Dargo

To make the lives of theists easiers I've attempted to create this message which sums up some of the arguments for their religions. It should be most applicable to Christians and Muslims, but it could also work for other religions. Lazy thiests can now cut and paste my arguments.


Explaining the embarasing actions of members of your religion.

Those people weren't believes. Believers would never do something like that. Holy Book forbids such behavior.

They are confused or misled. They don't understand our religion.

You can't judge our religion based on the behavior of a small number of bad people. Your ignoring all the good it does.


Explaining contradictory, erroneous, or otherwise embarasing passages in your holy book.

Holy Book was given to us by Diety. Diety is not a man and does not lie or make mistakes. Therefore, Holy Book is perfect.

You quoted Holy Book out of context.

If you read it in the original language, it makes sense.

You have to consider the historical context of the time it was written.

That apparent mistake was a common literary practice at the time it was written.

That verse or passage does not mean what you think it means. It means something completely different which sounds a lot less embarasing.

Believers are given devine guidance which allows them to understand difficult passages in Holy Book. If you were a believer, you would realize this is not an error.

If you search hard enough for mistakes you can find them in anything. You are looking for trivial details in a pathetic attempt to discredit Holy Book.


Explaining why people don't believe your perfectly logical and convincing explanation as to why they should join your religion.

You are in rebellion against Diety. You know the truth, but don't want to admit it.

You don't want to given up your immoral atheistic lifestyle and accept the perfect moral teachings of Diety.

You are ignorant of the truth of our religion. If you knew more you would join us.

You are closed minded and will not listen to the truth.

You have been deceived by wicked people or evil spirits.

Give examples in Holy Book of people who refused to believe despite seeing incredible miracles performed by Diety.

beachbum

HI Dargo

Good stuff. Keep up the good work.

Dargo

I thought of a few others. Excuse my lousy spelling on the previous message. I should know better than to post before I've coffee.


Explaining the embarrassing actions of members of your religion.

Members of other religions have done many things, which are much worse.


General arguments

The world was completely barbaric before Deity sent his revelation. We have civilized the world.

All other religions are illogical and their holy books are filled with errors and contradictions.

Look at these amazing prophecies which have come true. Only Deity can know the future.

Holy Book contains advanced scientific knowledge which ancient humans can not possibly have known.

No one can look at this orderly world and logically deny Deity created it. Therefore, since our religion is the best, this proves we are right.

Evolution can not explain where the big bang came from. This proves we are right.

Atheists have no moral code. According to their philosophy all humans are gods, so anything they do is acceptable behavior. Believers follow the laws of Deity which makes them morally superior to nonbelievers.

Because atheism can not explain the meaning of life, it offers no hope for the human race. Believers know the true word of Deity and have a joy and purpose that nonbelievers can never know.

Godless Sodomite

Additionally, if they did such horrible things and they believed in god, think of how much worse their atrocities would have been had they been atheists!

-Jerry

Malaclypse the Younger

Dargo

Just for fun, I want to point out the logical fallacies of each of these positions.

Explaining the embarasing actions of members of your religion.

Those people weren't believes. Believers would never do something like that. Holy Book forbids such behavior.

No True Scotsman. The embarassing members claim that the Holy Book compels or permits such behavior.

They are confused or misled. They don't understand our religion.

No True Scotsman.

You can't judge our religion based on the behavior of a small number of bad people. Your ignoring all the good it does.

This is not a fallacy unless the apologist claims that his religion causes good behavior. In which case it is a nonsequitur.

Members of other religions have done many things, which are much worse.

Tu quoque (you too) fallacy.

Additionally, if they did such horrible things and they believed in god, think of how much worse their atrocities would have been had they been atheists!

Tu quoque fallacy and assumes facts not in evidence. It is not possible to know what a person would have done had she held different beliefs.


Explaining contradictory, erroneous, or otherwise embarasing passages in your holy book.

Holy Book was given to us by Diety. Diety is not a man and does not lie or make mistakes. Therefore, Holy Book is perfect.

Circular reasoning.

You quoted Holy Book out of context.

Assumes facts not in evidence. The "context" is one supplied by the apologist, not inherent in the text; thus the objective truth of the "proper context" is not established.

If you read it in the original language, it makes sense.

Assumes facts not in evidence, and is usually false. It should be noted that most apologists cannot themselves read it in the original language.

You have to consider the historical context of the time it was written.

Assumes facts not in evidence and circular reasoning. "Historical context" is difficult to establish factually, and is often established by the text that the apologist claims must be interpreted accordingly.

That apparent mistake was a common literary practice at the time it was written.

Argument from popularity. The existence of a "mistake" does not depend on its popularity.

That verse or passage does not mean what you think it means. It means something completely different which sounds a lot less embarasing.

Nonsequitur.

Believers are given divine guidance which allows them to understand difficult passages in Holy Book. If you were a believer, you would realize this is not an error.

Circular reasoning. Also false-to-fact: People who claim divine guidance still differ substantively and irreconcilably as to interpretation.

If you search hard enough for mistakes you can find them in anything. You are looking for trivial details in a pathetic attempt to discredit Holy Book.

Nonsequitur. The existence of a mistake, no matter how hard one searches for it, is evidence against its perfection.


Explaining why people don't believe your perfectly logical and convincing explanation as to why they should join your religion.

You are in rebellion against Diety. You know the truth, but don't want to admit it.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

You don't want to give up your immoral atheistic lifestyle and accept the perfect moral teachings of Diety.

Objectification of subjective values and assumes facts not in evidence (that the teachings are a deity's). Stated without the unwarranted moral charges and unsupported facts, this statement becomes, "You don't want to give up your atheistic lifestyle and accept the authority of teachings of the people who wrote this book." This statement is obviously true. Whether the atheistic lifestyle is "immoral" and the teachings of the people are "perfectly moral" is a matter of opinion.

You are ignorant of the truth of our religion. If you knew more you would join us.

Reverse argument from ignorance.

You are closed minded and will not listen to the truth.

Argument from nonstandard definition. "Closed-minded" refers to a methodology, not a set of conclusions.

You have been deceived by wicked people or evil spirits.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Give examples in Holy Book of people who refused to believe despite seeing incredible miracles performed by Diety.

Nonsequitur, and usually assumes facts not in evidence. The existence of surprising phenomena are not evidence of a deity (being perfectly compatible with naturalism). And most of these claims turn out to be false-to-fact on even cursory direct examination.


General arguments

The world was completely barbaric before Deity sent his revelation. We have civilized the world.

Argument by arbitrary definition (of barbaric) and confusion of correlation with causation.

All other religions are illogical and their holy books are filled with errors and contradictions.

Double standard.

Look at these amazing prophecies which have come true. Only Deity can know the future.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (follows therefore caused by). One must know the future before one can interpret the prophesy as predictive.

Holy Book contains advanced scientific knowledge which ancient humans can not possibly have known.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc; one must know the advanced scientific knowledge before one can interpret the text as showing that knowledge.

No one can look at this orderly world and logically deny Deity created it...

Nonsequitur. The orderliness of of the world is not evidence of a deity.

...Therefore, since our religion is the best, this proves we are right.

Circular reasoning. Our religion is right, therefore it is the best. Therefore, because it is the best, it is right.

Evolution can not explain where the big bang came from. This proves we are right.

Argument from ignorance.

Atheists have no moral code. According to their philosophy all humans are gods, so anything they do is acceptable behavior. Believers follow the laws of Deity which makes them morally superior to nonbelievers.

False to fact or arbitrary definition of "moral code" to mean "adherence to a religion".

Because atheism can not explain the meaning of life, it offers no hope for the human race. Believers know the true word of Deity and have a joy and purpose that nonbelievers can never know.

Argument from opinion. The desire to believe a proposition is not evidence of its objective truth.

Mike Montgomery

We better be careful about debunking all of these arguments. Otherwise, what arguments will atheists use to distance themselves from those atheists who have committed attrocities or who write really stupid or illogical stuff?

Dargo

Nice reply Malaclypse. I came up with a few more theist arguments for you to play around with.

Explaining the embarrassing actions of members of your religion.

That's ancient history. We don't do things like that anymore


Explaining contradictory, erroneous, or otherwise embarrassing passages in your holy book.

That passage was allegorical. It should not be taken literally.

That's just a minor scribal error which in no way alters the truth of Holy Book.

You know nothing about Holy Book. If you carefully studied Holy Book, you would be overwhelmed by its brilliance.

Our religious leaders know far more about Holy Book than you do. They don't find any errors in it. How can someone who has barely glanced at Holy Book question the wisdom of those who dedicate their lives to studying it?

Many people have attempted to find errors in Holy Book. They have all had to eventually admit failure.

Give some complicated explanation in an attempt to harmonize contradictions and hope the audience is too confused to question your logic.

Speculate on the motives of those disagreeing with Holy Book rather than dealing with the substance of their arguments.


Other arguments

If I'm wrong, nothing will happen when I die. If you're wrong you will burn in hell for all eternity.

Since I've become a believer, my life has been completely changed for the better. You would be much happier if you'd follow my example.

I've seen Deity perform miracles with my own eyes!

Deity does not have to perform parlor tricks to satisfy the whims of mere humans. His word is miraculous enough to satisfy any one truly seeking him. If you won't believe it, you won't believe anything.

Some facts in Holy Book have been confirmed by secular historians. This proves everything in Holy Book is true. Our religion is based on historical facts while all other religions are based on unproven myths.

David Bowden

We'll call the atrocities "atrocities," and we'll point out their stupidity or illogic when they occur. This can only help society improve, IMO. It certainly doesn't hurt atheism at all if we oppose unethical behavior and invalid reasoning.

-Wanderer

Malaclypse the Younger

Dargo

Nice reply Malaclypse.

Thanks!

I came up with a few more theist arguments for you to play around with.

You pull the trap, I'll shoot the skeet.


Explaining the embarrassing actions of members of your religion.

That's ancient history. We don't do things like that anymore.

Nonsequitur. The bible didn't change. What did?


Explaining contradictory, erroneous, or otherwise embarrassing passages in your holy book.

That passage was allegorical. It should not be taken literally.

Assumes facts not in evidence without an objectively definable methodology specified in the book for determining what is or is not allegorical or literal.

That's just a minor scribal error which in no way alters the truth of Holy Book.

Nonsequitur. Perfection is perfection. Any flaw is, by definition, evidence of imperfection.

You know nothing about Holy Book. If you carefully studied Holy Book, you would be overwhelmed by its brilliance.

Assumes facts not in evidence. It is not possible to know what would or would not happen if I were to study a particular book.

Our religious leaders know far more about Holy Book than you do. They don't find any errors in it. How can someone who has barely glanced at Holy Book question the wisdom of those who dedicate their lives to studying it?

Argument from authority.

Many people have attempted to find errors in Holy Book. They have all had to eventually admit failure.

False-to-fact.

Give some complicated explanation in an attempt to harmonize contradictions and hope the audience is too confused to question your logic.

Argument from bullshit and assumes facts not in evidence. The "harmonization" criteria are not in the text.

Speculate on the motives of those disagreeing with Holy Book rather than dealing with the substance of their arguments.

Ad hominem


Other arguments

If I'm wrong, nothing will happen when I die. If you're wrong you will burn in hell for all eternity.

1) Nonsequitur. The consequences of a belief are not evidence of its truth.

2) Assumes facts not in evidence. Even if theism were true, the existence of multiple religions and sects proves that one cannot be assured of any particular outcome from any particular belief. It might even be possible that a god would respect and reward only honest disbelief.

Since I've become a believer, my life has been completely changed for the better. You would be much happier if you'd follow my example.

Hasty generalization.

I've seen Deity perform miracles with my own eyes!

Begs the definition of "miracle".

Deity does not have to perform parlor tricks to satisfy the whims of mere humans.

No true scotsman. A "miracle" is an action the deity performs. A "parlor trick" is an action the deity does not perform.

...His word is miraculous enough to satisfy any one truly seeking him.

No true scotsman.

If you won't believe it, you won't believe anything.

Nonsequitor and false to fact.

Some facts in Holy Book have been confirmed by secular historians. This proves everything in Holy Book is true.

Fallacy of composition.

Our religion is based on historical facts while all other religions are based on unproven myths.

No true scotsman.

Ojuice5001

I have used, and plan to continue using, a variant of that closed-mindedness defense. I say that only a minority of people see Roman paganism as an option, in the same sense as they see Christianity and naturalism as options. Therefore, and because of the ignorance defense, I shouldn't expect Christians to be converted by even a good reason why their religion is less likely than mine. And no, this does not involve an unusual definition of "close-minded," "option," etc. It seems obvious that those who have considered any form of polytheism are a minority in America.