Spotting Fallacies Of Composition

[Michael37]

9 hours ago, Drafido said:

This is so tiresome.  

I have no interest in body building.  But I buy body building magazines and talk about body building ALL THE TIME.  Hmmmm.  Something not computing here...

I get your drift. It is astounding that an unregenerate academic will devote their life's work to debunking the Bible and insisting God does not exist, usually, in their worldview, because if He did He would not allow suffering of any sort.  

[Diaste]

On 11/27/2020 at 12:05 PM, NotAllThere said:

I do like to wind up atheists that I'm glad to know a hypocrisy isn't limited to the religious. Currently someone has tried the "Great Pumpkin" challenge (taken down by Epistemology). When I rebutted that, he came back with the "Zeus" challenge. I took that down by explaining that I know this sequence, I studied Philosophy at university and did rather well in it, and I know what comes next.

Very few unbelievers have any arguments that are not regurgitations of what they've learned elsewhere. Our testimonies are based on personal experience. We've met Him!

Where can I read about the "Great Pumpkin" and "Zeus"?

[Diaste]

On 11/27/2020 at 4:05 AM, Michael37 said:

I'm speaking to myself as much as any other interested party when I say Christians do well to remind themselves of these verses and to avoid giving our detractors fodder for their fallacies of composition where they erroneously conclude that because of lapses Christians are always hypocritical, and Christianity is always a cover for dark deeds.
 

I once responded to this fallacy by saying, "Because the adherents are wrong does not make the source material wrong." End of discussion and it never came up again.

[NotAllThere]

10 hours ago, Diaste said:

Where can I read about the "Great Pumpkin" and "Zeus"?

You can read a little more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology#Great_Pumpkin_Objection It's part of reformed epistemology. 

For Zeus, and indeed any polytheism, just have a quick search. 

[Diaste]

52 minutes ago, NotAllThere said:

You can read a little more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology#Great_Pumpkin_Objection It's part of reformed epistemology. 

For Zeus, and indeed any polytheism, just have a quick search. 

Well...seems there is no depth to which the atheist will not strive. It's always the same tactics. 

I still don't get the Zeus reference. Is it because they argue the Greeks didn't even believe in Zeus and only created imaginary gods to explain natural phenomena?

Thanks for the help!

 

[NotAllThere]

5 hours ago, Diaste said:

Well...seems there is no depth to which the atheist will not strive. It's always the same tactics. 

I still don't get the Zeus reference. Is it because they argue the Greeks didn't even believe in Zeus and only created imaginary gods to explain natural phenomena?

Thanks for the help!

 

It's a continuation of the Great Pumpkin. How is believing Christianity any different from believing in and worshipping Zeus?  The main arguments are

1. If Zeus is as he is written about, he's hardly a moral exemplar. (Note, some atheists will try to show that the God of Christianity isn't moral - rather a mass "murderer" of humanity and condoning killing children - psalm 137:9 - for example)

2. There's no evidence that an historical Zeus ever existed. The same cannot be said of Jesus, nor the claims of Christianity.

3. The theology concerning Zeus (and the rest of the pantheon, even when translated into Roman names of Jupiter etc.) is not of the same philosophical complexity at all. For the ancients, the gods were people to ask for supernatural help and to avoid upsetting.  But they in no way had much interest in human affairs. 

4. Zeus was never claimed to be the creator of the entire universe. His powers were limited.

[Diaste]

13 minutes ago, NotAllThere said:

It's a continuation of the Great Pumpkin. How is believing Christianity any different from believing in and worshipping Zeus?  The main arguments are

1. If Zeus is as he is written about, he's hardly a moral exemplar. (Note, some atheists will try to show that the God of Christianity isn't moral - rather a mass "murderer" of humanity and condoning killing children - psalm 137:9 - for example)

2. There's no evidence that an historical Zeus ever existed. The same cannot be said of Jesus, nor the claims of Christianity.

3. The theology concerning Zeus (and the rest of the pantheon, even when translated into Roman names of Jupiter etc.) is not of the same philosophical complexity at all. For the ancients, the gods were people to ask for supernatural help and to avoid upsetting.  But they in no way had much interest in human affairs. 

4. Zeus was never claimed to be the creator of the entire universe. His powers were limited.

I see. Thank you.

I have had debates where I used similar arguments for similar objections. Seems the main goal is character assassination sans any context and wholly lacking in evidentiary or logical processes. 

And atheists detest 'faith'.

 

[keet]

If someone asked me why I don't worship Zeus, I would ask for a list of contemporary Zeus apologists -- they probably wouldn't be able to provide any.  Also, I wouldn't outright deny the existence of Zeus, because I don't need to; even if Zeus does exist, the evidence for the Christian God is much greater, and the Christian God is much more worthy of worship, so that even if there were enough evidence to believe that Zeus existed, it wouldn't supercede the evidence that I have for the Christian God, and Zeus wouldn not be shown to be better than my God.

I don't need to prove that Zeus (whatever he is or might be) doesn't exist, because I have positive evidence that my God does exist and is greater.  Zeus could very well exist as some sort of being, and that wouldn't be a problem for me.  The simple answer to that, then, for me, is to say that, fine, you want to believe in Zeus, that's OK, but my God is greater and there is more evidence for him, so how about we worship him instead?

[NotAllThere]

People throw this stuff out as deflection. The fact is, they have an irrational, knee-jerk response to Christianity. 

[Starise]

I just don't tend to argue with fools. Yes they are fools. " The fool has said in his heart there is no God".

Just the way houses are money pits. Discussion with someone like this is pointless. I have better things to do with my time.

Point out all the scriptures, study and rational that have to do with Godly wisdom and they will regurgitate it and spit it out.

Peals before swine.

There is a time and place for a discussion with an atheist or agnostic who is beginning to feel conviction that their ways are not correct. They know the secular humanist explanations aren't panning out and they want to know more. There is some hope for those people. Sometimes they appear hostile when they are secretly asking for answers. It can be difficult to tell initially if they really want to know or not. Who knows? You may have planted a seed. Many of them are like the Roman soldiers who spit on the face of Jesus...really past any hope pending a 180 turn in their life.