1) School sponsored prayer was banned from schools; divorce rates and teen pregnancies went up; in other words, banning school sponsored prayer resulted in an increase in divorce rates and teen pregnancies.
2) Communism endorses atheism and Communism has resulted in the death of millions—governments that embrace atheism are wicked and will inevitably result in untold deaths of innocent people.
3) Statistically, the lower a person’s IQ and the less educated he or she is, the more likely that person is to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are unintelligent and are not adequately educated.
2006-10-28 10:39:16 · 6 answers · asked by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Correlation implies causation. Also post hoc.
2006-10-28 10:40:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Prayer had nothing to do with divorce rates or teen pregnancies. Parents went to work and left their kids to the TV.
While the cats away the mice will play.
Actually atheism rarely starts war. They say there are no atheist
in fox holes. Religion is what causes war. I don't know of any communistic country that started war that actually hurt someone.
The Russians had a cold war! But nobody died.
Hitler was a Catholic, and a Christian.
That is not really true either. Fundamentalist according to the dictionary is basic, essential. Not necessarily uneducated.
they just want to lead a basic essential existence.
I wouldn't call that lower IQ just a life choice. Means essentially they are not materialistic.
2006-10-28 10:52:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
you need way more evidence than you present. Atheists use these same tactics try to approach things in a loving way
My I'Q. is 155 and I am an evangelical. Since 70% of all people range at or below an IQ of 100 then seems to me catering to these is a good thing. The problem arises because of not teaching the doctrine of accountability (Mat 18 and the letters to Tim) not the people alone. Spread accountability and people will think twice b4 spreading lies from the pulpit
2006-10-28 10:49:27 · answer #3 · answered by ronnysox60 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
These are all examples of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacies, loosly translated as: "after this, therefore because of this".
In other words, they are fallacies since just because event B happens after event A does not imply that A caused B.
2006-10-28 12:31:02 · answer #4 · answered by Scott R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Zero has it right. The classic causation/correlation fallacy.
2006-10-28 10:41:22 · answer #5 · answered by Skippy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How does it feel to be begging the question?
2006-10-28 10:44:07 · answer #6 · answered by Random 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋