Common New Atheist Fallacies 4 of 4 (with comments)

[Antifides]

Re: the first minute

No. The scientific method requires more than one second-hand anonymous anecdote to substantiate something. If you use science, you don't believe in something without significant evidence for it and no evidence against it. Therefore, if you believe in those two occurrences, you don't care about science, because science does not support such a belief.

[BillsHawks]

The great part about these videos is the fact that you point out that a conclusion must be supported by evidence. Since religious folks have none, their conclusions are invalid. There is less than no proof for the existence of imaginary sky people. Religion is nothing but a circular argument. Yous dismantled your own beliefs with these videos. Well played sir! Could not have done it better myself!

[queenrage1]

This is good stuff! Thanks for putting this open! 

[freestuffffff]

Imagine, these poor fools paid to listen to this babble.

[pumpstations]

Brilliant making a page with comments allowed. Koukl OWNED!!

now a comment. Is he intentionally a wanker? He is the one running in circles.

[flounder2760]

@pumpstations yet another observation without evidence to support it

i ask you wise one how is he going in circles

[pumpstations]

@flounder2760 It's in the first one minute of the video. He mocks scientific method, that human virgins can sometimes have babies, and after dying, sometimes, some come back to life. Asserting that this is a better scientific method to use. With no proof, no artifacts, no evidence, not even an eyewitness. NONE! 2nd hand tales at best

Now, at this point he has argued in a circle, while also building a straw man in the process. He will then knock that down, with the argument being much easier.

[clockworkornge]

I like how he keeps subtlety calling them stupid.

[flounder2760]

@clockworkornge hmm interesting point of view but the he didnt call anyone stupid just pointed out a super lack of supportive evidence in 90% of atheist arguments.

also i just subtly called you a ho.mo. <is as true as your statement in that it has zero supporting evidence

[clockworkornge]

@flounder2760

Passive aggressive gay bashing is a sign of sexual insecurity. Maybe you believe in the "slippery slope" concept and are scarred that you may make a slide. It's okay to be who you are man ;)

[lanimirc83]

Lucky there isn't a god - she'd be pretty embarrassed about creating this weiner.

[flounder2760]

@lanimirc83 tbh why would god need a gender an omnipotent being would require no gender and by extension no procreation.

[tnyrb444b]

"Once upon a time in Middle earth, two things were different(1) most students learned "old Logic" and (2) they could think, read, write, organize, and argue better than they can today."

-Peter Kreeft

From the comments found here, I think Dr. Kreeft was right.

[jt05ah]

I wish that I could see the faces of the people in the audience. I'm curious as to the demographic, feels like these people are going to be mostly from low socioeconomic status, probably mostly in the later 3rd of their life, etc etc. Take on some thinkers man, don't preach to the choir and expect to earn respect from your opponents.

By the way, is he familiar with the concept of circular logic? I doubt it. And word to the person/people who have bashed him for passage plucking. Shame shame kids

[flounder2760]

@jt05ah i see what you did there. you defamed the speaker by associating his audience with people of lesser fortune and of an older age so as to give the impression that they are scared and semi-economical outcasts.

bravo sir you have ridiculed an audience to belittle the speakers message.

[jocox74]

The burden of proof lies with the theist, NOT the atheist. BTW, taking individual passages from separate sections of God Delusion and presenting them as a unified argument is simply dishonest. Then again, theists have been cherry-picking passages from their holy book of choice to support their actions for centuries. Why stop with their holy book?

[flounder2760]

@jocox74 they werent seperate pages they were all a part of the same page(or body,argument) man lol

[flounder2760]

@jocox74 wrong on the basis that athiests can prove as much about the non-existence of god as theists can prove about his existing. the burden of proof if anyone intelligent wants to argue this is with both sides if they wish to take a im right your wrong stance about their polar opposite.

[CanadiaNecro1]

Cristopher Hitchens isn't the best representative of athiesm. He's a sexist Social Darwinist and doesn't understand evolution. Dawkins is a far better author and scientist.

[l337pwnage]

comments? COMMENTS?  I don't know if this should get 5 stars for having comments enabled or 1 star because of the video content.

[myinstrumentality]

Okay.. This guy had the first three videos more or less right. Atheists make mistakes. We're human. Sometimes we're a bit unfair to Christians and not all of our arguments are going to be sound.

What he conveniently left out was that taking one part of an argument doesn't constitute a refutation as he does with Dawkins, as the rest of the book has good arguments against and that none of what he said was referring to GOD as he wants atheists to do.

[Jeratos]

Interesting how he ignores the fact that all of Dawkin's points are supporting terms of his arguments.

[chadmaveric]

great! thats all we need, another kent hovind filling "stupid" Christians with nonsense instead of telling them to go read the books for themselves.

[majined]

Let's take Dawkins 400 page book, which in its entirety is an argument against God, and break it down to a couple of paragraphs as Dawkins does himself and dismiss it. Beacuse I can't read a whole book because I'm awesome.

I know this is ridicule, but this guy is ridiculous. I hope the people sitting there didn't pay for this.

But, seriously, if this guy actually READ the book he'd understand that those paragraphs represent the book and are summaries of the points he makes, not conclusions.

[flounder2760]

@majined yes they are summaries but they are the bare bones summaries the author states as his argument.

so if your to say that said summaries are false in any way or cobbled together then you are insulting dawkins.

also ridicule is not an argument please come back when you evidence to support your argument

[pikechris1]

even if it was circular reasoning, it doesnt necessarily mean it is vicious circular reasoning. since the scientific view is contradictory to the "classical theist" view and the sc view is testable and the theistic is not, hitchens (or whoever) can relate to science and confront and expose the theistic view. this is not vicious circular reasoning since we can relate to above mentioned testability.

the burden of proof of miracles, god and all the magic stuff is on your shoulders, mister theist!

[beanson99]

towards the end he begins to sound like Gene Wilder in Young Frankensein

[tcrb2]

I fail to see the fallacy. Dawkins' argument was written to rebut the 'argument from design'. If successful, God fails as a hypothesis for creation and thus, in the classical sense, doesn't exist.

Indeed it was successful, and 'who designed the designer' is as devastating and unanswered as always.

[lockdown260]

not really search "who created God" you'll find the answer there

[tcrb2]

There's alot there. Care to summarise?

[lockdown260]

Well long story short, it argues that God would not be God if He was created. You'll do better to watch the video to get the whole argument.

[tcrb2]

Well the regress has to be terminated somehow. The burden is on believers to show that the capacity to do this must be part of an entity carrying the necessary medley of anthropocentric baggage required to satisfy even a deists conception of a God.

The alternative is to mathematically describe the structure of spacetime at the big-bang in a self-contained manner that can be empirically verified. Given the "strides" theologians have been making of the subject of late, I know who my money's on.

[lockdown260]

That's of course is assuming that God abides by the same rules as the universe (the creator residing in His creation). From a creationist perspective God more than likely won't the same physical laws of the universe. A computer and its programmer is a good example of this.

A computer's electronic universe is ultimately governed by binary functions that tell it how to operate.

It's programmer however isn't ruled by such functions. He follows physical laws like gravity and etc.

See my point?

[tcrb2]

Ok but couldn't the analogy just as well be a football match and the weather. The footballers play by rules, as does the autonomous weather system which has to power to rain play off.

You'd have to persuade me that your analogy is more likely to be true than mine.

[lockdown260]

Ok. Well I haven't enough info at my disposal to do so at the moment so I would probably just agree to disagree at least until I did.

[JoJeck]

Is this the best they can do? ... Puleeeze

I weep for them. This guy is pathetic. Where is the inspiration his god is supposed to give him?

[anewdayproductions]

@JoJeck you are absolutely worthless.

[flounder2760]

@JoJeck hmm interesting point of view but ridicule is not an argument.

[DefaultPosition]

I can imagine his legions of trained theistic debaters marching out of the lecture theatre ready to take on us atheists.

He makes some half points, its just so minor and doesnt represent the arguments that these people really have. Its tediously weak.

[HumanistJeff]

I am amazed at how he skips point number 3 in his attack on Dawkins line of reason, and then goes back to explain it quickly.

Here is the problem: Point number three is not only about the "who designed the designer" argument, it is about the need for a crane rather than a skyhook. It is about the need for a bottom up logical progression to show how we have come to exist.(as in evolution).

Christians need the same type of logical progression to show how God came to exist.

[theillestgreek]

Notice that he keeps telling them it`s Christianity that`s getting picked on.

[FHB71]

It is like a bear hunting you. As long as you are a bit faster than someone else ...

As long as he is a bit more intelligent than his audience... but actually it does not work fr me and I am not a noble price winner.

[dfarmer1584]

Wow! Does this really work for these people? Do they really accept this? It is so transparently ridiculous. How can anyone not see through this?

This guy is actually lying. Hypocricy!

He misrepresents Dawkins points, then dismisses them. He is simply dishonest.

I wonder if he actually believes this himself, or if he thinks it is okay to lie in defense of his god concept?