25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 9)

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 9) June 15, 2015

And we’re back with yet more stupid arguments! Grab your BINGO cards and play at home!

This is a continuation of a list that begins here.

stupid Christian arguments apologeticsStupid Argument #29: America is a Christian nation. Remember what the Founding Founders said: “All men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The government back then wasn’t shy about declaring national days of thanksgiving or fasting. And look at their personal letters—they’re full of God references.

If you simply mean that most Americans today are Christian, that’s true. But it’s obviously false to imagine Christianity as somehow part of the country’s governance.

That quote is from the Declaration of Independence, the document that also said, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from …” no, not God, but “the consent of the governed.” You’ll find deism there but not Christianity. But this is irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence doesn’t govern the country, the Constitution does. And it’s 100% secular. Indeed, it was the world’s first secular constitution, one of America’s greatest examples to the world.

The founding fathers could say whatever they wanted to in their letters. They could believe in God, pray to Jesus, or imagine getting strength from Christianity. None of that matters when an honest reading of the Constitution makes clear that America is defined to be secular, not Christian. Reinterpreting history is popular among faux historians like David Barton, but the preferences of a gullible public aren’t the guide to truth.

Stupid Argument #30: Atheists just had bad father figures. Psychology professor Paul Vitz makes a powerful case that the absence of a good father creates atheists. A poor relationship with one’s earthly father creates a poor relationship with the heavenly Father. Atheists are driven by psychology, not reason.

I analyze this in more detail, though it doesn’t deserve much. Vitz’s analysis is little more than cherry picking, with examples of famous Christians who had good fathers or father figures and atheists who had bad ones.

And, of course, you can find opposite examples. To take one, here’s what C. S. Lewis said about his father: “God forgive me, I thought Monday morning, when he went back to his work, the brightest jewel in the week.” Imagine compiling the opposite list of atheists with good fathers and Christians with poor ones. I’m sure Vitz would complain that it was a biased selection. And it would be, just like his own version.

Stupid Argument #31: Excusing Christian scandals, whether they’re sexual indiscretions, theft of money, or false prophecy. No one’s perfect. Don’t forget that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

No scandal with a Christian leader can be so great that they lose all of their flock. Consider rehabilitated televangelists like Jim Bakker (five years in federal prison for fraud), Peter Popoff (shown by James Randi to be using tricks to simulate miraculous knowledge), Ted Haggard (sex), and Jimmy Swaggart (sex). They’re all back preachin’ the Good News.

Or the scandals of not only pedophile priests but the Catholic leadership that hid their crimes.

Or the false prophecies of Harold Camping and Ronald Weinland (who both committed the sin of being precise and therefore testable) or Ray Comfort and John Hagee (whose baggy prophecies could fit just about any events).

If “just ignore that—they’re only human” applies when Christian leaders do bad things, why doesn’t it apply when they do good things? If God’s actions are visible through Christian leaders when you’re pleased with them, why not when you’re disappointed? Why would God not protect them from error—or if he did, why did he stop? Things are nicely explained by dropping the God assumption.

Jonny Scaramanga of the “Leaving Fundamentalism” blog commented about the double standard. Ex-addicts were quick to give Jesus the glory for their recovery. But “as soon as that televangelist fell from grace, it was all ‘Well, we all have a sin nature.’ Well, which one is it? Do we have a sin nature or are we transformed by the saving grace of the Holy Spirit?”

Continue with part 10.

See the complete list of arguments here and the BINGO card of Christians’ stupid arguments here.

For every complex problem
there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
— H. L. Mencken

Image credit: The World According To, flickr, CC

"Upvoting your reaction.I'm taking an Orange Pylon approach here. Bob can moderate as he wishes, ..."

Is God the good guy or ..."
"Dr. Louis Bounoure, former Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the ..."

Saving Haeckel: why “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” ..."
""No legitimate scientist doubts evolution." Such an authoritative statement for an impossible theory. There are ..."

Saving Haeckel: why “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” ..."
"From a reply to this topic by Dave Armstrong on his site:You need to be ..."

The Bible defeats its own Resurrection ..."

Browse Our Archives