Poor Christian Reasoning
Perhaps the most aggravating ordeal in discussing religious theory
is the burden of listening to logical fallacies used by someone
with an opposing viewpoint. Logical fallacies are arguments outside
the bounds of reality, commonly used by defenders of their
respective religions. While some of the arguments used by such an
individual may seem sound or valid to a lay audience, especially
one with beliefs deeply rooted in the debated system, this chapter
should assist you in being able to recognize when such disingenuous
methods of argumentation are used. In fact, the illogical
attributes of Christianity itself prematurely handicap the ability
for a Bible defender to use sound logic in defending his
position.
I will support examples of these poorly developed techniques with
hypothetical religious arguments in order to reinforce the
often-confusing explanations because it's important for the
freethinker to avoid these faulty methods of argumentation in order
to remain above an intellectually dishonest level. As the tools of
logic and reason are on the side of those who don't blindly delve
into the comforts of false superstitions, there's no foreseeable
excuse to ever resort to the use of logical fallacies in the
"defense" of disbelief.
Baseless Assertions
This section will discuss a variety of general arguments that use
unreliable methodologies to arrive at a desired conclusion. The
first example is argumentum ad ignorantiam, which means to argue
from ignorance. This is a proposal that something is true (or
false) because it has yet to have been proven otherwise. A
Christian might say, "The crucifixion is a historical fact because
no one has found any documents conspiring to invent the story." In
the same manner, I could claim Jesus had four arms. Since no one
can solidly disprove my ridiculous assertion, the previous
speaker's fallacious logic allows my statement to be considered a
historical fact. Needless to say, a lack of evidence against a
claim doesn't make the proposal a historical certainty.
Some apologists (those who defend a religious doctrine) will
consider an argument more valid if the audience hears it more than
the opposing viewpoint. We call this erroneous consideration
argumentum ad nauseam, an argument used so much that it creates
sickness. A speaker using this method of argumentation will go to
great lengths in order to ensure that he voices his opinion as
often as possible. Although the argument itself may be perfectly
sound, it's no more or less true the thousandth time the speaker
used it than the first. A silent form of this argument may be
self-utilized when someone forms an opinion on the legitimacy of
Christianity based on the abundance of related literary works.
While Christian nations tend to publish extraordinary amounts of
Christian material, the arguments contained therein do not increase
in soundness based solely on the number of times writers repeat the
information.
Christians will often make arguments that imply something is true
because society has generally accepted it as the truth for a
lengthy but arbitrary period of time. This is an example of
argumentum ad antiquitatem, which means an argument from age. A
Christian might say, "People have believed in God for thousands of
years. This belief has existed for so long, there must absolutely
be some truth to it." Apologists of even older religions could also
make such bankrupt claims, but such assertions would no doubt go
unheard by the close-minded Christian apologist. In short, the age
of the belief in question is independent from the legitimacy of the
belief itself. Conversely, some Christians will argue that certain
beliefs are true because they're newer than others. This would be
an example of argumentum ad novitatem, an argument from novelty.
"Jesus Christ was crucified during the time of recorded history.
Many people wrote about his death, and it's much harder to forge
such a record in this era. Therefore, the account is true."
Scholars have adequately disproven several modern beliefs,
religious or otherwise, in the past 2000 years. While there may be
an increased obstacle of difficulty in forging records of a modern
event, a belief isn't true just because it's newer than others in
the same field.
Apologists often cite the attributes and qualities of people during
arguments as evidence to support an assertion. Let's suppose
there's a multi-billionaire preacher who has dedicated his life to
serving God. This hypothetical character might often be
apologetically used as an example of how Christianity is more
likely to be true than other religions. Because this individual
obviously made many correct choices in life, his belief in Jesus
only makes sense. We call such a ridiculous proposal argumentum ad
crumenam, an argument based on wealth. If this rich man also
believed in the Easter Bunny, the mythical rabbit doesn't leap into
the bounds of reality. Conversely, another Christian might consider
a poor individual to be more virtuous since he isn't preoccupied
with materialistic possessions. Therefore, we should hold his
religious viewpoints in higher esteem than those of the common
person. That's an example of argumentum ad lazarum, an argument
based on a lack of wealth. What if the poor man also believed in
the Easter Bunny?
If a person is famous, Christians will often appeal to that
individual as an additional example for the legitimacy of their
religion. For instance, "Since the past few Presidents of the US
have adhered to Christianity, it is certainly the most correct
religion." We call this absurd notion argumentum ad verecundiam, an
argument based on authority. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
were non-Christians, but this doesn't mean the belief system is any
less reliable. However, you should make an important discrepancy
between this logical fallacy and the referencing of an authority on
a given subject. If the speaker sufficiently explains the
authority's position, the proposal then becomes an acceptable
supplementary argument. Cutting the debate short by exclaiming
things like "you just need to read this book by John Q. Public"
isn't a satisfactory procedure because two speakers citing books
back and forth all day would accomplish nothing. Nonetheless, you
may notice I will often refer to what "scholars say" with regard to
a few statements I make. For this reason, I've supplied a list of
reinforcing supplementary references for points I make that aren't
common knowledge.
If an ignorant debater considers a single person to be good
evidence, then billions of people probably seem like pure gold.
Argumentum ad numerum is an argument based on the number of people
who believe something to be true. Christians often suggest that
Jesus Christ must be an actual historical figure because two
billion living people now believe he is the son of God. However,
over one billion people believe Muhammad split the moon in half.
Where is the imaginary boundary for the number argument to work?
What happens when the world's Muslim population inevitably exceeds
the number of Christians? Will biblical apologists then accept
Islam as the truth based on this reasoning? Of course not, and they
shouldn't. The number of people who subscribe to a religion doesn't
make the belief system any more or less factual than it already is.
Similarly, argumentum ad populum is the use of a statement that
appeals to some popular notion in society. A Christian might argue,
"To insinuate that the Bible is a hoax is to call a countless
number of our past heroes misguided." Even though such a statement
might successfully enrage the audience against the speaker's
opponent, it's a blatantly dishonest but often unintentional
utilization of the audience's emotions to turn them toward a
certain viewpoint. No matter how popular or widespread a religious
belief can be, these qualities don't add to the soundness of the
facts.
due to this post is too long,pls refer such 
http://errancypage.home.mindspring.com/chapter4.html
