A non sequitur is defined as an argument in which there is no connection between the premise of the argument and its conclusion.
I am trying to faithfully and honestly summarise the arguments of Atheists. If you read their books and watch their Youtube videos, you will be able to verify these common arguments.
The top 5 fallacious non-sequiturs constantly used by neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Michael Schermer are…
FALLACY NUMBER 1
“There is great suffering in the world, and God is defined as a kind loving being by religion, that is why the kind and loving God of Abrahamic religions does not exist.” My response: How can suffering imply lack of love and mercy? I love my wife, and I was responsible for my wife painfully and with much torture bearing three children. That does not mean that my act of fathering these children was out of a lack of love! Furthermore, the fact that my own dad punished me once when I almost burnt the house down, certainly does not make him devoid of love and compassion. The argument of the Atheist is funny because it seems to say: “God does not exist because I think he is cruel.”
FALLACY NUMBER 2
“People invented God to explain their lack of understanding and knowledge.” Atheists often refer to God as the “God of the Gaps”. The argument goes like this: “As soon as Science can explain a phenomenon, God does not need to exist as the causer of that phenomenon. One of the few gaps that still exists is the origin of the universe, and science will explain that too in the future, which will finally eliminate all reason for God to exist.” This is like me saying, I know how the engine of my car works, that’s why no-one built it. But even when looking at the origination of a phenomenon, like say, thunder, will it be hard for atheist to base their rejection of God on the fact that we can explain the origin of thunder. What if the God we believe in creates by a process of evolving things through scientifically explainable processes? Furthermore even: What if God gives rise to things by delegating the power to create them to humans?
FALLACY NUMBER 3
“God is not needed for humans to be moral because I (as an Atheist) don’t believe in God and I am moral “. Classical non sequitur. Lets apply the reasoning in another context to expose this fallacy: “Working is not needed to make a living, because I don’t work, and I’m making a pretty good living.” The concept “work” here is not argued as a specific virtue, but as a general virtue.
FALLACY NUMBER 4
“There is no evidence of God, and therefore I cannot support the hypothesis that God exists.” The argument would be sound here still, but then the neo-atheist moves on to a de facto position that “God does therefore not exist.” The argument of “no evidence” can at most be employed to support Agnosticism (i.e. being uncertain whether God exists), and not total rejection of God. The Atheists argument that all existence only happens when it is empirically verified, leads to absurd implication that nothing exists that is not smelt, felt, heard, seen or sensed by anyone. Does that mean Black Holes don’t exist then? Or does that mean that electrons and quarks did not exist before physicists could detect them?
FALLACY NUMBER 5
“Atheism promotes human progress because it places the responsibility on man to shape his own destiny instead of invoking God and prayer all the time.” Another way in which this fallacy is promoted is by neo-Atheists often acting as de facto spokesmen for science. The common pattern of their reasoning is that Atheism=Scientific progress and religion=backwardness. Firstly, the scientific community has never taken a formal or unanimous position on the existence of God. As far as I know, no science faculty or institute has ever endorsed study into whether God exists. This makes the assertion by Dawkins to speak for “Science” just a fallacy. Mr Dawkins, like any other atheist who happens to be a scientist, is an atheist in spite of being a scientist, not because he is a scientist.
Now if you are an Atheist, you are going to accuse me of also making unproven assertions above, like say, that God exists. You should remember however that my piece here is not meant to prove anything, merely to expose the fallacies in the arguments of neo-Atheists. Read the book “Our Godly Struggle” downloadable on this site to find the positive arguments.