Americans are so serious about their religious belief, or non-beliefs, and a big portion

美國人對自己的宗教信仰或無信仰非常認真，

of American public debate and discussion are centered around religious issues.

美國公共辯論和討論的很大一部分都圍繞著宗教問題。

I am especially fascinated by the fact that there are so many YouTube channels focused

我特別著迷的是，有這麼多 YouTube 頻道

on just Christian apologism, and atheism, and they seem to have a very good symbiotic

只關注基督教的護教和無神論，而且它們似乎有很好的

relationship because a huge portion of their content is based on reacting to or quote-to-on-quote

共生關係，因為它們的內容很大一部分是基於對另一方論點的回應

“debunking” the other side's videos, which I find particularly enjoyable.

或“揭穿”對方的視頻，我覺得特別有趣。

I recently began binge-watching these contents and noticed that both sides seem to frequently

最近開始狂看這些內容，發現雙方的論點

employ logical fallacies in their arguments.

似乎都常出現邏輯謬誤。

So today, I compiled 8 logical fallacies frequently used by both atheists and Christian apologists.

所以今天，我整理了8個無神論者和基督教辯護者常用的邏輯謬誤。

So let's talk about it with PAA:

那麼讓我們來和 PAA 談談：

Hi, I am Shao Chieh Lo, welcome to What People Also ask where I compiled some fun facts to

嗨，我是 Shao Chieh Lo，歡迎來到 What People Also

share with you, usually by conducting a lot of Googling.

我在這裡分享通常是透過進行大量的 Google 搜尋所得的冷知識。

Today I want to talk about 8 logical fallacies frequently used by both atheists and Christian

今天我想談談無神論者和基督教辯護者經常使用的8個邏輯謬誤

apologists, if you are an atheist or Christian apologist, I want to let you know I am not

如果你是無神論者或基督教辯護者，我想讓你知道我不是想攻擊你

trying to attack you, I simply just want to compile some logical fallacy that is frequently

，我只是想整理一些邏輯謬誤這是

used by both sides.

雙方經常使用的。

The examples I used in this video are just some examples I heard from some atheists and

我在這個影片中使用的例子只是我從一些無神論者和

Christian apologists, it does not represent all apologists or atheists, so I am not strawmaning

基督教辯護者那裡聽到的一些例子，它並不代表所有的辯護者或無神論者，所以我不是在「稻草人」你

you.

。

Oh wait, what is strawmaning?

喔等等，什麼是稻草人？

Let's talk about our first fallacy: 1.What is Strawman Fallacy?

我們來談談第一個謬誤： 1.什麼是稻草人謬誤？

The Strawman Fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to

當有人扭曲對手的論點以使其更容易攻擊

attack or refute, rather than addressing the actual argument.

或反駁時，而不是解決實際的論點，就會出現稻草人謬誤。

This involves exaggerating, oversimplifying, or completely fabricating aspects of the argument.

這涉及誇大、過度簡化或完全捏造論點的各個方面。

It's a common technique in debates and discussions, used to undermine the opponent's position

這是辯論和討論中的常見技巧，用於

by attacking this weaker "strawman" representation, rather than engaging with the real issues

透過攻擊較弱的「稻草人」代表來破壞對手的立場

or points being made.

，而不是討論真正的問題或觀點。

Everyday Example:

日常範例：

Imagine a conversation about environmental policy.

想像一下關於環境政策的對話。

Person A says, "I think we need stricter regulations to protect the environment."

A說：“我認為我們需要更嚴格的法規來保護環境。”

Person B responds, "So, you want to shut down all factories and put everyone out of work?"

B 回答：“所以，你想關閉所有工廠，讓所有人失業？”

Here, Person B is misrepresenting Person A's argument.

在這裡，B 扭曲了 A 的論點。

Person A suggested stricter regulations, not the extreme measure of shutting down all factories,

A建議更嚴格的監管，而不是關閉所有工廠的極端措施，

which is a strawman that Person B created to attack the argument more easily.

這是B人為了更容易攻擊論點而製造的稻草人。

Example of Atheist Use of Strawman Fallacy

無神論者利用稻草人謬誤的例子

In a debate on the existence of God, an atheist's claim that "Christians believe in God merely

在關於上帝存在的辯論中，無神論者聲稱“基督徒相信上帝僅僅是

because they cannot handle the reality of death and seek solace in the concept of an

因為他們無法處理死亡的現實並在來世的概念中尋求安慰

afterlife" represents a strawman fallacy.

”，這代表了稻草人謬誤。

This fallacy arises from the oversimplification and misrepresentation of the complex reasons

這種謬論源自於對

behind Christian belief in God.

基督教信仰上帝背後的複雜原因的過於簡單化和扭曲。

The atheist's argument does not acknowledge the array of philosophical, theological, and

無神論者的論點並不承認基督徒經常引用的一系列哲學、神學和

personal motivations that Christians often cite as the foundation of their faith.

個人動機作為其信仰的基礎。

Instead, it reduces their belief to a simplistic and not universally applicable explanation

相反，它將他們的信念簡化為一種簡單化且不普遍適用的解釋，

centered around fear of death and the need for afterlife assurance.

其中心是對死亡的恐懼和對來世保證的需要。

This approach effectively creates a distorted version of Christian beliefs, which is easier

這種方法有效地創造了基督教信仰的扭曲版本，這更容易

to discredit, but fails to engage with the actual, nuanced reasons that many Christians

被懷疑，但未能涉及許多基督徒為其

offer for their faith.

信仰提供的實際的、微妙的理由。

Example of Christian Apologists Use Strawman Fallacy:

基督教辯護者使用稻草人謬誤的例子：

When a Christian apologist says, "Atheists believe solely in science to explain everything

當基督教辯護者說「無神論者只相信科學可以解釋

in the universe and reject any notion of non-physical entities," they are committing a strawman

宇宙中的一切並拒絕任何非物質實體的概念」時，他們就犯了稻草人

fallacy.

謬誤。

This oversimplified depiction does not accurately reflect the diverse perspectives of atheists.

這種過度簡化的描述並不能準確反映無神論者的不同觀點。

Many atheists do not assert that science has answers to all questions, nor do they all

許多無神論者並不斷言科學可以回答所有問題，也不否認

discount the possibility of phenomena beyond the reach of current scientific understanding.

出現超出當前科學理解範圍的現象的可能性。

Their lack of belief in a god is often grounded in a lack of compelling evidence, rather than

他們對神的缺乏信仰往往是因為缺乏令人信服的證據，

an absolute reliance on scientific explanation for all aspects of existence.

而不是對存在的各個方面的科學解釋的絕對依賴。

By portraying atheists as strict materialists who deny anything beyond the physical, the

透過將無神論者描繪成嚴格的唯物主義者，他們否認物質以外的任何事物，

apologist overlooks the complex and varied views many atheists hold regarding the limits

辯護者忽略了許多無神論者對科學知識的限制

of scientific knowledge and the unknown.

和未知事物所持有的複雜而多樣的觀點。

This generalization fails to address the real and multifaceted views of atheism.

這種概括未能解決無神論的真實和多方面的觀點。

2.What is Ad Hominem

2.什麼是人身

The Ad Hominem Fallacy occurs when someone attacks their opponent's character or personal

攻擊 當某人攻擊對手的性格或個人

traits instead of engaging with the actual argument being presented.

特徵而不是參與所提出的實際論點時，就會出現人身攻擊謬誤。

This tactic is used to undermine the opponent's position by discrediting them personally,

這種策略是透過抹黑對手的個人聲譽來破壞對手的立場，

rather than addressing the substance of their argument.

而不是解決他們論點的實質內容。

The aim is to divert attention from the argument to the individual, making their argument seem

目的是將注意力從論證轉移到個人身上，使他們的論點顯得

less credible or convincing.

不那麼可信或令人信服。

Everyday Example: In a discussion about health policy, Person

日常範例：在有關衛生政策的討論中，

A argues, "We should have universal healthcare because it leads to better overall health

A 認為，“我們應該擁有全民醫療保健，因為它會帶來更好的整體健康

outcomes."

結果。”

Person B responds, "You just support universal healthcare because you're a socialist who

B 回答說：“你只是支持全民醫療保健，因為你是一個討厭自由企業的社會主義者

hates free enterprise."

。”

Here, Person B is committing an ad hominem fallacy by attacking Person A's political

在這裡，B 犯了人身攻擊謬誤，攻擊 A 的政治

ideology rather than presenting the actual argument against universal healthcare to support

意識形態，而不是提出反對全民健保的實際論點來支持

his refutation.

他的反駁。

Example of Atheist Use of Ad Hominem Fallacy: In a religious debate, when an atheist states,

無神論者使用人身攻擊謬誤的例子：在宗教辯論中，當無神論者說

"You only believe in God because you're not educated enough to understand science," it

“你只相信上帝，因為你沒有受過足夠的教育來理解科學”，這就

constitutes an ad hominem attack.

構成了人身攻擊。

This approach unfairly targets the believer's intelligence and level of education, rather

這種方法不公平地針對信徒的智力和教育水平，而不是

than engaging constructively with the philosophical or theological bases of their belief in God.

建設性地參與他們對上帝信仰的哲學或神學基礎。

Such a statement implies that the believer's faith is a result of a lack of understanding,

這樣的說法意味著信徒的信仰是缺乏理解的結果， 忽略了

overlooking the myriad of reasons, including personal experiences and existential reflections,

可能支撐他們信仰的無數原因，包括個人經驗

that might underpin their belief.

和存在反思。

By focusing on the believer's perceived personal shortcomings, the atheist diverts the discussion

透過關注信徒所感知的個人缺點，無神論者將討論

away from the substantive arguments about faith and religion.

從有關信仰和宗教的實質爭論上轉移開。

This tactic not only dismisses the believer's perspective but also evades a genuine exploration

這種策略不僅忽略了信徒的觀點，也迴避了

of the complex reasons behind religious beliefs.

對宗教信仰背後複雜原因的真正探索。

Example of Christian Apologist Use of Ad Hominem Fallacy:

基督教護教家使用人身攻擊謬誤的例子：

In a discourse on faith, a Christian apologist's claim, "Atheists are just bitter people who

在關於信仰的論述中，一位基督教護教者聲稱，「無神論者只是一些痛苦的人，他們

reject God because they want to live sinful lives without guilt," serves as an ad hominem

拒絕上帝，因為他們想要毫無愧疚地過有罪的生活”，這是一種人身

attack.

攻擊。

This statement criticizes atheists' moral character and personal motivations, rather

這項聲明批評了無神論者的道德品質和個人動機，而不是

than constructively addressing the philosophical or rational arguments behind their disbelief

建設性地解決他們不相信 上帝 背後的哲學或理性論點

in God.

。

By attributing their lack of belief to a desire for an unaccountable lifestyle, the apologist

透過將他們缺乏信仰歸因於對不負責任的生活方式的渴望，護教者

shifts the focus from a substantive debate on the existence of God to a judgment of atheists'

將焦點從對上帝存在的實質辯論轉移到對無神論者

character.

性格的判斷。

This approach not only disrespects the genuine intellectual positions held by many atheists

這種方法不僅不尊重許多無神論者所持有的真正的知識立場

but also sidesteps the opportunity for an honest discussion about the complexities and

，而且還迴避了誠實討論 信仰和不信仰的

nuances of belief and non-belief.

複雜性和細微差別的機會

3.What is False Dilemma/False Dichotomy Fallacy

。 3.什麼是虛假困境/虛假二分法謬誤

The False Dilemma (also known as False Dichotomy) Fallacy occurs when an argument presents two

虛假困境（也稱為虛假二分法）謬誤發生在當一個論證提出兩個

options as the only possibilities, when in fact more options exist.

選項作為唯一的可能性，而實際上存在更多選項時。

This fallacy limits the possibilities to two, often extreme, options, with the intent to

這種謬誤將可能性限制為兩種（通常是極端的）選擇，其目的是

force a choice between them, ignoring other viable alternatives.

強迫在它們之間做出選擇，而忽略其他可行的選擇。

It's a tactic used in argumentation to corner the opponent into choosing an undesirable

這是辯論中使用的一種策略，目的是逼迫對手選擇不受歡迎的

option or to oversimplify complex issues into black-and-white choices.

選項，或將複雜的問題過度簡化為非黑即白的選擇。

Everyday Example: In a discussion about career choices, Person

日常例子：在一次關於職業選擇的討論中，

A says, "You either go to college and succeed, or you don't go and end up failing in life."

A 說：“你要么上大學並取得成功，要么不上大學而最終在生活中失敗。”

Here, Person A is presenting a false dilemma by suggesting that success is only achievable

在這裡，A 提出了一個錯誤的困境，他認為成功只能

through college education and that not attending college inevitably leads to failure.

透過大學教育才能實現，而不上大學必然會導致失敗。

This ignores other paths to success, like vocational training, entrepreneurship, or

這忽略了其他成功途徑，例如職業訓練、創業或

self-taught skills.

自學技能。

Example of Atheist Use of False Dilemma Fallacy An atheist might employ a false dilemma fallacy

無神論者使用虛假困境謬誤的例子 無神論者可能會運用虛假困境謬誤

by asserting, "You must either accept evolution and reject all religious teachings, or deny

，斷言：“你必須要么接受進化論並拒絕所有宗教教義，要么

science entirely and live in ignorance."

完全否認科學並生活在無知中。”

This statement presents an overly simplistic choice, implying that accepting scientific

這種說法提出了一個過於簡化的選擇，暗示接受科學

theories like evolution is fundamentally incompatible with any religious belief.

像進化論這樣的理論從根本上來說與任何宗教信仰都不相容。

It ignores the many individuals who reconcile their religious faith with scientific understanding,

它忽略了許多將宗教信仰與科學理解相調和的個人，

and the various religious interpretations that do not conflict with scientific discoveries.

以及與科學發現不衝突的各種宗教解釋。

By framing the debate as an either/or scenario, it dismisses the nuanced positions many hold

透過將辯論界定為非此即彼的場景，它駁斥了許多人所持有的將

that blend scientific knowledge with spiritual beliefs.

科學知識與精神信仰融為一體的微妙立場。

Example of Christian Apologist Use of False Dilemma Fallacy:

基督教護教家使用虛假困境謬誤的例子：

A Christian apologist might use a false dilemma fallacy by stating, "You either believe in

基督教護教者可能會使用虛假困境謬誤，說：「你要么相信

the Christian God and have a moral compass, or you are an atheist and live a life without

基督教的上帝並有道德指南針，要么你是無神論者並且過著沒有任何道德指導的生活

any moral guidance."

。 ”

This creates an oversimplified binary choice, suggesting that morality is exclusive to Christian

這造成了一種過於簡單化的二元選擇，表明道德是基督教

belief and nonexistent in atheism.

信仰所獨有的，並且在無神論中不存在。

It disregards the possibility of atheists and followers of other religions possessing

它忽略了無神論者和其他宗教的追隨者擁有

strong ethical principles independent of Christian doctrine.

獨立於基督教教義的強大道德原則 的可能性 。

This argument unfairly diminishes the complex landscape of moral philosophy and the diverse

這種論點不公平地削弱了道德哲學的複雜性以及不同文化

sources of ethical values across different cultures and belief systems.

和信仰體系中道德價值的多元來源。

4.What is Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

4.什麼是循環推理（迴避問題）

Circular Reasoning, also known as Begging the Question, occurs when the conclusion of

循環推理，也稱為迴避問題，當

an argument is assumed in the premises.

論證的結論在前提中被假定時，就會發生循環推理。

Essentially, the argument goes in a circle, with the conclusion simply restating a form

本質上，論證是循環進行的，結論只是重申了

of the original assumption.

原始假設的一種形式。

It's a logical fallacy because it doesn't provide any actual evidence or reasoning,

這是一個邏輯謬誤，因為它沒有提供任何實際的證據或推理，

just reasserts the point in a way that appears to be an argument.

只是以一種看似論證的方式重申了這一點。

Everyday Example: Imagine someone arguing about the trustworthiness

日常範例：想像一下，有人在爭論 新聞來源的

of a news source said: "You can trust this news channel because it always tells the truth."

可信度時 說：“你可以信任這個新聞頻道，因為它總是說實話。”

This is circular reasoning because the premise (the channel tells the truth) is the same

這是循環推理，因為前提（渠道說真話）與

as the conclusion (it is trustworthy).

結論（可信）相同。

It assumes what it's trying to prove without providing any external evidence of the channel's

它假設了它試圖證明的內容，但沒有提供任何管道

credibility.

可信度的外部證據。

Example of Atheist Use of Circular Reasoning: In a theological debate, an atheist may propose

無神論者使用循環推理的例子：在神學辯論中，無神論者可能會提出

a circular argument by asserting, "God is merely a man-made concept because all notions

循環論證，聲稱「上帝只是一個人造概念，因為

of God are inherently created by humans."

上帝的所有概念本質上都是由人類創造的」。

This line of reasoning is inherently circular, as it employs the premise of God's concept

這種推理本質上是循環的，因為它採用上帝概念

being human-generated as proof of its artificiality.

是人類產生的前提來證明其人為性。

The argument essentially concludes that God is a man-made construct on the basis that

這個論證的基本結論是，上帝是一個人造的概念，其基礎是

concepts of God originate from human thought.

上帝的概念源自於人類思想。

However, this reasoning is circular because it assumes what it seeks to prove: the premise

然而，這種推理是循環的，因為它假設了它想要證明的東西：

that all ideas of God are human creations is used to substantiate the conclusion that

上帝的所有想法都是人類創造的前提被用來證實

God, therefore, is a fabricated concept.

上帝是一個捏造的概念的結論。

This approach neglects to consider the possibility of a divine entity existing independently

這種方法忽略了考慮神聖實體獨立於

of human conceptualization, presupposing instead that the very act of human conception of God

人類概念化而存在的可能性，而是預設人類對上帝的概念的行為本身就

invalidates the existence of a divine being.

使神聖存在的存在無效。

Such an argument fails to provide external verification for its claim and instead relies

這種論點無法為其主張提供外部驗證，而是依靠

on its own logic to prove its point, making it a clear instance of circular reasoning.

自己的邏輯來證明自己的觀點，這是明顯的循環推理。

Example of Christian Apologist Use of Circular Reasoning:

基督教護教者使用循環推理的例子：

A Christian apologist may utilize circular reasoning by claiming, "The Bible is inherently

基督教護教者可以使用循環推理，聲稱「聖經本質上是真實的

true because it is the word of God, and its divine origin is confirmed because the Bible

，因為它是上帝的話語，並且它的神聖起源得到證實，因為聖經

itself asserts it."

本身斷言了這一點。”

This form of argumentation is circular as it relies on the Bible's self-proclamation

這種論證形式是循環的，因為它依賴聖經的自我宣告

as the word of God to validate its truthfulness.

作為上帝的話語來驗證其真實性。

The conclusion that the Bible is true is embedded within the premise that it is the word of

《聖經》是真實的結論是基於它是

God, a premise which, in turn, is substantiated solely by the Bible's own declaration.

上帝之言的前提，而這個前提只能由《聖經》自己的聲明來證實。

This reasoning does not offer external verification or independent reasoning to support the truth

這種推理並沒有提供外在驗證或獨立推理來支持

of the Bible.

聖經的真理。

It assumes the veracity of the Bible to prove its divine origin and then uses its purported

它假定《聖經》的真實性來證明其神聖起源，然後使用其所謂的

divine origin to assert its veracity.

神聖起源來斷言其真實性。

Such a methodology fails to step outside the internal logic of the Bible to provide an

這種方法論未能跳脫《聖經》的內在邏輯，無法

independent basis for its truth, making it a clear instance of circular reasoning.

為其真理提供獨立的依據，是明顯的循環推理。

By not engaging with external historical, archaeological, or textual analysis, the argument

透過不參與外部歷史、考古或文本分析，論證

closes in on itself, using its own claim as the sole evidence for its conclusion.

自我封閉，用自己的主張作為其結論的唯一證據。

5.What is Slippery Slope Fallacy?

5.什麼是滑坡謬誤？

The Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that a relatively

滑坡是一種邏輯謬誤，當假設相對較小

small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually

的第一步會導致一系列相關事件最終產生一些重大（通常是

negative) effect.

負面）影響時，就會發生這種邏輯謬誤。

This fallacy suggests that taking a specific action will inevitably lead to other actions

這種謬論表明，採取特定行動將不可避免地導致其他行動，

resulting in an undesirable outcome, without providing sufficient evidence for such inevitability.

從而導致不良結果，但沒有提供足夠的證據來證明這種必然性。

Everyday Example: Consider an argument against relaxing work

日常例子：考慮一個反對放鬆工作

dress codes said: "If we allow employees to wear casual clothes on Fridays, soon they'll

服裝規範的論點，他說：「如果我們允許員工在周五穿休閒裝，很快他們就會開始

start dressing casually every day, and before we know it, the office will become unprofessional

每天穿休閒裝，在我們意識到之前，辦公室就會變得不專業

and productivity will plummet."

，生產力也會直線下降」。

This is a slippery slope fallacy because it assumes a series of increasingly negative

這是一個滑坡謬誤，因為它假設服裝規範的簡單改變會帶來一系列日益負面

and uncontrolled outcomes from a simple change in dress code, without evidence to support

和不受控制的結果，但沒有證據支持

such a drastic decline.

這種急劇下降。

Example of Atheist Use of Slippery Slope: In a debate on religious freedom, an atheist

無神論者利用滑坡的例子：在關於宗教自由的辯論中，無神論者

might argue, "If we allow any religious symbols in public schools, it will soon lead to schools

可能會爭辯說：「如果我們允許公立學校出現任何宗教符號，很快就會導致學校

forcing religious teachings on all students, ultimately ending in government-enforced religious

強迫所有學生接受宗教教義，最終以政府強制收場。宗教

practice."

實踐。”

This argument is a slippery slope because it presumes that a minor acceptance of religious

這種論點是一個滑坡，因為它假設對宗教表達的輕微接受

expression will inevitably escalate to extreme outcomes like mandatory religious indoctrination,

將不可避免地升級為強制性宗教灌輸等極端結果，

without substantiating how or why these extreme steps would necessarily follow.

而沒有證實這些極端步驟必然如何或為何發生。

Example of Christian Apologist Use of Slippery Slope:

基督教護教者使用滑坡的例子：

A Christian apologist might claim, "If society begins to accept atheistic beliefs, it will

基督教護教者可能會聲稱，“如果社會開始接受無神論信仰，就會