"Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion" excerpts

[MarkCharles]

"For those who don't know, A logical fallacy is a flawed pattern of reasoning. Something which the religious are professionals at."

"#10. Slippery slope fallacy - Fallacy that one event will inevitably lead to harmful consequences.
If we let gays get married it will be the end of family values." (Or, maybe, if militant radical atheists organize, the nation will turn into ruthless Communism)

"#7. Circular Logic - The premise that what you are trying to prove is evidence of it's self.
The bible is the word of god because it says it is, And it can't be wrong, because after all, It is the word of god."
(Or maybe, something like this: there are other ways of knowing because we say there are other ways of knowing.)


"#1. Argumentum ad ignorantium - Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been,
or can't be, proven false.If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, That means he must exist."
(Or, maybe, if one cannot prove that other ways of knowing don't exist, then they must exist.


More at: http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/08/top-10-logical-fallacies-used-by.html

Sound familiar to posters here?

[humblebum]

1. Leaning heavily on the atheist propaganda again, I see. nt

[tabatha]

2. Arguments for and against are not propaganda.

[humblebum]

13. So where are the pro-religious arguments vs. the anti-religious arguments? nt

[tabatha]

16. People who have arguments

usually put forth their point of view, for others to consider.

"Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group."

Nobody is benefiting from the OP. It is just presenting a point of view that one can appreciate, dismiss, etc.

[humblebum]

20. Yes, of course. that's why it's called "godbegone". thanks for clarifying.

[tabatha]

23. So "godbegone" is propaganda.

You are entitled to your beliefs, just as other to theirs.

But, repeat, no-one if profiting from stating that they find reasons for God's existence are illogical.

[humblebum]

25. Just keep telling yourself that. i never said that the site didn't have a right

to exist, but it does fit the def. of propaganda.

prop·a·gan·da   
noun
1.
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2.
the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3.
the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

[MarkCharles]

27. Then what is "In God we Trust" doing on our currency?

Isn't that just "particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement"?

You're OKAY with that, I am sure.

[Major Nikon]

48. Excellent question

Good arguments generally benefit (if not require) things like critical thinking, reason, and evidence. Faith requires one to suspend all those things. I suspect that's why there's an absence of good pro-religious arguments.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

7. How is it propaganda?

Please, pray tell, enlighten us.

[humblebum]

12. It is decided ly anti-religious and it proposes or insinuates that atheists do not

commit the same fallacies.

[MarkCharles]

15. You meand The good old "Democrats do it too" argument we hear from Republicans??

Please please give us ONE SOLID EXAMPLE OF EITHER:

Logical fallacies committed by non-believers.

OR

Evidence from "other ways of knowing".

You're running up quite a tab of debt here with your arguments without factual backup, but I invite you to settle your debate debt at any time, simply by providing the evidence to back up your arguments.

[MarkCharles]

29. I see you chose to avoid the challenge to present evidence that

atheists commit logical fallacies anywhere near as often as believers in a god do.

[Zoeisright]

18. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!

Now I've heard everything. Pointing out logical fallacies is atheist propaganda?

Thanks for adding another religious logical fallacy: straw man arguments.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MarkCharles]

30. "Pointing out logical fallacies is atheist propaganda?" Great catch!

Believers in a god should not have to be exposed to the ways in which their apologia fails the test of robust logical argument!

Believers so exposed might find reason to question beliefs in the mythology of the supernatural, in favor of belief in the natural laws of the universe, and thus be victims of a cruel and godless "propaganda".

[Major Nikon]

53. Logic has a decidedly anti-religious slant

This much is obvious to even the casual observer. So is it really that much of a stretch to claim "pointing out logical fallacies is atheist propaganda?"

He may have a valid point.

[Enrique]

3. that's why it's called "faith"

religion is not supposed to be logical.

[MarkCharles]

6. If not, they why are there so many failed attempts at logic made by

the "faithful"?

If what you say is true, (religion is not supposed to be logical), what is the purpose behind religious folks' attempts to influence others to join them in the same set of beliefs? What is evangelism all about?

[Enrique]

9. because people can choose to make a leap of faith

I haven't done it, but a lot of people have decided for whatever reason to believe in something illogical.

And yes, some people do make logical arguments for religion. If they're were making such a case to me I would tell them don't bother, it's impossible.

[MarkCharles]

10. Some people? Just some? Have you been reading any other threads on

this forum?

Just curious. Seems like all I read here from the believers are examples after examples after examples of logical fallacies.

The believers have nothing else, ( oh...other than attempts at personal insults hurled toward rational thinkers).

[immoderate]

36. It's now part of the dogma that it's logical. Since Augustine.

Or one of those guys.

It's their brand of logic though. It's proclaimed! And god says so!

A bunch of philosophers took their shot. Anselm, Des Cartes tried to make it make sense. I prefer real tap dancing.

--imm

[MarkCharles]

39. I'd rather watch a couple hours of a tap dance concert than

sit through an hour-long church service of Christians, of any variety

[immoderate]

45. Of course you would...

I'm a tap dancer. :)

Really.

--imm

[Major Nikon]

57. Religion most certainly should be logical on some level

If religion only concerned itself with belief in a supreme being(s), you might have something, but that's far from what religion does. In almost all cases, religion also sets rules for moral and ethical behavior. As such, it should be based on some sort of logic if those rules are to be applied to all of society. Otherwise how on earth would you counter someone who claims to speak on behalf of their god? What higher power can I appeal to in order to challenge the inspired word of teh almighty?

[snagglepuss]

4. A prerequisite of college admittance ought to be that students know

logical fallacies. If that was all that was taught to high school students, the world would be a better place.

[rrneck]

5. K&R Heh, "godbegone"... nt

[mahina]

8. Don't forget Reducto ad Hitlerum

You know who else was a socialist? Hitler!

[Quartermass]

11. I've got an even better site.

It's called hundreds of proofs of God's existence:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Basically, it lists all of the claims by religious people in a basic format of argument. Here's a few examples:

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

[MarkCharles]

14. You left out the best one:

ARGUMENT FROM TINKERBELL
(1) I really want God to be real.
(2) If you wish for something really hard, it'll come true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

[humblebum]

17. An even better example of atheistic propaganda. Absolutely one-sided.

For example: your first cause argument. Of course, there is no empirical, objective "proof" of first cause, but from observations of the natural world everything has a cause for its present state of being, therefore, it is hardly a ridiculous proposition or improbable to hypothesize that existence had a cause.

[MarkCharles]

19. So, according to you, your god is the cause?

Is that something you believe?

What would be the "religious propaganda"?

[humblebum]

21. There is no objective proof, nor can anyone claim such. But, yes I do believe that.

Nothing comes from nothing. And, something can not create itself ... ... ...

[MarkCharles]

22. So that is an argument FOR the existence of something from something

Is that an argument in favor of religious belief, or simply an argument stating that there is a gap in our "knowledge"?

Is the statement "something cannot create itself" or "nothing comes from nothing" a "proof", or merely as statement of what we so far know to be reasonable and logical?

[humblebum]

26. I made no statement that it was "proof" of anything, nor a gap in any form of knowledge.

The point is that there is more than one logical step to follow in such reasoning. But, certainly no objective proof.

[MarkCharles]

31. "there is more than one logical step to follow in such reasoning", but only 2 alternatives?..

Either a god created or ?

Several religious belief systems, Hindus for example, envision a universe that, for lack of a better phrase, constantly expands and contracts, over and over again, forever, with no beginning and no end, it just is! To a Hindu believer, the concept of creation is foreign, anathema, because everything that is, simply is!

There is now an emerging hypothesis in astrophysics that says that before the big bang, there may have been a big collapse, and before that, another space-time dimension universe, or that prior universes are swallowed up in black holes.

These thoughts bring us to the edge of what the human mind can comprehend, well beyond a comparatively "simple" grasp of the theory of relativity, which, in and of itself, is somewhat mind-boggling for most of us.

As modern day philosopher Bertrand Russell is remembered to have said, in a lecture... something that Stephen Hawkings relates in one of his latest books.

"Stephen Hawking in A Brief History Of Time starts with the anecdote.
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a
public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the
sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection
of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at
the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish.
The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise."

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is
the tortoise standing on?"

"You're very clever, young man, very clever,"
said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down."

[MarkCharles]

24. "Nothing comes from nothing. And, something can not create itself"

"The Bible is true because God exists, and God exists because the Bible says so.
This is what is known as circular reasoning - the circle is also sometimes called "vicious" because of how it works.

Other examples, however, aren't quite so easy to spot because instead of assuming the conclusion, they are assuming a related but equally controversial premise to prove what is at question. For example:

8. The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause called God.

"Example #8 assumes (begs the question) two things: first, that the universe does indeed have a beginning and second, that all things that have a beginning have a cause. Both of these assumptions are at least as questionable as the point at hand: whether or not there is a god."

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion_2.htm

[humblebum]

28. I made niether one of those statements. And, those same fallaceous types of arguments are

commonly used by atheists. Again you are appealing to the authority of atheist propaganda.

[Quartermass]

34. Yes, you did.

And you're not really using logic, you're just trying to turn the argument back upon the arguer so you can win and prove your God exists through trying to reverse the argument. And your use of the term atheistic agenda only betrays your theistic biases against those that do not believe.

It's a very old trick, and one that is extremely popular among theists.

You can deny it all you want, but many people can see through that very old trick.

But what you don't know is this, in turning the argument back, you're not really proving anything, especially when the site is not trying to make any kind of moral judgement nor anything like that. It is just describing how theistic people make their arguments.

AEEEIIOOOOUUUGGGHHHMNRRRRSSTT

[humblebum]

37. First of all, there is no objective proof of diety, for or against. And those that claim

either are only fooling themselves. Therefore, there are no winners in an argument such as this.you are assuming too much. The only arguments of any validity are those rational arguments made, which only suggest diety or no diety. All is subjective.

[MarkCharles]

38. "The only arguments of any validity are those rational arguments made" so you are...

in favor of rational argument on this issue?

Oh wait, I get it now, this is how you prove that rational argumentation does not apply when it comes to believing in a god.

Belief in a god is sort of like a preference for chocolate or vanilla ice cream, irrational, but "true"?

True, some prefer one over the other, for illogical reasons, and thus, religious believers should not be subjected to interference or challenge from the rationalists.

But, then, tell me why so many religious believers INSIST that their irrationally chosen flavor must be on our currency, must be exempt from taxation, must be enabled to parade itself, seeking more converts, and enjoying special status in the nation and the world.

[humblebum]

44. It is quite obvious that your prejudices are coloring your rationality. nt

[darkstar3]

56. Pot, kettle...

[MarkCharles]

35. Appeal to authority, strong or weak argument?

Sadly, once again, your definitions are not employing the accepted academic standards or definitions.

Let's refresh, shall we, (for you and others who may not be familiar with debate or argument tactics) and then move on.

"not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.

...

The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.

Sorry, but, once again, your misunderstanding of the various, widely accepted phenomena of strong debate and argumentation techniques has put you at a distinct disadvantage. Logical fallacies in debate and argumentation are not the exclusive realm of religious believers. The "knowledge" and power of logical argumentation extends to all realms or topics of debate, and can be weak or strong, and can be about ANY topic. As always, the more factual evidence presented with the use of any technique STRENGTHENS the quality of the debate.

[humblebum]

43. Where did I say "all Appeals to Authority are fallacious?" However, when

the majority of one's references come from one or similar, and obviously biased sources, I think it can be safely asserted that there is an appeal to the authority of such sources.

"Logical fallacies in debate and argumentation are not the exclusive realm of religious believers." - here, again you display a bias. In no way, did I ever make such an absurd statement or implication. Just another attempt, and one of several, by you to unreasonably assume something for which there is no evidence.

[MarkCharles]

46. Bring us ones from "unbiased" sources, OKAY? Appeal to YOUR authrority to..

contradict sources which you find "biased", (biased in favor of rational argumentation?).......

Just show us sources of rational argumentation where gawd is rationally found to be the winner.

I'll wait, take a few days, search them out, make sure none of your sources use logical fallacy.

Remember, appeals to authority CAN and should be respected as strong arguments, when facts and evidence are presented by the authority, as, your gawd for some facts and evidence, would help your case a lot when you argue from the appeals from authority viewpoint.

Hints:

Google: "styles and arguments of debate" or "successful argumentation" or "debates employing logic and reason and evidence"
"logical argumentation" "fallacies in logical arguments"

Have fun!

[humblebum]

49. Sensitive, aren't we? But your sources are still biased and

your reasoning shallow.

[MarkCharles]

51. So bring us YOUR sources, and YOUR less-than-shallow reasoning!

I challenge you.

I'm not offended by your insults, but leaving those insults against me and people who think like me, probably a plus if you can pull that off, and still argue with logic, facts and reasonable humanity.

I have to say, you sound more Republican than most posters here who respect differences among Democrats, you seem to find that a hard concept and practice to master.

[humblebum]

52. Believe it or not all dems are not atheists. And like most, I am not

happy being compared to RWer's. They are extremists. By the same token, there happen to be atheists who lean to the side of extremism, too. IOW, extremism is the problem on both ends of the spectrum. For a scholar, you certainly seem to use a rather narrow range of sources to bolster your expert opinions. Peculiar indeed, unless your desired ends require a very specific means. That would explain your ways.

[ThomCat]

54. You certainly like to tap dance around your own words a lot.

[humblebum]

55. Much better than stumbling all over them nt

[cleanhippie]

40. Yes you did. Its right ficking there in YOUR posts.

:rofl:

[rug]

32. In the four years since it was posted #3 has been achieved.

And it's spelled argumentum ad nauseam.

[darkstar3]

33. If it weren't for the repeated use and tacit acceptance of fallacious argumentation,

this forum and any like it across the internet would be much quieter.

[cleanhippie]

41. If these fallacious arguments were prohibited here, several of our believers would not be allowed

to post at all.

Thats all they post.

[MarkCharles]

42. And they seem to be oblivious to the concepts of reasonable debate, vacillating between....

logically fallacious argumentation and attempts at personal insults.

Kind of pitiful, when you look back at the last week or two of their posts.

In a debate about key political issues, they probably would have wound up banned, removed because of this kind of behavior.

[Sal316]

47. Wow..why not just say what you're hinting at....

I mean, all your posts so far have said "Hi, I'm an atheist and I'm smarter than all you ignorant, illogical, irrational believers! People who believe in God are the dumbest motherf'ers ever and if you don't fit in my narrow-minded box of what a believer is, I'll ignore your arguments because I simply have no answer for them."

[MarkCharles]

50. You got only one of those facts correct, and the rest of it, is no way proved

I am an atheist, I said as much. The rest, totally open to debate and certainly has no evidence.

You are offended by that, I can see,

"I'm smarter than all you ignorant, illogical, irrational believers!"

You made that up, and I doubt I would be as smart as anyone in many areas.
in
"People who believe in God are the dumbest motherf'ers ever"

Not at all close to what I think, I have had some of them save my life, and they are definitely more smart and skilled than me.
I would trust 99% of them any day to save my life, to show me something I don't know, take me on a trip to the arctic or the mouth of a volcano, or the Amazon, I don't care, they are smarter than me in many ways. THEY, LIKE YOU, do not think logically about a superior being, simple as that. Some of my best friends are Republicans, they just don't think logically about politics, economics, logic, history, etc. etc., still my friends, still able to think intelligently about some issues, just not very introspective, nor self-aware, Republicans and diests, heavy correllations.

Why do theists assume that atheists believe the rest of the world is dumber than atheists? What starts that fire going?

" I'll ignore your arguments because I simply have no answer for them."
WRONG!

I won't ignore a single argument! I'll simply wait for one with facts and no logical fallacies. If believers present such an adult mature argument, instead of an adolescent one, I'll read it and respect it. So far, in over 60 years of life, I'm yet to see such facts and such logical argument.

Challenge me with yours!

[Humanist_Activist]

58. Stop whining. n/t

[rug]

59. Lol, touche.