. - I came across this post only because of a Google Alert sent to me notifying me someone posted using the term Pro-Theist
I think it is funny that this is a post on a flash video game website which has nothing to do with your topic and your commenters are more than likely to be teenagers who likely don't even know what the word 'fallacy' means.
Hmm, that is most probable, but is can also be inverted. I am a teen, but I do know stuff, and I know adults who aren't too knowledgeable.
I have always wondered why 1/3 to 1/2 of the threads in this section of the forums is either religion based, or turns into a religion vs science war.
Agreed Master. Age does not equal intelligence, I have met sixteen year olds who could give many thirty and forty year olds a run for their money. But I think you get what I'm saying.
I could easily have a whole day sucked into answering all these responses, but who would actually listen? If you're curious, just email me on my site.
I think it is funny that this is a post on a flash video game website which has nothing to do with your topic and your commenters are more than likely to be teenagers who likely don't even know what the word 'fallacy' means.
I provided a link on the first page explaining fallacies and giving a list of them. So if there are any teenagers who don't even know what the word fallacy is they can look it up very easily.
In fact I would say claiming someone to be unknowledgeable just because of their age or the site they are posting too is a fallacy in itself.
I am a devout Christian who does not believe the universe is 6,000 years old but believes that there is a lot more reason to put your faith in God than atheistic evolution.
"atheistic evolution" I don't think I have ever heard that term used. Evolution isn't inherently atheistic and does not require any faith, nor should it be given any as a theory. It should simply stand or fall based on the evidence.
that those of the atheist who love the added Ad-Hominem of course.
I find it's usually the other way around. Saying someone is foolish for their beliefs is not an ad-hominem attack, though claiming the belief is foolish because the person believing it is, is one.
I would say that if an argument is logically valid, the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises then we can trust that it is true.
Actually no, in fact there is a nice example in the Introduction to logic thread stickied at the top of this section.
Here we have an example of a logically valid statement that is false. "Mars is closer to the Sun than Earth. Earth is closer to the sun than Venus. So Mars is closer to the sun than Venus."
If an argument is true, we can accept and believe it while still searching out alternative explanations,
Without evidence how do we know an argument is true or not?
I believe in God in relation to Christianity but also believe I could be wrong; but until the evidence stacks up against my faith I will continue to hold it.
Given the source material claiming this being exists has been proven to be full of errors, and there is no evidence for such a being then belief in such a being is illogical.
until we discover the third option (If it exists) we have good reason to believe the side with the most evidence.
Given the evidence that does exist indicates that if such a being does exist he wasn't needed and the source of the claim of his existence has been proven faulty I would be inclined not to believe the claim of his existence. As for his existence itself there is no evidence so there is nothing to base such a belief on beyond hearsay.
To put 'blind faith' into a yet to be discovered element puts you in the same boat as the theist, but I don't believe my faith is blind.
Faith by definition is blind. And no it doesn't put us in the same boat as non of my beliefs are based on faith.
If you want to respond to this, please contact me at my site, protheist.com. I would love to engage this further, but not on a site aimed towards kids and employees who should be working
I prefer to stay where logic and reason has a place in the discussion. Thank You.
P.S. - I came across this post only because of a Google Alert sent to me notifying me someone posted using the term Pro-Theist
Let's see if that works Pro-Theist.
I have always wondered why 1/3 to 1/2 of the threads in this section of the forums is either religion based, or turns into a religion vs science war.
Also I can't help but to notice all the sites you suggest are Christian apologetic sites. In my experience they tend to not encourage rational discussion, but simply look to play up fallacies.
