I made a comment on a thread by an atheist called "What I Learned About Atheism from God's Not Dead."
1. The entire thread commits the informal fallacy of composition. This fallacy makes the mistake of assuming some attribute of part of the whole is therefore an attribute of the whole. Here's an example:
Every brick in this wall is 8 inches high.
Therefore the entire wall is 8 inches high.
The fallacy that undergirds this atheistic article is:
The movie "God's Not Dead" presents an atheistic philosophy professor as evil.
Therefore, all atheistic philosophy professors are evil.
But are some atheistic professors like this? Of course. In my doctoral program at Northwestern University I encountered one. I wrote about this here, and put the link in the thread cited above.
This caused one atheist to respond with the next example of illogic, which I'll be able to use in my Logic classes.
2. This atheist (I assume) replied to me:
"If that were true,you would have had grounds to sue,sounds like you are lying for jesus here,but thats ok as long as its for jesus right?"
My reply to this atheist is this:
There is no logical claim of inference from:
1. You did not sue.
2. Therefore you are lying.
This irrational leap of faith then gives us Premise 1 in the following argument.
1. If you did not sue then you are lying.
2. You did not sue.
3. Therefore, you lied.
Premise 1 is obviously false. If it were true, then anyone who can sue someone but chooses not to is "lying." Which is absurd.