Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘logical fallacy’ Category

Huff Po Jesus predicted Muhammad Veritas Domain show it is a lie

Over at liberal Huff Po Religion there is a piece I want to respond to that’s titled “Did Jesus Predict Muhammad?”  This is part 2 of my response and earlier I wrote .  In this post I will start to look at the bad exegesis found in part 2 of the article “Did Jesus Predict Muhammad?”  Obviously Huff Po makes this out to be a great article.  One starts wondering if there’s great exegesis going on here.  But what I learned about Huff Posts Religion is that there’s a lot of huff and puffs, but no bites as far as exegesis or sound thinking is concerned.  For instance, half a year ago they have on their website another piece that I responded to titled “

While it isn’t the main focus of the writer’s core argument that Jesus predicted Muhammad, we see right off the bat that the writer’s first effort in looking at a Biblical passage results in a bad interpretation.  It’s like a sign of things to come.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

liberal hypocrisy against Christian making them islamic

Over at liberal Huff Po Religion there is a piece I want to respond to that’s titled “Did Jesus Predict Muhammad?”  I’m responding to this because it’s a terrible article that no doubt probably has many people reading it but one that is plague with the lack of clear thinking.  HuffPo Religion often have articles that provides many examples of how not to do theology.  This is one of them.

Our writer begins his essay saying

The time has come for Christians and Muslims to make peace between our communities. Christians and Muslims already make up more than half of the global population, and these numbers are expected to grow in the coming decades; according to the Pew Research Center, by 2050, two thirds of humanity, some 5.7 billion people, will be either Christian or Muslim.

Our planet simply cannot afford another century of misunderstanding and violence between these two communities. The challenges we face as a global human family are profound: ongoing warfare and nuclear proliferation, global poverty and economic inequality, climate change and ecological degradation. How will humanity handle these crises and others if our two largest religious communities are embroiled in constant conflict, if misunderstanding defines our relationship?

Response:

  • As a Christian I definitely don’t want violence between Christians and Muslims.
  • What does our writer think is the source of the problem of lack of peace between these two communities?  It’s very telling when he says “Our planet simply cannot afford another century of misunderstanding and violence between these two communities” and “misunderstanding defines our relationship.”  According to the writer it’s a result of misunderstanding between the two communities.
  • I do think there are misunderstandings among those in the two communities.
  • But misunderstandings is not enough of a reason to explain violence.  People often have misunderstanding of my ethnic minority background.  But that doesn’t mean somehow there’s violence done towards me in of itself.  It’s an inadequate explanation on the part of the author; ironically, it’s a misunderstanding that doesn’t account for radical Jihadists who commit violence against Christians who have been exposed if not even raised up in largely Western countries where one can’t just say it resulted from a mere misunderstanding.  Something deeper and more complex is going on and the author’s explanation is too simplistic.
  • If one identify what’s the problem wrongly, then don’t be surprised that the solutions offered would also be wrong.

 

So what’s our writer’s offered solution?  Here’s one suggestion he offered:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

not racism

Ryan Grim is the Washington Bureau Chief for the left leaning The Huffington Post.

He has a piece out today titled “Dear Islamophobes: Your Racism Is Putting Us All In Danger.”

Several times in Grim’s article he charged Islamophobes for being racists:

The challenge for the U.S., which Obama attempted to address in his speech on Sunday, will be how to put the racist genie back in the bottle.

And

Even if deep in your gut you harbor deep fear or suspicion of people you think might be Muslim, do the rest of us this favor: Keep it to yourself. Don’t spread that fear and discrimination in the name of patriotism, if only because it is guaranteed to backfire. Your racism is putting all of us in danger.

I agree with the writer that we should not lash out violently against Muslims and we must be responsible for unnecessary heated rhetorics.  But if you are looking for careful nuance thought in the whole piece from Ryan Grim, chances of that is rather grim.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

pro-choice have not attacked anyone baloney

There was a drive-by comment on our Social Media page in response to our post “.”  Here’s the comment by a certain Joseph Arechavala:

And yet we haven’t seen one pro-choice activist attack anyone…wonder why that is???

Really??  “We haven’t seen one pro-choice activist attack anyone?”  How does this hold up to the facts?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

John_Brown_daguerreotype_c1856

 

 

I’m at a retreat where I’m a guest speaker so this will be quick.

I heard there’s a shooting near Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and it looks like there’s not a lot of clear information yet but I already see on social media the pro-abortionists already are heating up the blame game rhetoric against the pro-life cause.  I think its unfounded.  Why? Two reasons.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

I saw this tweet from Planned Parenthood’s account:

Just in case the tweet disappears here is what it says:

FACT: People seek abortion — even if they are illegal. Here’s one woman’s pre-Roe abortion story. buff.ly/1LpEVEd

If you talk to pro-abortionists, you often hear this argument: People are going to get an abortion anyways, mind as well make it legal.  At least it provide a safe place for those seeking services.

So if someone is going to do something illegal anyways…that is an argument for it to be legalized?

How many crime in the law books are done by criminals anyways?  Should we legalize them all just because people are going to do them anyways?  It’s a terrible argument.  Faulty reasoning.

legalized planned parenthood argument oprah meme

For more rebuttals to Planned Parenthood’s arguments check out our .

Read Full Post »

Cherisse Scott pro abortion argument refuted

The blogger behind Eternity Matters has written a great comment in our previous post that’s worthy of being a post!  One should also check out his blog!  He’s responding to an objection typically used by pro-abortionists such as Cherisse Scott who recently recycled that pro-lifers “are nowhere to be found once our children are born.”

The response:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

in n out double double

Today Congress has passed a bill temporarily defunding Planned Parenthood.  As expected Planned Parenthood is all worked up.  Look at their twitter accounts.

Here’s one that stood out to me tonight:

Just in case something happens to the Tweet, this is what it says: “Planned Parenthood is more popular than cheeseburgers. Maybe somebody should tell Congress… #StandWithPP #trending

Seriously?  Where do we even start?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Ashley Qiang

Various Planned Parenthood Twitter account has retweeted an article defending Planned Parenthood titled “We Should Focus On Condemning Anti-Abortion Extremists, Not Planned Parenthood.”

One might wonder why I’m responding to a small piece from a college student at Duke University.  I do think the article is poor quality.  It wouldn’t pass for a college paper.  But then I’m responding to this because this is the type of quality Planned Parenthood wants to promote in defense of itself.  Since it has been deem good enough for Planned Parenthood to share with the public then it’s worth exposing the bad logic found in this piece.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

This picture describes how some people argue.

ad_hominem_by_jrigh-d39msf

Today I want to show an example of a fallacious use versus a proper use of ad hominem argument.

Ad, Add What?

The phrase “ad hominem” comes from the Latin, “against the man.”

It is a logical fallacy when an argument ends up being a personal attack on a person’s character that logically add no merit or support for the conclusion being argued for.  An example of this is when someone has to resort to name calling instead of interacting reasonably concerning the subject at hand.  Just because someone makes a claim that the floor is wet and happens to be annoying, a Marxist or a Christian doesn’t make the the claim automatically false.

However, there are possible instances in which an ad hominem argument would not be fallacious as a rebuttal in the circumstance of appealing to that person’s own set authority/advice that they put forth and then showing how that person fail to be bound by it.  It is not use to argue for one’s own position as true per se but strictly as a rebuttal.

Descriptive Fallacy

What’s an example of an ad hominem fallacy?  I will use an example from a recent exchange on our blog with a guy name “Descriptive Grace” at the comment section of EvangelZ’s post on Gospel calling. (You can go over there and read the short back and forth if you like).

After I asked him for another example of when Paul was wrong our guest “Descriptive Grace” wrote the following comment:

Do you not agree that Paul thought the second coming was going to take place in his lifetime? I thought everyone acknowledged this! Wow, I found a few fundamentalist who are so far off into their fundamentalism they can’t even acknowledge this despite every other fundie on earth acknowledging it.

And:

Its a much bigger waste of time to try and reason with anyone so fossilized in traditional errors as to not acknowledge that Paul taught the second coming was going to happen in his own time.

Note how he did not answer my question but proceed to just label us as fundamentalists, say that I’m “fossilized” and imply that we are extreme “fundie.”  All this does not deal with the issue or the question at hand, which is quite descriptive of a fallacy (as opposed to being gracious, the irony).

Proper Ad Hominem rebuttal

Looking back at the exchange, I would have responded to our guest “Descriptive Grace” with the following comment in these words:

Descriptive Grace, I just asked you a question about what other mistakes you believe Paul has made and note how our view of the Bible will shape our view of soteriology.  Your response committed an ad hominem fallacy here and you know it.  Calling someone a fundamentalist does not end the debate on Paul and whether or not his words in the Bible are inerrant, no matter what you may think.  This is nothing but an ad hominem fallacy tactic.  

My point here would be that he is committing an ad hominem fallacy and he knows better not to commit it.

I would be curious to see how he respond to these words.

Especially since what I have in bold are the exact words he wrote for his post on his blog on Feb. 16th, 2013; but with different referents plugged in and a correction when he incorrectly identified a straw man fallacy for an ad hominem fallacy.  In the original comment he was talking about Calvinists and Pelagians:

Calling someone a Pelagian does not end the debate on grace, no matter what the Calvinists may think.  This is nothing but a strawman tactic.  And the fact is, Pelagius himself has been strawmanned.

He should know better than to commit an ad hominem fallacy in light of his own words arguing against some unnamed Calvinists that he’s shadowboxing. That’s the point of this proper use of an ad hominem rebuttal.

Read Full Post »