Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters
No true Scotsman. This fallacy involves making an assertion and then hand-waving away counter-examples by making the additional assertion that the counter-examples somehow aren't really counter-examples. For example, when confronted with the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, atheists assert that those dictators weren't true atheists and that true atheists would have done things differently. That line of thinking is completely different from our Christian knowledge that since genuinely saved people do not sin (1 John 3:6, 5:18), anyone who commits a sin is not a genuinely saved Christian.
|
Oh how many times I've heard this one. It's not like a True Christian™ where you have the Bible to follow, and if you don't follow it 100% then you're a cherry picker. With atheism, its simple, you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. No further proof of true atheism.
Quote:
Appeal to consequences of a belief.
|
Quote:
According to this fallacy, a proposition must be true because of the adverse consequences if people didn't accept it. When atheists argue that adoption of atheist dogma will speed the progress of science, they commit this fallacy, since even if their assertion were true, it would not disprove the existence of God. On the other hand, we Christians understand the basic reality of human nature that without faith in Christ and adherence to the Holy Bible, people would have no moral compass, and society as we know it would be impossible.
|
Have you seen that silly chart where they blame the "dark ages" on Christianity? The atheists will prattle on and on about how the "dark ages" were caused by the 'christians'. Well there's a lot wrong with that issue.
1. The 'dark ages' are called the 'dark ages' because there's no records.
2. The so called Christians is really the catholic church
3. I hate to say it, but the catholics brought Europe out of the dark ages
4. There is no proof that science would have moved forward at the rate they state.