Is there one single argument for Christianity that is not a logical fallacy?1. Circular reasoning – It claims the Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.2. Appeal to authority – It demands belief because ancient men or divine figures said so, not because evidence supports it.3. False dichotomy – It frames reality as “believe or burn,” ignoring infinite other explanations for existence and morality.4. Ad hoc reasoning – Every failed prophecy or moral contradiction is explained away with “God works in mysterious ways.”5. Strawman – It reduces non-believers to “rebels against God” instead of people who simply see no evidence.6. Appeal to emotion – It manipulates fear of hell and desire for eternal love to override critical thought.7. Post hoc fallacy – It assumes good events are “blessings” and bad ones are “tests” without causal proof.8. Slippery slope – It warns that without faith society will collapse into chaos, ignoring secular stability and progress.9. No true Scotsman – It excuses every Christian atrocity by saying “they weren’t real Christians.”10. Begging the question – It assumes sin and salvation are real just to prove the need for Christ.11. Tu quoque – It deflects criticism by pointing to the sins of atheists or other belief systems.12. Appeal to ignorance – It treats gaps in science or understanding as evidence of God.13. Loaded question – It asks “why do you hate God?” presuming God exists and is hateable.14. Bandwagon fallacy – It implies truth through popularity: billions believe, therefore it must be true.15. Appeal to tradition – It insists Christianity is true because it’s old, not because it’s rational.
>>18123325you know what is not a logical fallacy?hell
>>18123329Prove it exists
>>18123325There are other arguments, but they almost invariably fall apart upon closer inspection. It's still better than Islam in this regard though.
>>18123329Already addressed by point 6
>>18123325Cool post mysterious traveler!This poster is a philosopher. Upvote him to karma heaven!
>>18123325free will or something lol
>>18123325I like christians, from my own experience I would rather live with them than any other denomination, and if in the end if it all is a lie and there is nothing then what value the truth has? Your logic is self-defeating.
>>18123695Science has proven that free will is fake but no one wants to admit it because then no one can philosophically be at fault for anything and thus our entire society collapses.
>>18123672It was funny when it was used properly but now every other Christian argument online is just "uh.... y-youre reddit or something dude... fedora much? hah..."
>>18123325>Is there one single argument for....hello? you realize that all "religions" are in the category of self-proving assertions? this is what "faith" is all about - believing without "proof"if you want secular proof for things become a scientist or mathematics or engineering - and avoid politics, history, religion, philosophy etc etc
>>18123980If we’re speaking strictly in terms of logical coherence—internal consistency, absence of contradiction, and minimal reliance on unprovable metaphysical claims—the answer depends on what standard of logic you apply. But broadly:1. Buddhism (particularly early or non-theistic schools) is often seen as the most logically sound. It doesn’t rely on a creator god, it’s introspective and empirical (you test its insights in direct experience), and its metaphysics like dependent origination or impermanence align surprisingly well with modern systems theory and physics.2. Stoicism (a philosophy rather than a religion) is also highly consistent. It relies on rational ethics, determinism, and virtue as the natural order—no contradictions, no leaps of faith.3. Advaita Vedānta (non-dual Hindu philosophy) is logically elegant in a different way: it grounds reality in consciousness itself and dissolves the dualism between subject and object. Its reasoning can be internally airtight once you accept its basic axioms.4. Taoism avoids logical traps by not overstating its claims—it’s paradoxical on purpose. It doesn’t pretend to know ultimate answers, only the flow of balance (Tao), which makes it resilient against logical collapse.In short: Buddhism ranks highest for logical rigor, Advaita Vedānta for metaphysical coherence, and Taoism for philosophical humility. Most Abrahamic faiths fail by asserting unverifiable absolutes rather than exploring them.
>>18124001Atheism, taken purely as a position, is actually the most logically minimal of all—it asserts nothing beyond what can be shown.Its strength is that it commits no positive fallacy: it doesn’t claim to know a god doesn’t exist, only that there’s no convincing evidence to believe one does. That makes it logically cleaner than any theistic or metaphysical system because it avoids unfalsifiable assumptions.However, atheism by itself isn’t a worldview—it’s a rejection, not a structure. It says “not that” but doesn’t prescribe an alternative meaning, ethics, or ontology. So while it’s the most logically sound, it’s also the most existentially incomplete unless paired with philosophy (like humanism, naturalism, or existentialism) to build a framework for life and value.So: atheism wins on logic, loses on depth—unless it’s expanded into a coherent philosophy of being.
>>18123325>Circular reasoning – It claims the Bible is true because it’s the word of GodMathematical textbooks contain the proofs in themselves, does that make them "circular"?Same way, Bible is the pedagogic book, only difference between a Christian and an atheist in that matter is hat Christians believe it is inspired by divine>Appeal to authorityt demands belief because divine figures said soaccording to same logic, you should not accept mathemtical textbooks because it appears to authority of logic and proofs.Divine figures of logia and pneuma roughly translates to logic/word and conscience. So, if you reject Bible on the basis that it appeals to logic, word and conscience; you should also reject mathematics and physics.> It frames reality as “believe or burnIt is not a false dichotomy, there is no middle ground between death and life.>It reduces non-believers to “rebels against God” Truth exists, if you do not believe truth exists then you rebel against truth.>It assumes good events are “blessings”No, good things happened to idolaters in Old Testament too, and bad things happened to righteous, have you read Bible?>– It implies truth through popularityYes, because Christianity was popular during Roman oppression....it was not.>Appeal to traditionYou appeal to 19th century tradition of materialists and reject modern notion of there is physics beyond material existence which is called the physicalism, you appeal to tradition too, just different and dead ones.
>>18123807Yeah I know. Most normies would refuse to accept it either. It's most damaging to narcissists and soys who believe everything they do has meaning
>>18123972Their insults are so fucking weak because they know atheist don't really hold any thing sacred. We can make fun of Rabbi Jebus all we want, call them jew worshiping cucks and it will strike their nerves. In return they can only say "Oh yeah? well you wear a fedora" and we can just laugh it off because it's so silly.
1/2>>18123325I appreciate the quintessential 2010 skeptic youtuber post. Here's what we have learned in the 15 years since New Atheism died:>1. Circular reasoning – It claims the Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.False. Multiple accounts don't become the same account by virtue of compilation into one book. >2. Appeal to authority – It demands belief because ancient men or divine figures said so, not because evidence supports it.False. You are free to get evidence yourself.>3. False dichotomy – It frames reality as “believe or burn,” ignoring infinite other explanations for existence and morality.The dichotomy is not addressing explanations. You have not established it is false at all.>4. Ad hoc reasoning – Every failed prophecy or moral contradiction is explained away with “God works in mysterious ways.”False. Not a logical fallacy.>5. Strawman – It reduces non-believers to “rebels against God” instead of people who simply see no evidence.False dichotomy, ironically.>6. Appeal to emotion – It manipulates fear of hell and desire for eternal love to override critical thought.True. Finally. Yes, we do appeal to emotions. They are part of your human engagement with reality.>7. Post hoc fallacy – It assumes good events are “blessings” and bad ones are “tests” without causal proof.False. Not what Post hoc fallacy means. You're essentially complaining people interpret events lmao.>8. Slippery slope – It warns that without faith society will collapse into chaos, ignoring secular stability and progress.Sometimes true. But it is an anecdotal complaint.
2/2>>18123325cont >>18124435>9. No true Scotsman – It excuses every Christian atrocity by saying “they weren’t real Christians.”False. Plenty were done by real Christians.>10. Begging the question – It assumes sin and salvation are real just to prove the need for Christ.False. Not what begging the question means.>11. Tu quoque – It deflects criticism by pointing to the sins of atheists or other belief systems.False. See this post.>12. Appeal to ignorance – It treats gaps in science or understanding as evidence of God.Sometimes true. But it is an anecdotal complaint.>13. Loaded question – It asks “why do you hate God?” presuming God exists and is hateable.Sometimes true. But it is an anecdotal complaint.>14. Bandwagon fallacy – It implies truth through popularity: billions believe, therefore it must be true.Partially false. Truth is sought by convergence.>15. Appeal to tradition – It insists Christianity is true because it’s old, not because it’s rational.False. Tradition doesn't mean age.
>>18124408>>18123972>every other Christian argument onlineJust the reddit tier "le appeal to authority" argumentsOP systematically listed out the logical fallacies from the old 9gag pic and half of these "refutations" don't address the central truth claim of Christianity. Im literally not even christian and I love to see christards dunked on but this was weak as fuck thats why youre reddit tier
>>18124435>>18124439This guy proved how retarded these thrown together arguments are and saved the rest of us alot of time
>>18123792It’s the ultimate irony that right-wing has just become post-modernists.
>>18124006Atheism, taken purely as a position, is actually the most logically minimal of all—it asserts nothing beyond what can be shown.It asserts that the Lord doesn’t exist and that your father was a fish. Enjoy burning.
>>18124533The fact that Mexicans unironically think those are sound refutations is a sound critique of Christianity in and of itself.
>>18124528nothing here was more reddit tier than your reply. sorry.
>>18123325This post is an example of the fallacy fallacy.Just because someone has used a fallacy in the past to argue for a point has no bearing on whether or not the point is true. If someone made an argument that you thought was bad, that doesn't automatically make their point false. If you think it does, that's the fallacy fallacy.
>>18124006True, but you gonna wind back up to buddhism or taoism depending on the particular brand of existentialism or existentialist humanism you choose, they are quite similar and even draw some inspiration from eastern religion.Buddhism is most coherent logically of the two; it defines what it's about, and does not beat around the bush as much as Taoism.
