Poor Christian Reasoning
Perhaps the most aggravating ordeal in discussing religious theory is the burden of listening to logical fallacies used by someone with an opposing viewpoint. Logical fallacies are arguments outside the bounds of reality, commonly used by defenders of their respective religions. While some of the arguments used by such an individual may seem sound or valid to a lay audience, especially one with beliefs deeply rooted in the debated system, this chapter should assist you in being able to recognize when such disingenuous methods of argumentation are used. In fact, the illogical attributes of Christianity itself prematurely handicap the ability for a Bible defender to use sound logic in defending his position.
I will support examples of these poorly developed techniques with hypothetical religious arguments in order to reinforce the often-confusing explanations because it's important for the freethinker to avoid these faulty methods of argumentation in order to remain above an intellectually dishonest level. As the tools of logic and reason are on the side of those who don't blindly delve into the comforts of false superstitions, there's no foreseeable excuse to ever resort to the use of logical fallacies in the "defense" of disbelief.
Baseless Assertions
This section will discuss a variety of general arguments that use unreliable methodologies to arrive at a desired conclusion. The first example is argumentum ad ignorantiam, which means to argue from ignorance. This is a proposal that something is true (or false) because it has yet to have been proven otherwise. A Christian might say, "The crucifixion is a historical fact because no one has found any documents conspiring to invent the story." In the same manner, I could claim Jesus had four arms. Since no one can solidly disprove my ridiculous assertion, the previous speaker's fallacious logic allows my statement to be considered a historical fact. Needless to say, a lack of evidence against a claim doesn't make the proposal a historical certainty.
Some apologists (those who defend a religious doctrine) will consider an argument more valid if the audience hears it more than the opposing viewpoint. We call this erroneous consideration argumentum ad nauseam, an argument used so much that it creates sickness. A speaker using this method of argumentation will go to great lengths in order to ensure that he voices his opinion as often as possible. Although the argument itself may be perfectly sound, it's no more or less true the thousandth time the speaker used it than the first. A silent form of this argument may be self-utilized when someone forms an opinion on the legitimacy of Christianity based on the abundance of related literary works. While Christian nations tend to publish extraordinary amounts of Christian material, the arguments contained therein do not increase in soundness based solely on the number of times writers repeat the information.
Christians will often make arguments that imply something is true because society has generally accepted it as the truth for a lengthy but arbitrary period of time. This is an example of argumentum ad antiquitatem, which means an argument from age. A Christian might say, "People have believed in God for thousands of years. This belief has existed for so long, there must absolutely be some truth to it." Apologists of even older religions could also make such bankrupt claims, but such assertions would no doubt go unheard by the close-minded Christian apologist. In short, the age of the belief in question is independent from the legitimacy of the belief itself. Conversely, some Christians will argue that certain beliefs are true because they're newer than others. This would be an example of argumentum ad novitatem, an argument from novelty. "Jesus Christ was crucified during the time of recorded history. Many people wrote about his death, and it's much harder to forge such a record in this era. Therefore, the account is true." Scholars have adequately disproven several modern beliefs, religious or otherwise, in the past 2000 years. While there may be an increased obstacle of difficulty in forging records of a modern event, a belief isn't true just because it's newer than others in the same field.
Apologists often cite the attributes and qualities of people during arguments as evidence to support an assertion. Let's suppose there's a multi-billionaire preacher who has dedicated his life to serving God. This hypothetical character might often be apologetically used as an example of how Christianity is more likely to be true than other religions. Because this individual obviously made many correct choices in life, his belief in Jesus only makes sense. We call such a ridiculous proposal argumentum ad crumenam, an argument based on wealth. If this rich man also believed in the Easter Bunny, the mythical rabbit doesn't leap into the bounds of reality. Conversely, another Christian might consider a poor individual to be more virtuous since he isn't preoccupied with materialistic possessions. Therefore, we should hold his religious viewpoints in higher esteem than those of the common person. That's an example of argumentum ad lazarum, an argument based on a lack of wealth. What if the poor man also believed in the Easter Bunny?
If a person is famous, Christians will often appeal to that individual as an additional example for the legitimacy of their religion. For instance, "Since the past few Presidents of the US have adhered to Christianity, it is certainly the most correct religion." We call this absurd notion argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument based on authority. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were non-Christians, but this doesn't mean the belief system is any less reliable. However, you should make an important discrepancy between this logical fallacy and the referencing of an authority on a given subject. If the speaker sufficiently explains the authority's position, the proposal then becomes an acceptable supplementary argument. Cutting the debate short by exclaiming things like "you just need to read this book by John Q. Public" isn't a satisfactory procedure because two speakers citing books back and forth all day would accomplish nothing. Nonetheless, you may notice I will often refer to what "scholars say" with regard to a few statements I make. For this reason, I've supplied a list of reinforcing supplementary references for points I make that aren't common knowledge.
If an ignorant debater considers a single person to be good evidence, then billions of people probably seem like pure gold. Argumentum ad numerum is an argument based on the number of people who believe something to be true. Christians often suggest that Jesus Christ must be an actual historical figure because two billion living people now believe he is the son of God. However, over one billion people believe Muhammad split the moon in half. Where is the imaginary boundary for the number argument to work? What happens when the world's Muslim population inevitably exceeds the number of Christians? Will biblical apologists then accept Islam as the truth based on this reasoning? Of course not, and they shouldn't. The number of people who subscribe to a religion doesn't make the belief system any more or less factual than it already is. Similarly, argumentum ad populum is the use of a statement that appeals to some popular notion in society. A Christian might argue, "To insinuate that the Bible is a hoax is to call a countless number of our past heroes misguided." Even though such a statement might successfully enrage the audience against the speaker's opponent, it's a blatantly dishonest but often unintentional utilization of the audience's emotions to turn them toward a certain viewpoint. No matter how popular or widespread a religious belief can be, these qualities don't add to the soundness of the facts.
due to this post is too long,pls refer such
http://errancypage.home.mindspring.com/chapter4.html
....... 
must be under age..