[Pim Pendergast]

We all know atheists cheat when arguing with Christians. One of their favourite tactics is to invent fallacies. A fallacy is a supposed flaw in reasoning. Atheists think that if they can label Christian arguments fallacious, they don’t have to listen to them. Take, for instance, this article from an atheist website. It claims to list the top ten reasons why people believe in God. Each reason is “critiqued” and, predictably, labelled fallacious. Here is an example.

10. Shifting the Burden of Proof
a.k.a. You can't prove God doesn't exist, False criteria fallacy, fallacy of questionable criteria
Premise:
I know God exists. If you disagree, prove otherwise. Oh you say you can't prove God doesn't exist? That's because you know he does!

Critique:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is the way the real world and science work. When you say God exists, you are making an extraordinary claim; therefore, the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. A position that God doesn't exist is not a "belief," it's the standard position we all start out with until we're indoctrinated into religious schools of thought. People aren't born believing in Jesus. They start out atheist: lacking belief. There is no counter-claim necessary. Nobody has to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either.

Furthermore, it's technically impossible to prove a negative of this nature. I can no easier prove God doesn't exist than you can disprove my claim that I have an invisible, ethereal unicorn in the trunk of my car. I say I do. It's not my fault he disappears when you look there. Prove he isn't there. You can't.

A famous counter-spin on this argument is the Russell's teapot claim. How do you know there isn't a magical teapot hovering around earth that is responsible for creation? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

The article continues in this fashion. You’ve probably heard the argument, “If God doesn’t exist, why do so many people believe in Him?” Argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity), according to the article. What about, “Believe or go to hell”? Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force). What about, “God is real because the Bible says so”? Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). And so on it goes.

Atheists have invented a fallacy for every reason we have for believing in God. Well, two can play at this game. I’m going to list the top five reasons why people believe in atheism and invent a fallacy for each one so that I can ignore them.

The Glue: Argumentum ad Dialecticum
The atheist article starts out by calling the argument from ignorance the glue that holds all other claims about God together. The glue that holds all the claims of atheism together is a fallacy I’ve decided to call argumentum ad dialecticum – appeal to logic. Atheists think our beliefs should be determined by logic, not by the Bible, not by God. God hates rational thinking. Beware the appeal to logic. Point out to the atheist that trying to prove logic with logic is circular reasoning.

5. Argumentum ad Sodomania
Premise: There’s nothing wrong with being gay. Gays should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality. Gays should have the same rights as straight people.

Critique: This is the appeal to sodomy, the threat of homosexualizing the nation, destroying the institution of marriage and brainwashing our children. Before we know it, entire cities will turn gay, like Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:4). Anal rape will become prevalent (Gen 19:5). This fallacy is contrary to Scripture (Lev 20:13). Atheism is just an excuse to give in to vile affections (Rom 1:26-27).

4. Argumentum ad Dawkinsium
Premise: Richard Dawkins says . . .

Critique: The appeal to Dawkins is just stupid. Just because he says something doesn’t make it true. You atheists shouldn’t just accept everything you’re told on blind faith. Have you ever heard of the Internet?

3. Argumentum ad Darwinium
Premise: Everything came from nothing. Or, rather, it came from a big bang. The earth is billions of years old. Life evolved from non-life. Moss morphed into fish, which decided to walk on land. Humans evolved from monkeys. Climate change is real.

Critique: The appeal to Darwin rests on the claims made in the Origin of Species. Challenge an atheist to prove evolution to you without quoting from this silly old book. They won’t be able to do it. Quoting the Origin isn’t proof of anything.

2. Argumentum ad Scientia
Premise: Science disproves the Bible.

Critique: The appeal to science relies on the assumption that science is correct and that if the Bible is in any way at odds with science, then it is the Bible that’s wrong. This is a very biased approach. We know God’s Word is true (Jn 17:17b). So if science is in any way at odds with the Bible, then it is science that’s wrong (1 Tim 6:20).

1. Ad Deum
Premise: How can you believe in a God who is cruel, vindictive, sadistic, genocidal, etc.?

Critique: When we Christians quote Romans 1 and tell unbelievers that they are “filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful (Rom 1:29-31),” atheists say we are resorting to the ad hominem fallacy. Instead of attacking our opponent’s argument, we attack our opponent’s character. (I don’t see anything wrong with this. If it’s good enough for the Apostle Paul, it’s good enough for me.) Just so the ad Deum fallacy relies on insults against God’s character. Atheists often resort to the ad Deum when all their other arguments have failed. It shows their true colors. Deep down they hate God (Rom 1:29). That’s the real reason they’re atheists.

I hope you will all now feel equipped to dismiss the most common atheist arguments. Whenever an atheist gives you a reason to doubt God, you can swat it way by labelling it a fallacy. That will shut him down pretty quickly.

[A Follower]

Thank you brother Pendergast, a very informative ready. Since perusing this excellent list I have not come across an atheist argument not based on these false premises.

I would like to point out a few additional fallacies atheists like to use, especially by scientists:

6. Inflatio ad Absurdum
Premise: Lightning is a large electrical discharge, a natural occurring event caused by clouds rubbing together.

Critique: Inflating the meaning of a small event to something huge is a thing scientists love doing. Scientists claim that because wearing wool clothing causes static discharges and clouds look woolly and are large, lightning must be huge static discharge. Totally absurd of course, just because there are some superficial similarities they have nothing to do with each other outside them both being caused by God. A test tube is not the same as the entire world with The Lord acting to punish evil and rewarding good.

7. Argumentum ad Complexicum Extremis
Premise: Global warming is real because you can't disprove every reason we claim causes it.

Critique: Resorting to extreme complexity is usually done when you disprove part of a theory, then scientists will add more and more parts to the theory until it is completely incomprehensible. Sun shines and it is warm, no sun shine and it's cold. But scientists want $10 billion in free money science grants to prove there is a lot more to warm weather than the sun, like carbon dioxide. Then Christians showed that despite increasing CO2 the last 15 years there was no global warming. In response the scientists started making up all kinds of claims, saying that global warming is also caused by methane, airborne particulate matter, cloud cover, size of ice sheets, algae blooms, sun spots, reflectiveness of polar regions, etc., etc., until they have what they call a "complex system", which they believe to be real, but where the result of changing any one parameter is completely unpredictable, so it can no longer be scientifically disproven by showing that any of the supposed causes doesn't have an actual predictable effect. But for any sane person it's still hot when the sun shines and cold when it doesn't.

8. Argumentum ad Possibilitas
Premise: Evolution theory is true because one time one animal temporarily changed a little in appearance.

Critique: The appeal to possibility is often used in secular science. Because something once could have happened in a specific circumstance is often used as proof that everything must have always happened like that. Especially obvious is the aforementioned theory of evolution, scientists claim that dinosaurs turned into birds and that's why there aren't any dinosaurs anymore. They base this on the idea that a trapped animal will chew off its leg to free itself, so all two-legged birds must have evolved from dinosaurs who got trapped (twice!) and had to chew off their legs and then somehow glued on some wings because they couldn't walk right anymore missing half their legs.