Capella’s Guide to Atheism

AD HOMINEM

STRAW MAN

ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

ARGUMENT FROM ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

SPECIAL PLEADING

BEGGING THE QUESTION or ASSUMING THE ANSWER

OBSERVATIONAL SELECTION or COUNTING THE HITS AND IGNORING THE MISSES

STATISTICS OF SMALL NUMBERS

MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF STATISTICS

INCONSISTENCY

NON SEQUITUR or IT DOESN’T FOLLOW

POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC or IT HAPPENED AFTER, SO IT WAS CAUSED BY

MEANINGLESS QUESTION

EXCLUDED MIDDLE, OR FALSE DICHOTOMY

SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS

CONFUSION OF CORRELATION AND CAUSATION

—————————————————

AD HOMINEM

Latin for "to the man".

This is attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Example: The Reverend is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously.

Example 2: That Biblical scholar is saying such and such because he doesn’t know Jesus as his personal savior.

Care must be taken to state problems with a person’s argument instead of attacking the person.

—————————————————

STRAW MAN

Caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack.

Example: Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance.

This is putting forward an inaccurate portrayal of the scientific position which is easier to attack than what is really being asserted by science.

—————————————————

ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

This is arguing that something is correct simply because someone who is considered an expert said it was, the opposite of Ad Hominem which says that something is wrong because the person saying it is not an expert or is biased, etc…

Again, it is the logic and data supporting a position that matters, not the person asserting the position. Arguments that simply state the position of another person without explanation carry little weight. Even experts can be mistaken in their fields of expertise.

Example: So and so believes in God and so does so and so.

Example 2: So and so has been a leading archeologist for 30 years and he doesn’t think the Exodus happened (No explanation of the reasoning why).

—————————————————

ARGUMENT FROM ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES

Arguments are not valid based on bad things that would otherwise happen.

Example: If God didn’t exist then I wouldn’t want to live.

Example 2: God must exist or society would be much more lawless and dangerous.

Example 3: He must be found guilty, otherwise it will encourage others to rape women.

—————————————————

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

It is invalid to claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true and vice-versa.

Example: God exists because it is impossible to prove he doesn’t.

Example 2: King Solomon’s temple never existed because no one has found it yet.

————————————————–

SPECIAL PLEADING

Example: It was ok that God killed scores of innocent people in Old Testament stories, because he works in mysterious ways that we aren’t meant to understand. Who are we to question God?

Example 2: Atheists don’t have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand the bible so the bible only appears to have contradictions and errors in it to them.

—————————————————

BEGGING THE QUESTION or ASSUMING THE ANSWER

Example: We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But has it been established that violent crime is in fact diminished by imposing the death penalty?

————————————————–

OBSERVATIONAL SELECTION or COUNTING THE HITS AND IGNORING THE MISSES

Example: A politician says he should be reelected because of a, b, c, and d that were accomplished during his administration, but neglects to mention w, x, y, and z which were negative things that also occurred.

—————————————————

STATISTICS OF SMALL NUMBERS

Example: They say that 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese, but I’ve known hundreds of people and none of them is Chinese.

—————————————————

MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF STATISTICS

Example: President Eisenhower expressed astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence.

—————————————————

INCONSISTENCY

Example: The universe had to have had a creator because it is so complex. God however has always existed.

This argument breaks it’s own rule. It first asserts that complexity requires a creator. But then it doesn’t require another creator for God which would have to be very complex himself.

—————————————————

NON SEQUITUR

Latin for "It doesn’t follow".

An argument that fails to consider alternative possibilities.

Example: Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation asserts this to be true for them.

—————————————————

POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC

Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by"

Example: Before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons.

—————————————————

MEANINGLESS QUESTION

Example: What happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can’t be an immovable object and vice versa.

—————————————————

EXCLUDED MIDDLE, OR FALSE DICHOTOMY

Considering only two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities.

Example: Everyone is either good or evil.

—————————————————

SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS

Example: Pro-Life person:
If we allow abortions in the first three weeks, it will be hard to argue it is wrong for four weeks, then five, and eventually it will be impossible to stop full term abortions.

—————————————————

CONFUSION OF CORRELATION AND CAUSATION

Example: San Francisco which has a high percentage of gays also has a high percentage of earthquakes, therefore the earthquakes are God’s punishment of the gays.