Last modified on December 15, 2022, at 22:35

Atheism and logical fallacies

During his debate with Gordon Stein, Greg Bahnsen pointed out that the atheist worldview cannot account for the laws of logic, but the Christian worldview can.[1][2]

A common and legitimate criticism of the atheist worldview is that atheism is illogical and irrational (See also: Atheism and logic and Atheism and irrationality)[3]

Below are a number of logical fallacies that atheists commonly commit.

Atheists and the fallacy of exclusion

See also: Atheism and critical thinking and Evidence for Christianity and Christian apologetics and Arguments for the existence of God

Fallacy of exclusion — The fallacy of exclusion is a logical fallacy where "Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the 'principle of total evidence'.".[4] See also: Atheism and critical thinking

Fallacy of exclusion and the denial that Jesus existed

Christ on the Cross by Jacques Louis David.

See also: Historicity of Jesus and Atheists and historical illiteracy

A classic use of the exclusion fallacy committed by many atheists is the denial that Jesus Christ ever existed.

Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for Jesus Christ living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed (see: Historicity of Jesus).

In an article titled Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth, Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:

I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.[5]

Unreasonable and inconsistent evidential standards

See also: Atheism and irrationality and Atheist hypocrisy

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.[6] See also: Definition of atheism and Definitions of atheist and agnostic and Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism

Atheists demand proof and evidence for other worldviews, yet there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. Also, despite the abundant evidence for Christianity and the lack of proof and evidence for atheism, atheist reject the truth of Christianity. Atheists refuse to go where the evidence clearly leads.

In addition, when atheist make claims related to naturalism, make personal claims or make accusations against theists, they often employ lax evidential standards instead of employing rigorous evidential standards.[7][8]

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote a very revealing comment. It demonstrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation — regardless of whether or not the facts support it.[9]

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal Nature. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[8]

Lewtontin wrote:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.[9]

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal Nature. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[8]

Atheist community requested to provide proof and evidence that atheism is true
The popular YouTube Christian Shockofgod asked for proof and evidence that atheism is true. When atheism is weighed on the proof and evidence scale, it lacks evidential weight that it is a valid worldview. Unlike Christianity, there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true.

The popular Christian YouTube Christian Shockofgod likened atheism to a clown due to its hypocritical and foolish evidential standards.[10] Shockofgod repeatedly asked the YouTube atheist community, "What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?".

The YouTube atheist community became flustered and upset by his question.[10] Shockofgod declared concerning their reaction to his question: "The hostility I am getting over this question is unbelievable...It's like..picture this...Atheism is a clown and it didn't know it. And then I got the clown and I walked it over...I forced it to look itself in the mirror. And it sees itself in all its red hair, big nose, big shoes, polka dot glory."[10]

Atheism and extraordinary claims

Western Atheists often claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", yet they have no proof and evidence that the extraordinary claim of non-life becoming the first life solely through natural processes is true (See: Origin of life).[11]

Atheists and the genetic fallacy

Genetic fallacy — The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy wherein an argument is based on the circumstances of something's origin or history when that origin or history has nothing to do with the present value of that something.[12] The fallacy is thus a fallacy of relevance.

Rather than address the evidence offered against atheist arguments from various sources, atheists often lodge illegitimate and illogical genetic fallacy complaints such as the source is a Christian website, etc.

The ex-atheist C.S. Lewis wrote about the illegitimate and illogical use of the genetic fallacy in his essay titled Bulverism.[13]

Atheists, family/societal origin of religious belief and the genetic fallacy

See also: Atheists, origin of religious belief and the genetic fallacy

In 2012, a Georgetown University study was published indicating that only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.[14]

Atheists have given themselves pretentious monikers such as freethinker, rationalist and "bright" (see also: Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and intelligence and Causes of atheism).

Like many atheists/agnostics, the new atheist Richard Dawkins often arrogantly claims that a person is an adherent of a particular religion purely due to their upbringing and environment.[15] These same atheists often complain that religion is purely the result of religious indoctrination while ignoring the existence of atheist indoctrination.

This type fallacious thinking is an example of the genetic fallacy and ignores the existence of people changing their religion/worldview based on thoughtful consideration or due to divine intervention. For example, one of Christianity's greatest evangelist was the Apostle Paul who was a zealous Jew who persecuted Christians until his experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus. In recent years, there are many reports of Muslims receiving dreams/visions and becoming Christians.[16]

Atheism and its retention rate in individuals

See also: Atheism and its retention rate in individuals

In 2012, a Georgetown University study was published indicating that only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.[14]

Abandonment of atheism in atheistic communist countries

In addition, in atheistic Communist China, Christianity is experiencing explosive growth.[17][18] On July 3, 2005, the New York Times reported concerning many countries in the former Soviet Union: "A return to religion in Romania and the region's other formerly Communist countries has in many places outrun the speed at which the church can screen and train clergy..."[19]

Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union

See: Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union

Allegation that all religion is superstitious and the genetic fallacy

The Wall Street Journal reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows ...that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians."[20]

A commonly ploy of atheists is to attempt to disqualify biblical writers on the spurious ground that they were allegedly superstitious and therefore their testimony is unreliable. Yet, the irreligious population has significant problem with superstition (see: Irreligion and superstition)[20]

In September 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported:

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.[20]

Atheists, the genetic fallacy and false accusations of mental illness

Atheists often falsely accuse theists (particularly those who criticize atheism) of mental illness,[21] despite the fact that atheists have higher incidences of depression and suicide (see: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and depression and Atheism and health).

Mental hospitals in the Soviet Union were used to persecute the religious.[22]

Sigmund Freud's view of religion
Sigmund Freud in his laboratory

See also: Sigmund Freud's view of religion

Psychologist Sigmund Freud was a proponent of atheism who argued that theism was detrimental to mental health.[23] Oxford Professor Alister McGrath, author of the book The Twilight of Atheism, stated the following regarding Freud:

One of the most important criticisms that Sigmund Freud directed against religion was that it encourages unhealthy and dysfunctional outlooks on life. Having dismissed religion as an illusion, Freud went on to argue that it is a negative factor in personal development. At times, Freud's influence has been such that the elimination of a person's religious beliefs has been seen as a precondition for mental health.

Freud is now a fallen idol, the fall having been all the heavier for its postponement. There is now growing awareness of the importance of spirituality in health care, both as a positive factor in relation to well-being and as an issue to which patients have a right. The "Spirituality and Healing in Medicine" conference sponsored by Harvard Medical School in 1998 brought reports that 86 percent of Americans as a whole, 99 percent of family physicians, and 94 percent of HMO professionals believe that prayer, meditation, and other spiritual and religious practices exercise a major positive role within the healing process.[23]

The Mayo Clinic found that that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better physical health, mental health, health-related quality of life and other health outcomes.[24]

The Mayo Clinic reported on December 11, 2001:

In an article also published in this issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Mayo Clinic researchers reviewed published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and subject reviews that examined the association between religious involvement and spirituality and physical health, mental health, health-related quality of life and other health outcomes.

The authors report a majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes.[24]

Freud remains popular among postmodern literary academics, who use his anti-Christian pseudoscience as a basis for their own anti-Christianity and moral relativism, even though his theories were disproved decades ago.

Atheists and the strawman fallacy

Strawman fallacy — Many atheists/evolutionist commonly use the strawman fallacy.[25][26]

A straw man fallacy (or straw man argument) is a fallacy which occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. It is a caricature of an opponent's argument, a distortion which can easily be "knocked down", i.e., refuted, like a flimsy pile of straw.

A strawman argument is a weakened version of a debating opponent's argument, which lacks the potency of the opponent's actual argument. In debates attended by the unwary, a clever but unscrupulous debater can fool the audience into thinking that the opponent's position has been disproved. Knocking down the powerless straw man takes the place of an authentic contest with the real man.

Atheists and the appeal to ridicule fallacy

See also: Atheism and mockery

The appeal to ridicule fallacy, also known as the appeal to mockery and the horse laugh, is a fallacy of relevance. It consists of mocking an opposing argument rather than considering it on the merits.

On July 14, 1789, the Bastille was stormed by a mob and its prisoners freed, which is regarded as the start of the French Revolution.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy and the history of French atheism

The Reign of Terror of the French Revolution established a state which was anti-Roman Catholicism/Christian in nature [27] (anti-clerical deism and anti-religious atheism and played a significant role in the French Revolution[28][29]), with the official ideology being the Cult of Reason; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the guillotine.[30]

Kenneth Weinstein wrote in The American Interest:

Charlie Hebdo has suddenly become the best-known example of a venerable French tradition: vituperative and unrelenting anti-religious satire, a provocative yet regular phenomenon of French public life. And now—not, alas, for the first time in that nation’s history—it has occasioned actual bloodshed.

Lampooning of the Bible, Christian doctrine, and clergy dates back almost 400 years to the “strong thinkers,” French learned skeptics in the 16th century. The primary target of anti-religious satire was France’s official religion, Catholicism, the Church’s ties to the state, and its control over education. And the ridiculing wit long directed against these targets would eventually play a central and crucial role in reducing the status and influence of religion in the French Republic...

The method of the forerunners of Charlie Hebdo—unrelenting and vicious satire of religion and clergy — proved so effective that France became a fully secular state, to such an extent that certain of its practices, laicité, would be regarded as unsettlingly alien and intolerant by most Americans.[31]

The tactic of employing the ridicule instead of reason has been ineffective in stopping the rapid growth of evangelical Christianity in modern France.[32]

On July 12, 2012, the Christian Science Monitor reported:

French scholars say, evangelicalism is likely the fastest-growing religion in France – defying all stereotypes about Europe’s most secular nation...

Daniel Liechti, vice-president of the French National Evangelical Council, found that since 1970, a new evangelical church has opened in France every 10 days. The number of churches increased from 769 to 2,068 last year.[32]

Ridicule has been an ineffective tactic in modern France against the growth of Islam in France. The Washington Post declared in 2015: "One widely cited study by Pew from 2010 showed estimated that France had 4.7 million Muslims.[33] At 7.5 percent of the population, this meant France had the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. A 2010 estimate projects the Muslim population to be 10 percent of France's population by 2030.[33]

In April of 2010, the British academic and agnostic Eric Kauffmann declared that "the rate of secularisation has flattened to zero in most of Protestant Europe and France."[34]

Modern American/British militant atheists and the use of ridicule

The new atheist Richard Dawkins declared to this fellow atheists:

I suspect that most of our regular readers here would agree that ridicule, of a humorous nature, is likely to be more effective than the sort of snuggling-up and head-patting that Jerry is attacking. I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt.[35]

In his article, Mockery — the M.O. for atheists, Matt Barber discusses an incident in which the Freedom From Religion Foundation encouraged atheists to engage in tactics which Barber considers to be acts of hateful mockery.[36]

Hateful mockery can backfire, especially when a group in the minority. Atheists are the least-trusted group in America (see: Views on atheists).

Atheists and the ad hominem abusive logical fallacy

The atheist biologist Massimo Pigliucci said of PZ Myers (pictured above), "one cannot conclude this parade without mentioning P.Z. Myers, who has risen to fame because of a blog where the level of nastiness (both by the host and by his readers) is rarely matched anywhere else on the Internet...".[37] (photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)

See also: Atheism and social skills and Atheist factions

The Ad Hominem Abusive, "also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character" is "attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making."[38]

Atheists, particularly militant atheists/anti-theists, have developed a reputation for bullying and engaging in profanity (See: Atheist bullying and Atheism and profanity).

In February 2010, the news organization The Telegraph reported that the new atheist Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."[39] Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being abrasive so the behavior of his fans is not entirely surprising.

The atheist biologist Massimo Pigliucci said of the atheist PZ Myers, "one cannot conclude this parade without mentioning P.Z. Myers, who has risen to fame because of a blog where the level of nastiness (both by the host and by his readers) is rarely matched anywhere else on the Internet...".[37]

The University of Illinois psychologist Ryan Ritter published a study in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science which showed among other things that atheists used profanity significantly more than Christians do on Twitter and that Christians had happier dispositions on Twitter.[40]

Militant atheists/anti-atheists frequently accuse Christians of "lying for Jesus" despite the fact that historically atheists/evolutionists have frequently engaged in deception to promote their ideology (see: Atheism and deception and Atheist indoctrination).

See also:

Scientism is self-refuting

See also: List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences and Atheists and the National Academy of Sciences

According to Discovery Institute scientism is an effort to use the methods of science to explain and control every part of human life, in other words, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds.[41]

Scientism is self-refuting. William Lane Craig wrote: "Scientism tells us that we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven. But what about that very proposition itself? It cannot itself be scientifically proven."[42] The Christian apologist Jason Peterson similarly wrote: "Science has to presuppose the validity of mathematics, the laws of logic, and that our senses are valid. Science is unable to prove any of those things." [43] See also: Atheism and naturalistic intelligence

C.S. Lewis was sceptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to reduce everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes.[44] He argued that scientism has the dehumanizing impact on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself.[41]

Appeal to the religious beliefs of National Academy of Sciences scientists

See also: Atheists and the National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C.

Despite the poor survey design of the survey in question (which the atheist Eugenie C. Scott has acknowledged), atheist apologists commonly cite a survey of the religious beliefs of the scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences in order to justify their atheism (see: Atheists and the National Academy of Sciences).

According to the Oxford Dictionaries website, a category mistake is "The error of assigning to something a quality or action that can properly be assigned to things only of another category, for example, treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location."[45]

Strictly speaking, the existence of God is a philosophical question and not a scientific question since God is supernatural and thus outside of nature. Furthermore, in terms of expert opinion, the majority of philosophers of religion, or those who have extensively studied the issue of the existence of God, are theists (72 percent).[46]

In addition, there is experimental evidence supporting the proposition that the God of the Bible does answer prayers.[47] The Christian apologist Gary Habermas wrote: "Double-blind prayer experiments: where people pray for others with terminal illness. Habermas admitted that most such experiments have not worked, but the three that he knows of that have indeed worked were cases of orthodox-Christians praying for the sick."[47]

Even if atheists were not committing a category mistake in relation to citing the religious beliefs of NAS scientists, it is an appeal to authority which is also a logical fallacy.

Atheists and groupthink

See also: Atheism and groupthink

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of individuals in which the quest for harmony/conformity within the group results in irrational and/or poor decision-making.

There are a number of notable cases of atheists engaging in groupthink (see: Atheism and groupthink).

Atheists and the appeal to emotion logical fallacy

Many atheists use appeals to emotion/arguments from outrage when criticizing the Bible, especially when they are engaging in cultural imperialism.[48][49][50]

Atheism and the fallacy of equivocation

See also: Atheism and equivocation

Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

Equivocation is a logical fallacy.[51]

Atheism, equivocation and the origin in the universe

Creationist scientists demonstrate that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.[52][53][54]

Atheist Lawrence Krauss speaking at an American Atheists conference.

The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) points out that the prominent atheist Lawrence Krauss uses the logical fallacy of equivocation in his failed attempt to explain the origin of the universe.[55]

CARM declares:

But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, which has the subtitle Why there is something rather than nothing? Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”....

You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book he answers the question that Leibniz posed, but he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum.... defines ‘nothing’ as:

1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
2. no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
3. something that is nonexistent.
4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.

But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is Aristotle’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”

Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God but also doesn’t like God. Here is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”

The problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned.

All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth.[55]

Atheism, evolution and the equivocation fallacy

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and agnostics (see also: Causes of evolutionary belief)[56]

Critics of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the gene pool of a population over time through such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.[57] Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy.[58][59]

Throughout his book Why Evolution is True, the atheist Jerry Coyne abuses the term evolution, defining it in multiple ways and equivocating it.[60] In addition, he shows a poor understanding of the creationist/creation science position.[61]

Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy

Logo for the Shockofgod YouTube channel

See also: Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a logical fallacy and more specifically a special case of circular logic. It involves dismissing any counterexamples.[62][63]

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the no true Scotsman fallacy thusly:

No True Scotsman

This error is a kind of ad hoc rescue of one's generalization in which the reasoner re-characterizes the situation solely in order to escape refutation of the generalization.


Smith: All Scotsmen are loyal and brave.

Jones: But McDougal over there is a Scotsman, and he was arrested by his commanding officer for running from the enemy.

Smith: Well, if that's right, it just shows that McDougal wasn't a TRUE Scotsman.[62]

The no true Scotsman Fallacy was coined by the English philosopher Anthony Flew in his book Thinking about Thinking — or do I sincerely want to be right?. At the time Flew wrote the book he was an atheist, but he later became a theist.

Atheists claiming ex-atheists were never atheists

John W. Loftus, one of the more prominent atheists in the atheist community. The ex-atheist Darrin Raspberry used to write for the atheist John Loftus’ blog site Debunking Christianity.[64] After Raspberry became a Christian Loftus said that Raspberry “was never an atheist in the first place.”[64]

The popular Christian YouTube video creator Shockofgod is an ex-atheist who left atheism because it lacks proof and evidence that it is true, while Christianity offers an abundant amount of evidential support.[65] His YouTube videos have cumulatively received over 25 million views since his YouTube channel's inception.[66] Shockofgod won over 70 Christianity vs. atheism debates.[67] There are atheists who claim that Shockofgod was never an atheist.[68]

Atheists attempting to deny/minimize the roles of atheism/atheists in atheist atrocities

Atheist apologists commonly try to minimize or deny the role of atheism/atheists as far as atheist atrocites.[69][70][71] It is as if no true atheist could be responsible for mass murder (see also: Atheism and mass murder).[71]

Atheism was an integral tenet of Maxist-Lennism/Maoist/Stalinism communism (see: Atheism and communism).

For more information, please see: Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy

Evolutionists who are atheists committing the no true Scottsman fallacy

See also: Christianity and science and Atheism and the suppression of science and Creation science

Evolutionists who are atheists often claim that there are no real scientists who disbelieve evolution.[72] In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."[73]

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and agnostics (see also: Causes of evolutionary belief)[56]

Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy

Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy

Atheist Phil Plait on the skeptical movement

See also: Atheism and arrogance

The atheist Phil Plait said about the skeptical movement: "Hubris is running rampant. And egos are out of check. And sometimes logic is put by the wayside."[74]

Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God

See also: Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God

Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as "the man atheists fear most" due to Michael Martin's cancellation of their scheduled debate.[75]

During his debate with Dr. Gordon Stein, Bahnsen pointed out that the atheist worldview cannot account for the laws of logic, but the Christian worldview can.[1][2] See also: Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God

See also


  1. 1.0 1.1 Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein: The Great Debate (FULL)
  2. 2.0 2.1 "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?"
  3. Atheism by Matt Slick
  5. Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth by Christopher Price
  6. Multiple references:
  7. 8.0 8.1 8.2
  8. 9.0 9.1 Amazing admission
  9. 10.0 10.1 10.2
  10. Fallacy Files: Genetic Fallacy
  11. God in the Dock — Bulverism
  12. 14.0 14.1 Study: Atheists Have Lowest 'Retention Rate' Compared to Religious Groups
  13. Richard Dawkins — "What if you're wrong?"
  14. LAST DAYS! Muslims Coming To Jesus Through Visions!
  18. 20.0 20.1 20.2
  19. Mailvos — Continuing education
  20. The Cry of the New Martyrs — Psychiatric “Treatment” of Christians
  21. 23.0 23.1 McGrath, Alister (February 28, 2005). "The twilight of atheism". Christianity Today website. Retrieved on May 23, 2015.
  22. 24.0 24.1 Mueller, Dr. Paul S. et al. (December 2001). "Religious involvement, spirituality, and medicine: implications for clinical practice". Mayo Clinic Proceedings vol. 76:12, pp. 1225-1235. Retrieved from Mayo Clinic Proceedings website on July 20, 2014.
  23. A New Breed of Atheism
  24. ‘Excellent summary of so many strawman arguments used by anti-creationists’
  25. War, Terror and Resistence
  26. Forging Freedom: The Life of Cerf Berr of M Delsheim by Margaret R. O'Leary, iUniverse (June 1, 2012), pages 1-2
  27. Multiple references:
    James Adair (2007). Christianity: The eBook. JBE Online Books, 461. Retrieved on July 18, 2014. “Although the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes to the calendar eliminated references to Christian holidays, and even the ancient seven-day week, and a list of officially recognized saints included such famous thinkers such as Socrates, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A period of political persecution, often with religious overtones, broke out, known as the Reign of Terror. Thousands of people were executed by the guillotine, including many of the original leaders of the French Revolution.” 
    William Belsham (1801). Memoirs of the Reign of George III. to the Session of Parliament ending A.D. 1793, Volume 5. G.G. & J. Robinson, 105–6. Retrieved on July 18, 2014. “In allusion to the monstrous transactions of this portentous period, it has been eloquently and energetically observed, 'that the reign of atheism in France was avowed the reign of terror. In the full madness of their career, in the highest climax of their horrors, they shut up the temples of God, abolished His worship, and proclaimed death to be an eternal sleep:—in the very centre of Christendom, Revelation underwent a total eclipse, while atheism, performing on a darkened theatre its strange and fearful tragedy, confounded the first elements of society, blended every age, rank, and sex, indiscriminate proscription and massacre, and convulsed all Europe to its centre, that the imperishable memorial of these events might teach the last generations of mankind to consider religion as the pillar of society, the parent of social order, and the safe-guard of nations.'
    "It is wonderful that, amid the horrors of this dismal period, while 'the death dance of democratic revolution' was still in rapid movement, among the tears of affliction, and the cries of despair, 'the masque, the song, the theatric scene, the buffoon laughter, went on as regularly as in the gay hour of festive peace.'”
    William Kilpatrick (2012). Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. Ignatius Press, 57. Retrieved on July 18, 2014. “Actually, it's helpful to think in terms of two Enlightenments: the Enlightenment that cut itself off from God. The former led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. The latter led to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the suppression of church by state, and the godless philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche and their offspring—National Socialism and communism. More recently the abandonment of God has led to the regime of cultural relativism that regards rights as arbitrary constructions.
    "It's this second Enlightenment tradition that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to when he wrote, 'The radical detachment of the Enlightenment philosophy from its roots ultimately leads it to dispense with man.' Actually this transition happened not 'ultimately' but almost immediately. The first instance occurred when Enlightenment worship of abstract 'reason' and 'liberty' degenerated quickly into the mass murders committed during the antireligious Reign of Terror in France. 'Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name', said Madam Rolande as she faced the statue of Liberty in the Place de la Revolution movements before her death at the guillotine. She was one of the early victims of a succession of secular systems based on rootless notions of 'liberty', 'equality', and 'reason'.
    "As many historians have pointed out, the atheist regimes of modern times are guilty of far more crimes than any committed in the name of religion. Communist governments alone were guilty of more than one hundred million murders, most of them committed against their own people.”
  28. [Charlie Hebdo and France’s Irreligious Tradition Kenneth R. Weinstein]
  29. 32.0 32.1 In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord
  30. 33.0 33.1 France’s growing Muslim population, Washington Post, January 9, 2015
  31. British academic Eric Kaufmann says "the rate of secularisation has flattened to zero in most of Protestant Europe and France". Also, Kaufmann writes that secularism "appears exhausted and lacking in confidence"
  32. Dawkins: Mock them. Ridicule them! In public
  33. Mockery — the M.O. for atheists by Matt Barber
  34. 37.0 37.1 Reflections on the skeptic and atheist movements By Massimo Pigliucci Scientia Salon, Posted: May 13, 2015
  35. Ad Hominem (Abusive)
  36. Richard Dawkins in bitter web censorship row with fellow atheists: Professor Richard Dawkins is embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and “frivolous gossip, The Telegraph By Heidi Blake, 9:25AM GMT 26 Feb 2010
  37. Happy Tweets: Christians Are Happier, More Socially Connected, and Less Analytical Than Atheists on Twitter Social Psychological and Personality Science 1948550613492345, first published on June 18, 2013
  38. 41.0 41.1 N/A. The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society — Product Description. Discovery Institute Press. Retrieved on November 30, 2014. “Beloved for his Narnian tales for children and his books of Christian apologetics for adults, best-selling author C.S. Lewis also was a prophetic critic of the growing power of scientism in modern society, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds. In this wide-ranging book of essays, contemporary writers probe Lewis's warnings about the dehumanizing impact of scientism on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself. Issues explored include Lewis's views on bioethics, eugenics, evolution, intelligent design, and what he called "scientocracy."”
  39. Is scientism self-refuting?
  40. [Christianity and Circular Reasoning] by Jason Petersen at Answers for Hope Ministry
  41. The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism 02min:20sec. DiscoveryInstitute (18 Nov 2012). Retrieved on 27-April-2013.
  42. Category mistake - Oxford dictionaries
  43. Does it matter that many scientists are atheists?
  44. 47.0 47.1 Christian Apologist: 10 Reasons for the Fall of Atheism by Gary Habermas
  45. Bible critics and arguments from outrage by JP Holding
  46. Atheists and arguments From outrage
  47. Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics by Paul Copan
  48. Equivocation
  49. Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science
  50. Thompson, Bert, So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!, 2001 (Apologetics Press)
  52. 55.0 55.1 Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing, by Robin Schumacher, edited by Matt Slick
  53. 56.0 56.1 * Dr. Don Batten, A Who’s Who of evolutionists Creation 20(1):32, December 1997.
  54. Jonathan Sarfati,Ph.D., F.M. Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
  55. The PBS evolution website bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.
  56. Jerry Coyne and the “Fact” of Evolution by Kyle Butt, Apologetics Press
  57. Why evolution need not be true: A review of Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne Viking Penguin, New York, 2009, reviewed by John Woodmorappe
  58. 62.0 62.1 No True Scotsman Fallacy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  59. The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy, Idea Channel — PBS Digital Studios
  60. 64.0 64.1 Arguments for God’s existence leads former “Christ-hater,” Darrin Rasberry, to Christ follower by James Bishop
  61. Ex-atheist shares why he left the lie of Atheism
  63. Atheism loses a shocking 71 debates in a row
  64. Atheists Dodge Their History of Atrocities
  65. Atheism
  66. 71.0 71.1 Mailvox: the "No True Atheist" defense
  67. Many Scientists Do Not Accept Evolution
  69. Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 2 of 3)
  70. The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein