It occurs to me we don’t have a thread dedicated solely to this topic. I think it might be helpful to have a single thread where we could “lift” what we think are logical fallacies and irrational claims from all the threads, and place them here for scrutiny.
HERE is a link to a master list of logical fallacies (note these are common logical fallacies, or fallacies in informal logic).
Though of course observations on formal logic are equally relevant, more so to me, as I am a complete duffer, so be patient, and expect a lot of questions.
That has all the hallmarks of a false equivalence fallacy. I see objective evidence that brains result in what we call consciousness and this can involve subjective experience, when those brains die though, that consciousness disappears, when the brain is damaged that consciousness is impaired, we never objectively observe consciousness in the absence of a physical functioning brain.
That is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Theism is a claim, atheism need not be, thus atheism per se no more needs to “explain” anything, than not believing in mermaids needs to explain anything.
This is another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, atheism is not a belief, nor need it be predicated on any beliefs. No one suggests those who don’t believe in unicorns or mermaids “explore and provide explanations for evident facts that could potentially challenge your beliefs”.
One less now it appears. Of course most atheists here understand and avoid common logical fallacies. So in a debate forum this was aimed at those who make relentlessly irrational arguments, so theists and religious apologists basically. When you’re allowed back, I’d be happy to take another stab at helping you create less woefully poorly reasoned and irrational arguments. I’m not one to hold a grudge.
I think it would be interesting to list the most common fallacies used by religious apologists.
This is because I always see the same arguments suggested by religious apologists over and over and over again with a nauseating regularity.
Life could not have just “fallen together” by chance. This is a straw man, and also an ignorance of the mechanics of chance and probability.
What caused the Big Bang? Everything came from nothing? Another straw man, as the Big Bang is the begining of the current presentation of the Universe . . . not that “everything came from nothing.”
Our “innate moral sense” must come from God. This is a false assumption, as there are cannibals in Papua, New Guinea who have a religious practice of eating people. Also, where is our innate moral sense when it comes to destroying the biosphere with pollution and greenhouse gases? Our innate moral sense means nothing when it costs us money and/or inconvienences us.
We go to Hell when we die if we don’t believe in God. This is an argument from adverse consequences fallacy. Which Hell do we go to? The Buddhist Hell? Do we get reincarnated as a cockroach if we don’t believe in God? Which God should we believe in?
Blaise Pasquale suggested a wager which means that we lose nothing if we believe in God and he doesn’t exist vs. the idea that we gain eternal paradise if we believe in Him and we are correct. Again, a lot of fallacies. What if we believe in the wrong God? What if we worship God in the wrong way? What if I live in constant fear of God’s judgement to the point that my quality of life is shitty because I am in a state of constant fear? Believing in God can create adverse consequences then . . . can’t it?
God must exist because 99% of all people in history have believed in God (or gods) in one form or another. Isn’t the Atheist being willfully stupid and arrogant be claiming that he or she knows better that the vast majority of humanity? A belief in God is simply common sense.
Well . . . I’m not obligated to believe that the Earth is flat just because everyone else does. This is an argument from authority fallacy and an appeal to popularity fallacy at the same time.
There are more.
I love being on this forum, but I was hoping that the religious apologists would show me some creative, original arguments that I could sink my teeth into.
The offer still stands to sherloc, if he is allowed back, as I said I am not one to hold a grudge. For example in your only post in this thread, I can explain to you why it was pure ad hominem, and thus got you a week on the naughty step.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy of course, sherlock used this one, combining it with an appeal to authority fallacy as well, appealing to the intelligent philosophers who have held subjective theistic belief.
Ah one of my favourites, and how do we know there is any risk to either choice? Well well, a false dichotomy fallacy look. I think apologists and religious philosophers might do well to have “I don’t know” laminated on a card…the entire necessity of scientific endeavour is predicated on those three simple words…
It’s also begging the question, and a circular reasoning fallacy.
Argument from personal incredulity…
Begging the question…we don’t know it required a cause, this would need to be demonstrated, odd how theists seem fine and dandy that a deity needs no cause…
Argument from personal incredulity, and a false dichotomy.
By far and away the most commonly used of course are argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, we don’t know X, therefore god, Sherlock started with this fallacy, and used it relentlessly, even after it was explained he refused even once to address it with anything but handwaving.
For example from his first day on this forum:
It is irrational to claim anything is true, because one cannot replace it with an alternative. This is also of course a false dichotomy fallacy.
I also found a really wonderful youtuber called “Gutsick Gibbon” with an excellent presentation on Creationist claims that are debunked in an understandable, down-to-Earth fashion. Any theists should view this show. Please see below:
I’ve fallen in love with this woman and I want to marry her. She is (to me) the most beautiful woman on Earth.
I think she’d be a great BFF . Now I want a Jane Goodall sweatshirt.
It’s getting to be “curl up with a book” weather and I just ordered your book “Field Notes of an Autistic Paramedic” and I’m really looking forward to reading it. My mom was a nurse and she had some stories too. I can still picture her in her white dress, hideous white hose, and that funny cap from back in the day.
Thank you, I’m very flattered that you’re interested in my book. Tell me what you think (even if you think it sucks). Thank you again for your interest.
I’m sure I’ll like it and it will be my pleasure to give it a review. I noticed it has a 3.9 out of 5 on amazon. Pretty darn good. Being an EMS would be a challenge for anyone and not something I could even picture attempting and I’m very interested to get a glimpse into that world from your perspective.
Of course most atheists here understand and avoid common logical fallacies. So in a debate forum this was aimed at those who make relentlessly irrational arguments, so theists and religious apologists basically. When you’re allowed back, I’d be happy to take another stab at helping you create less woefully poorly reasoned and irrational arguments. I’m not one to hold a grudge.
. Now I want a Jane Goodall sweatshirt.