Print

[MonroeMonkey]

I'm starting this thread to discuss logic and to go through the logical fallacies. It seems many here have never taken the time to become familiar with logic and its use.

Here's some of the fallacies we can go over. If I see people using them, I'll post them in quotes here with the fallacy they employed.

Abusive analogy
Accent
Accident
Affirming the consequent
Amphiboly
Analogical fallcy
Antiquitam, argumentum ad
Apriorism
Baculum, argumentum ad
Bifurcation
Blinding with science
The bogus dilemma
Circulus in probando
The complex question (plurium interrogationum)
Composition
Concealed quantification
Conclusion which denies premises
Contradictory premises
Crumenam, argumentum ad
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Damning the alternatives
Definitional retreat
Denying the antecedent
Dicto simpliciter
Division
Emotional appeals
Equivocation
Every schoolboy knows
The exception that proves the rule
Exclusive premises
The existential fallacy
Ex-post-facto statistics
Extensional pruning
False conversion
False precision
The gambler's fallacy
The genetic fallacy
Half-concealed qualification
Hedging
Hominem (abusive), argumentum ad
Hominem (circumstantial), argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, argumentum ad
Ignorantio elenchi
Illicit process
Irrelevant humour
Lapidem, argumentum ad
Lazarum, argumentum ad
Loaded words
Misericordiam, argumentum ad
Nauseam, argumentum ad
Non-anticipation
Novitam, argumentum ad
Numeram, argumentum ad
One-sided assessment
Petitio principii
Contents vu
Poisoning the well
Populum, argumentum ad
Positive conclusion from negative premise
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Quaternio terminorum
The red herring
Refuting the example
Reification
The runaway train
Secundum quid
Shifting ground
Shifting the burden of proof
The slippery slope
Special pleading
The straw man
Temperantiam, argumentum ad
Thatcher's blame
Trivial objections
Tu quoque
Unaccepted enthymemes
The undistributed middle
Unobtainable perfection
Verecundiam, argumentum ad
Wishful thinking
Etc., etc.

[MonroeMonkey]

I'll start with the most commonly used logical fallacy.


Ad Hominem

Attack or insult the person, as opposed to addressing their argument.

Example:

Argument: The Bible contradicts science, in that you can't have an Earth without a Sun first. The Bible has these things in reverse order.

Ad Hominem Fallacy: This guy is arrogant and tries to make people lose faith with his pseudo-intellectualism.

[excelsior]

I recommend the red herring.  It is always fresh here, but hold the fries.

[MonroeMonkey]

I recommend the red herring.  It is always fresh here, but hold the fries.

Lol... For some reason, that reminded me of when the Israelites begged their god for some food. He becomes enraged and says they'd eat so much quail they'd vomit it out their noses (Numbers 11). It seems many religious people eat so much red herring they vomit it out of their noses.

[Monique]

I recommend the red herring.  It is always fresh here, but hold the fries.

You guys are on a roll this evening! LOL Are you in The Netherlands, excelsior?


Nothing against this thread, mind you. This comment just struck me as witty. Carry on.

[ShorTea]

Don't forget

item # 47.5862 - Scaring the be'Jesus out of folks

Yes, you are rocking your plan to make more non-believers. 

[LessGovernment]

Ad Hominem

Attack or insult the person, as opposed to addressing their argument.

Example:

"Watch this video: Ray Comfort shown to be an *ignoramus* as he likes to call people."

"let me...address Less's complete lack of Biblical understanding,"

"John MacArthur ... holds to beliefs not supported by science and reason."

"I laugh every time I see Hovind."

I'd put Hovind's life experience and education up against yours anytime...so would most on this forum who read your "I hate God" dribble.

You haven't logically proved squat...and you NEVER will...I have "poisened the well" with SCIENTIFIC POSSIBILITIES that you cannot explain away with statistics or majority opinion of scholars.

[MonroeMonkey]

Ad Hominem

Attack or insult the person, as opposed to addressing their argument.

And you left out the last part of that definition in your posts below. Let me help you out.

"Watch this video: Ray Comfort shown to be an *ignoramus* as he likes to call people."

Which was preceded by a valid argument against Ray's stupidity. I already explained in text what the video said, and how he was wrong.

"let me...address Less's complete lack of Biblical understanding,"

Which was followed by a valid argument.

"John MacArthur ... holds to beliefs not supported by science and reason."

Which I have time and time showed by valid arguments, such as arguments against creationism.

"I laugh every time I see Hovind."

Of which I've given examples why. Remember my video of him speaking about why he believes dinosaurs breathed fire? I have given plenty of valid arguments against Hovind's nonsense.

And Less, let me make this point to you again, as you're not getting it. Posting a video is NOT an argument. I don't watch your videos. Post an argument from your own knowledge.

I'd put Hovind's life experience and education up against yours anytime...so would most on this forum who read your "I hate God" dribble.

Logical fallacy. Man, you just don't get it... Lol... You go ahead and post his education credentials, because that adds nothing to the arguments on subject.

You haven't logically proved squat...

Just saying that isn't a valid argument.

[MonroeMonkey]

Don't forget

item # 47.5862 - Scaring the be'Jesus out of folks

Yes, you are rocking your plan to make more non-believers.

Huh? I guess examples of reality can scare people. Nature can be scary as hell.

If people read the arguments I'm presenting it could take root in time. It took me awhile of hearing good arguments against faith before they set in and choked out the weak roots of the religious brainwashing of a child.

[ducksoup]

Huh? I guess examples of reality can scare people. Nature can be scary as hell.

If people read the arguments I'm presenting it could take root in time. It took me awhile of hearing good arguments against faith before they set in and choked out the weak roots of the religious brainwashing of a child.

Leap in logic.  You say your arguments are about “faith” when you argue religious views.  One can argue that religious views are manmade conscripts to try to understand God; but faith is a morality or abstract that is or is not.  Some of your arguments, on a secular level are not bad, but they do not and cannot address faith.

Why does evolution preclude God?  I can easily believe that any god that could create anything would create the building blocks, the rules to make everything work without doing every last thing new again.

I have no problem with your assertions, but rather that you believe you are attacking faith rather than religion.  I have faith and belief and pointing out inconsistencies or things you feel are contradictions does not have an effect on that faith or belief.

[MonroeMonkey]

Duck, don't take me out of context. The faith I'm speaking about is faith in absurd and extraordinary things apart from any reasonable evidence or defense. Some faiths are fairly reasonable, in my opinion.

[eriemermaid]

Lol... For some reason, that reminded me of when the Israelites begged their god for some food. He becomes enraged and says they'd eat so much quail they'd vomit it out their noses (Numbers 11). It seems many religious people eat so much red herring they vomit it out of their noses.

I hate it when I am drinking a root beer and someone makes me laugh and it comes out my nose.  It has happened more than once for me . . . One time on a first (and only) date. 

[MonroeMonkey]

I hate it when I am drinking a root beer and someone makes me laugh and it comes out my nose.  It has happened more than once for me . . . One time on a first (and only) date. 

Sexy. 

[eriemermaid]

Sexy. 

You had to be there . . he was a funny guy!

[LessGovernment]

I don't watch your videos.

Nobody expects you to ... just like you don't really expect me to read your recommended books by renown de-converted Bart-boy!  Maybe the audience does though - and where they go from there neither of us know; so, once again, nothing CONCRETE has been proven in this latest chapter of "The Long War Against God"

You're whole list of fallacies is/will be cut and paste off another website - even if you could recite them verbatim, in alphabetical order, with clear definitions, on a stage debating Kent Hovind personally it wouldn't LOGICALLY prove the creation, flood, life/death/resurrection of Christ didn't happen the way the Bible says it did ...

Do you really think you're that smart/intellectually superior/evolved?

I've whipped you in calling you a mocker/naysayer; Hovind's scientific evidence and personal life experience in the sciences whips you, MacArthur whips you as relates to you coming along and mocking believers with your denial of the two cataclysms, your belief that a one cell thing in a puddle somewhere said "I think I'll be two", and your uniformatariasm(things have always gone on thae same way we see them now since the beginning) - your MOTIVATIONS are clear to everyone - words and words and words and more words WILL NOT ever disprove what you think is disproveable, yet is not because it is(as Ducksoup pointed out) a FAITH issue that BOTH SIDES have "arguments"/evidence for ...

Now, you too can "poision the well", cast doubt, tire people out and think you've won the debate as though it is a contest of endurance - but seriously, inherent in all mankind is knowledge of a Creator; to drown out and silence that conscience by heaping to oneself the wisdom of men who also reject God for whatever reason is no great display of intellect - just selfishness.

Start as many threads as you want - sad that you have that much time on your hands to play this game; I do have to get off here for a while and spend time in person with people who like the "cut of my jib" at work(I loan out John MacArthur sermons to people who want to know MORE about their faith, and what the Bible says about certain topics/stories)...

There is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE on both sides(remember, with respect to origins, they are THEORIES)...ignoring the evidence that supports one(given by Hovind) and saying somebody else who recommends his seminars doesn't debate "properly", doesn't use logic properly, or doesn't address your NONSENSE directly to YOUR points is more of that same as YOU AVOID the truth about creation/the Creator/Christianity.

I've seen all your rhetoric before on site's like http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/05/michael-scherme-1.html  If you want to emulate those people, have at it - birds of a feather flock together; on with my fundamentalist Christian faith I go...