Sources, resources, and citations for apologetics discussions

[Underseer]

Just going to list some links I use frequently in arguments that other people might find useful.

Feel free to list the links you use the most for apologetics debates.

 

[Underseer]

Souls aren't a thing. They really aren't.

 

[Underseer]

Radiometric Dating:
A Christian Perspective
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

I originally got this link from these forums many years ago, although I don't remember from who. This essay is by an old Earth creationist explaining in excruciating detail why young Earth creationism is stupid. Creationists accept appeal to authority fallacies, so they will actually be affected by the fact that the author of this article is a fellow creationist, but of course the real reason to take this seriously is the facts, science, and math.

 

[Underseer]

A large number of Christian and Muslim arguments boil down to a shifting the burden of proof fallacy. This is one of the best explanations I've ever seen, it requires no special knowledge of logic to understand, and the skull-juggling psychic were-walruses is one of the funniest examples of a non-falsifiable existence claim ever. It's even funnier than Russell's teapot.

 

[Underseer]

This is one I actually use on fellow atheists. It explains one reason why calling theists stupid during apologetics debates is counterproductive, and cites a psychology paper.

 

[Kharakov]

I was arguing with a (too smart to be one... so maybe pretend who thinks they are always watched) fundy about something the other day and mentioned peer review. He said "so what, I can review anything I want, I'm your peer. I can review stuff on Yelp, whatever. It's just people you are connected to reviewing what you do. "

Got a nice video on peer review?

 

[Tigers!]

Creationists accept appeal to authority fallacies, so they will actually be affected by the fact that the author of this article is a fellow creationist, but of course the real reason to take this seriously is the facts, science, and math.

It alright. Atheists accept appeal to authority fallacies too. Presumably that is why you want links or resources.

 

[FwL]

Creationists accept appeal to authority fallacies, so they will actually be affected by the fact that the author of this article is a fellow creationist, but of course the real reason to take this seriously is the facts, science, and math.

It alright. Atheists accept appeal to authority fallacies too. Presumably that is why you want links or resources.

Christians like to think so. They love to make up stories about Darwin confessing on his deathbed and the like in order to try and discredit those they think atheists turn to for answers.

Or there's the ever popular world's most staunch atheist turns to god for answers so you should too hogwash.

It's really just a form of projection.

 

[Angry Floof]

Creationists accept appeal to authority fallacies, so they will actually be affected by the fact that the author of this article is a fellow creationist, but of course the real reason to take this seriously is the facts, science, and math.

It alright. Atheists accept appeal to authority fallacies too. Presumably that is why you want links or resources.

Pointing to the evidence and research of experts is totally the same thing as "the authority said so" of religious thinking. That's the ticket!

 

[Underseer]

Creationists accept appeal to authority fallacies, so they will actually be affected by the fact that the author of this article is a fellow creationist, but of course the real reason to take this seriously is the facts, science, and math.

It alright. Atheists accept appeal to authority fallacies too. Presumably that is why you want links or resources.

So wanting data from credible sources and rejecting data from questionable sources is the same thing as an appeal to authority fallacy?

 

[Underseer]

I was arguing with a (too smart to be one... so maybe pretend who thinks they are always watched) fundy about something the other day and mentioned peer review. He said "so what, I can review anything I want, I'm your peer. I can review stuff on Yelp, whatever. It's just people you are connected to reviewing what you do. "

Got a nice video on peer review?

I apologize for the long delay, but the thing they are really arguing is not peer review, but drawing conclusions based on evidence.

They were taught that faith is a virtue. That is, they were taught that it is virtuous to accept conclusions without evidence and that accepting conclusions without evidence produces superior conclusions.

So what you want to argue about is faith-based belief versus evidence-based belief, not peer review.

 

[Underseer]

Peter Boghossian has recently decided that bad scholarship and bad science is acceptable as long as it produces conclusions against transgendered people, so he has some genuinely bad or stupid views, expect poisoning the well fallacies if you bring him up, but this particular lecture is pretty spot-on.

 

[Underseer]

Peter Boghossian arguing for his Street Epistemology, one of the most effective methods of arguing people out of religion if that's what you want to do. Much of this lecture compares faith to a virus.

 

[Underseer]

QualiaSoup on faith:


- - - Updated - - -

Again, sorry for the late response. Does this cover it, Kharakov?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Creationists accept appeal to authority fallacies, so they will actually be affected by the fact that the author of this article is a fellow creationist, but of course the real reason to take this seriously is the facts, science, and math.

It alright. Atheists accept appeal to authority fallacies too. Presumably that is why you want links or resources.

Appeal to false authority... ie... "Well, Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, says that evolution is false. And astrophysicists are super smart!"

That is an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy because Dr. Hugh Ross is not a biologist, but an astrophysicist. So his authority in biology as related to evolution is non-existent. While of obvious intelligence, he lacks the background to be authority on the subject.

As I noted in my Columbus thread, Dr. Ross dares to pretend he knows more than those that actually do, in the subject.

 

[Underseer]

It alright. Atheists accept appeal to authority fallacies too. Presumably that is why you want links or resources.

Appeal to false authority... ie... "Well, Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, says that evolution is false. And astrophysicists are super smart!"

That is an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy because Dr. Hugh Ross is not a biologist, but an astrophysicist. So his authority in biology as related to evolution is non-existent. While of obvious intelligence, he lacks the background to be authority on the subject.

As I noted in my Columbus thread, Dr. Ross dares to pretend he knows more than those that actually do, in the subject.

No, any appeal to authority is bad.

Things are not true in science because the experts say so, they are true because of the evidence.

However, if you're not willing to put in the years of study necessary to understand the evidence, then it's OK to defer to the experts as long as you understand that they can be wrong.

As for the expertise claims used by creationists, if one astrophysicist is reason to reject evolution, shouldn't the opinion of the vast majority of astrophysicists be reason to accept it? Even if we ignore the fact that appeal to authority is a fallacy, their arguments still fall apart.

 

[Shake]

The first in a series by Counter Apologist on the Kalam:

 

[Shake]

One about the moral argument:


And then one on the modal ontological argument:


And finally, the first of two titled, "Answering the big questions":

 

[Underseer]

Thanks for posting those, Shake. I've not seen those in a very long time.

 

[Underseer]

Theoretical Bullshit is a soap opera actor with a surprisingly good grasp of logic, and with checking out of you want to go over three popular apologetics arguments for your own learning:

Example


All of his videos are worth checking out.