Response to "Christianity is Delusional" Video

Response to Christianity is Delusional Video


The IRONY of this video is that the maker whose greatest appeal is to reason commits so many logical fallacies.

Here's a selection of the fallacies:

1. Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition).
Simply repeating to ad nauseam the inference that "Christianity is delusional" does not make it so, no more than by repeating that the sky is falling makes it true.

Not only this, but the apparent suppressed tone of the speaker along with the statement he is not trying to criticize the religious beliefs of Christians but to bring about their healing from delusion while seeking to come across as non-judgmental actually does the opposite and worse. It's one thing if a person were simply wrong, it's another to be smugly classified as delusional by the self-asserting intelligent person who seeks to offer you help.

2. Complex Question

Stating that the delusion of Christianity hurts our species is true only if the presumption that Christianity is delusional has been proven and that it can be proven this delusion hurts humanity.

3. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Assumption that just because two religions are false (Mormonism, & Muslim) a third (Christianity) must be false is to mistake co-existence and correlation for causation. Just because Jack's beanstalk and Farmer Brown's beanstalk have some things in common doesn't negate the reality for Farmer Brown's bean stalk. Whereas one is magical, the nature of the other is different.

The same can be said of the statement "you know every other religion is delusional, now simply recognize the obvious, that Christian religion is exactly the same."

4. Petitio principii

Inferring that Christianity is a fairy talel based on "remarkable lack of evidence" is to beg the question. The maker of the video's denial of the evidence and refusal to accept the evidence not only does not do away with the evidence but results in circular argumentation. Stating that "The Christian story is an imaginary fairy tale" is no different.

5. Argumentum ad numerum

Simply by suggesting that the four billion people who disagree with Christianity think Christianity is false does not make it so. Besides that, if as the maker says these (four billion) people "see reality clearly", then why are they not in agreement? Besides that, why is it that number of Christians outnumbers their individual numbers of participation. As everyone knows simply throwing out numbers like four billion may be impressive to the undiscerning, but to those who are discerning, not only does qualifying the numbers make a significant difference, but numbers alone does not equate to truth.

6. Argumentum ad hominem

Inferring Christians to be irrational (by stating "Christians are delusional, every rational person can see that") does not make it so.

7. Non Sequitur

If the statement "You should also be able to see there is only one sane position for an intelligent person to take in this diagram" is true, then why are differences found among the positions of those who oppose Christianity? Additionally, just because one stands outside of delusion in one case does not mean one is or must be completely free from delusion.

8. Naturalistic fallacy/Non Sequitur

To assume that Christians being delusional "hurts our species" is to suggest there's a provable purpose and goal of humanity, which unbelievers are not able to show.

9. Dicto simpliciter

Suggesting that science has proven the spiritual realm and influences invalid by stating that 'every valid scientific study shows that prayer has absolutely no effect" is not only to make a sweeping generalization but to impose predujice upon the pool. For example, are not some prestigious hospitals now encouraging spiritual participation and involvement because it makes a difference? Has it not been shown that those who believe in a higher being typically live longer?

10. Slippery slope

Referring to "luck" and it's relationship with Christians seeing things differently not only fails to substantiate the maker's reference but to show the causal relationship between the advocated reference and the consequent action. In addition, it invalidates the very system the maker of the video advocates.

Conclusion: Nice graphics and presentation, but the rest leaves alot to be desired!

......