Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobo7396
Just because I never saw Abraham Lincoln doesn't mean he never existed. The Holy Bible is one of the most historically well referenced documents on the planet. To hear the word and to deny it's truth is somewhat foolish. One puts one self in a pretty sad club when they don't or won't believe.
|
If the evidence for Abraham Lincoln was as dubious as the evidence for Gospel -Jesus, I would be doubtful about him, too (1).
To accept ONE claim out of a myriad of similar claims (never mind dismissing better ones that are better supported) without valid evidence on Faith is
utterly foolish, and the tiny possibility that one is missing out by not believing is really not worth bothering about.
The well - poisoning and mean -spirited deprecation of unbelievers in "
a pretty sad club when they don't or won't believe " is self - explanatory and (being based on a prejudiced view of what atheist lives are like, but used as a hostile polemic) is par for the course, of course.
(1) I thought this was a variant of the 'Wright brothers' (2) fallacy but when I unpack it it, it is actually A "Were you there?" argument. Neither of us were there. We can only go on the
evidence. The fallacy is of course ignoring the reliability of the evidence, plus a false assertion that we believe a book totally (3) when we actually apply the same criticism as we do to the Bible, and add in ignoring the sliding scale of credibility in favour of a false 'believe or not' view. In fact the wrongheaded theist arguments pile up one after the other.
(2) .. it would be if it was "
if you are not convinced by the evidence for Jesus you should deny the evidence for Lincoln or Washington", to which '
If you don't believe the Bible, you should not believe any other book..." fallacy is added. The reversal of burden of proof and the flipside
'Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence' (which can be true or not, depending on the circumstances) are also hovering offstage.
(3) Jeziz, another fallacy..."
You apply faith as much as we do". Let's face it - faith -based thinking screws up the best minds totally from cover to cover. And that is the Law and all the rest is commentary.
(3 and a bit) And I overlooked ANOTHER couple of fallacies:
"
The Holy Bible is one of the most historically well referenced (4)
documents on the planet."
Argument from overpublication, a term I just coined which is merely the fallacy of numbers repackaged. The truth of a claim is not proven by printing millions of copies of it or translating it into more languages than you can shake a stick at, nor by how much argument there has been about it (indeed the sheer amount of argument should show how dubious it is) and of course fallacy from antiquity. The false claim about extra - Biblical historical support is in there, too.
(4)
historically well referenced document..Not a fallacy but a really crafty combining of 'historically'(very ancient) and 'well -referenced' (talked -and argued, as I said - about a lot) to make it look like it has a venerable and unquestionable evidential support, when it has squat, really. Who's your daddy Hobo? William Lane - Craig?
It's remarkable how many false and illogical arguments are packed into just one post. In fact I think this may be one of the top scorers for number of fallacies in one para. Nice going, Hobo. Thanks for being such a good Bad Example.
P.p.s and I had better anticipate another well - poisoner in response:
"
Boy, it sure took you a whole heaping handful of words to argue against what I posted." (
it is the reverse side of the: "Boy I sure rattled your bars..." ploy). The response is:
"It takes far less words to say "There are fairies at the bottom of my garden" than to explain why there probably aren't."
And I think that just about covers it. And I still luv it here.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, Faith, and the reinforcing of Faith by mighty monuments and specious propaganda not to mention mangling science to fit a Dogma makes it all look good, but time and again this cover -up is a two edged sword, because, if they were honest, they might lose some believers, but they wouldn't be shocked when they did a bit of reading and found out what they were not being told, never mind reading further and finding out what their religious instructors probably hadn't been told themselves!
