Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Islam is a cult
Yesterday at 10:58 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:53 PM

The elephant in the room:...
Yesterday at 12:51 AM

Letter to God
November 19, 2017, 09:02 PM

Imam Tawhidi
November 19, 2017, 02:12 PM

What music are you listen...
November 19, 2017, 01:32 AM

Finally Done with Islam
November 18, 2017, 01:16 PM

What are your creative pa...
November 18, 2017, 12:01 PM

المياة النقية%%%%
November 18, 2017, 11:46 AM

25 year old ex Muslim fro...
November 18, 2017, 10:59 AM

Freely down loadable Boo...
November 18, 2017, 12:37 AM

My Story
November 17, 2017, 07:27 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion

 (Read 66133 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #120 - May 05, 2014, 12:27 PM

    Is there a name for this fallacy?

    Islam must be true because look at all the people memorizing the Qur'an, fasting for Ramadan, praying 5 times a day, not eating pork, etc... A religion so demanding must be the true religion!


    Me: Hey Allah!
    Allah: KAFIR!
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #121 - May 05, 2014, 02:34 PM

    It would be hard to find a definitive formal fallacy to accuse the above argument of, because it has more than one flaw.

    T.M.M.T what you have done by saying "Islam must be true" is insert the conclusion before the premises. This is a form of presuppositionalism when the person arguing in favour of Islam is basing their argument on the assumption that Islam is true.
    Since they have the preconceived idea that Islam is the truth, it isn't too hard to witness the circularity of said argument.


    Personally, I think that the person is trying to prove the truth of Islam through how "demanding" it is, hence I'm more inclined to state that the conclusion is "Islam is the truth".


    Claim: A demanding religion must be true
    Evidence: Reading Qur'an, not eating pork etc...
    Conclusion: Islam is the truth

    Most people who try to make "logical" arguments do not put their argument in the correct logical form.

    This is the logical form of a Non sequitur: Claim---> Evidence--->Conclusion.

    In this case, the variation we have is  Conclusion----->Evidence----->Claim

    The Non- sequitur occurs where the evidence for the claim does not provide support for the conclusion. I.e. it does not logically follow that "not eating pork, praying X amounts" entails the truth of a religion. The only case that the claimant could make is that the Qur'an says so (refer to my mentioning of circularity).

    Either way, we can see that the Conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.


    - Circular reasoning.
    - Non-Sequitur.

    This is what I accuse the above argument of ^


    (There are probably more flaws in the above argument, I will revisit it later & edit my answer if needed).



    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #122 - May 05, 2014, 03:23 PM

    Hey Qtian,

    Thanks for the nice info, learned alot from you  Afro My dad committed this fallacy. That time he knew I was an apostate. As of now he still thinks I'm a Muslim.



    Me: Hey Allah!
    Allah: KAFIR!
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #123 - May 05, 2014, 03:42 PM

    No problem & I remember when I used to have these discussions with my parents (thankfully it was maany years ago).
    Also, what do you think of this intro?
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2eEiOkIKdbtcjVIVEl5N09NR0k/edit

    (It is far from the finished product but I like this animated style of intro, I may use it for the first video in my CT series)

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #124 - May 06, 2014, 12:33 AM

    That's a cool intro! You can still improve it by adding audio.

    Me: Hey Allah!
    Allah: KAFIR!
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #125 - May 06, 2014, 02:16 AM

    Thanks Smiley  And yeah, it's very rough haha.
    I learnt how to manipulate vector graphics & I created that in MS PowerPoint.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #126 - May 09, 2014, 09:53 PM

    Is there a name for this fallacy?

    Islam must be true because look at all the people memorizing the Qur'an, fasting for Ramadan, praying 5 times a day, not eating pork, etc... A religion so demanding must be the true religion!




    Can I see the Argumentum ad Populum buried in there somewhere?

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #127 - May 09, 2014, 10:10 PM

    Quite likely yeah, but the argument itself is poorly made.

    Ad populum:
    (Claim X is made)
    1. Most people agree with X.
    2. Therefore, X is true.

    In this case, the claim could be that "a religion so demanding must be the true religion"

    As you can see, the "evidence" could indeed by characterised by an appeal to popularity. The evidence does not provide support for the conclusion & does not follow from the claim.

    Assumptions which have not been supported:
    - Reading Qur'an, fasting & praying demonstrate the truth of a religion -----> the "evidence" does not provide anything which could substantiate this.

    So, what the person making the argument has done is :
    Made a claim --> given bad evidence for the claim----> concluded that the claim is supported on the basis of this bad evidence.

    Ad populum fallacy:


    Made a claim ---> states that majority holds this view---> concludes that claim is supported on the basis of this.


    This "argument" is a toss up really, it's most definitely a non-sequitur and I guess that the evidence given is also guilty of appealing to popularity.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #128 - May 10, 2014, 03:21 PM

    Very well put.

    You could easily refute it by making up a god who is EVEN MORE demanding, say, requires prayer 100 times a day and fasting for 2 months etc but that wouldn't be proof of the truth value of the claim.

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #129 - May 10, 2014, 04:10 PM

    Indeed, in conventional logic, stating that something is a "fallacy" is generally not enough to nullify the entire argument.
    E.g. "Adey is a cool guy because 95% of people agree"
    Although "95% of people agree" is an appeal to popularity, highlighting the fallacy is not enough to undermine the claim that "Adey is a cool guy".

    People on both sides of the God proposition are guilty of this. E.g. "You have committed Fallacy X, bye".




    However, in the context of this argument, the lack of support for the conclusion is very apparent, the claimant has given themself a massive burden of proof which is yet to be substantiated.

    I've also noticed that the argument is guilty of some type of generalisation:


    "A religion so demanding must be the true religion"

    If we follow the logical process, the claim should actually be:

    "A religion so demanding must be a true religion"

    - This also raises the issue that all religions can't be simultaneously true if certain aspects on an inter religion scale are contradictory.
    E.g. trinity vs tawhid.

    Adey, I really can't differentiate between "Islam is the truth" and "A religion so demanding must be the true religion" in this context.
    It's hard to see which statement is the claim & which statement is the conclusion which is another reason why this obfuscating argument is poorly made.



    *I don't think that we even need to go so far as to construct our own God in order to the negate the argument, we can simply use another religion.
    E.g. A christian could quite easily make (a variation of) this argument.


    You are very right in stating that tradition/consensus/emotion have no impact upon the validity of a claim when they are not directly related to the claim.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #130 - May 10, 2014, 04:29 PM

    Polemic time:

    I just love how many apologists claim to be "logical" but their logic crumbles when you demonstrate the illogic of their arguments.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #131 - May 10, 2014, 07:05 PM

    Ad populum fallacy:


    Made a claim ---> states that majority holds this view---> concludes that claim is supported on the basis of this.


    This "argument" is a toss up really, it's most definitely a non-sequitur and I guess that the evidence given is also guilty of appealing to popularity.

    Muslims repeatedly boast about how there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world. They neglect to draw the obvious inference: that there are 5.8 billion people in the world who are NOT muslim.

  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #132 - May 10, 2014, 08:34 PM

    Indeed.
    Xtians can play the numbers game too.



    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #133 - May 10, 2014, 08:37 PM

     Furthermore, apologists also use the following argument:
    "X% of people believe in God so the belief must be properly basic".
    (Or something along those lines)

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #134 - May 12, 2014, 08:39 PM


    E.g. "Adey is a cool guy because 95% of people agree"



    Aaah, flaw in your premise and figures. Actually over 100% of people agree Adey is a cool guy!  Cheesy

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #135 - May 12, 2014, 08:55 PM

    Indeed, in conventional logic, stating that something is a "fallacy" is generally not enough to nullify the entire argument.
    E.g. "Adey is a cool guy because 95% of people agree"
    Although "95% of people agree" is an appeal to popularity, highlighting the fallacy is not enough to undermine the claim that "Adey is a cool guy".

    People on both sides of the God proposition are guilty of this. E.g. "You have committed Fallacy X, bye".




    However, in the context of this argument, the lack of support for the conclusion is very apparent, the claimant has given themself a massive burden of proof which is yet to be substantiated.

    I've also noticed that the argument is guilty of some type of generalisation:


    "A religion so demanding must be the true religion"

    If we follow the logical process, the claim should actually be:

    "A religion so demanding must be a true religion"

    - This also raises the issue that all religions can't be simultaneously true if certain aspects on an inter religion scale are contradictory.
    E.g. trinity vs tawhid.

    Adey, I really can't differentiate between "Islam is the truth" and "A religion so demanding must be the true religion" in this context.
    It's hard to see which statement is the claim & which statement is the conclusion which is another reason why this obfuscating argument is poorly made.



    *I don't think that we even need to go so far as to construct our own God in order to the negate the argument, we can simply use another religion.
    E.g. A christian could quite easily make (a variation of) this argument.


    You are very right in stating that tradition/consensus/emotion have no impact upon the validity of a claim when they are not directly related to the claim.




    Qtian, thanks for spending the time and effort to work through this, you really have done your logician homework.

    But do we, as skeptics, have to prove any premise wrong as we are not making a claim, surely all we have to show is the premise is unproven and the breakdown in the logic cascades from there, therefore nullifying the whole syllogism via 'non-sequitor' fallacy from there.

    Eg. in the Kalam the 1st premise is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause".

    As this premise is not proven (just as in "a demanding religion is true") we do not have to necessarily demonstrate  something that begins to exist without a cause to show the claims to be invalid, nor do we have to demonstrate an untrue religion that is more demanding nor a true religion that is undemanding.

    I do agree with you that it is lazy of us to just wave and say 'logical fallacy .... bye", and it is worth the extra time to work through it step by step anyway.

    I will go though your message in more depth.

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #136 - May 12, 2014, 09:51 PM

    Hello again Adey,
    It's important that we first make a distinction between what a "sound" and what a "valid" argument is (sorry if you already know this, I like to begin explanations from scratch).

    A valid argument :
    - premises imply the logical truth of the conclusion.
    - Validity doesn't care about "truth" (as we define it in everyday life) it simply examines logical structure.

    A sound argument:
    - If the argument is valid & all premises inc. conclusion are necessarily true.

    It therefore follows that all sound arguments are valid arguments, valid arguments aren't automatically sound. This error is quite common within circles of apologetics, i.e. Hamza Tzortzis has claimed that "denying a valid argument is akin to denying reality".


    The KCA

    First, let's talk about your question regarding the burden of proof.
    A good claim must be falsifiable so it follows that a good claim shouldn't be unfalsifiable. This is a technique used within hypothesis testing, hypothesis tests generally serve to either provide support for/against the alternative hypothesis by proving/disproving the null hypothesis.
    So, if the null hypothesis isn't falsifiable - the test has already failed at the first stage.

    The burden of proof doesn't discriminate between atheism & theism, it is a simple notion which advocates the idea that the claimant must provide support for his position. Within the realm of arguments & discourse, it is plausible for people to "share" the burden of proof if needed.
    For instance, if a positive atheist was to debate with a theist (who also throws out positive claims but this is obvious) they would both share the BOP.

    My opinion is that No, we do not have a duty to "prove/disprove" anything if we are met with a KCA apologist.
    I have a personal justification for this since I am an agnostic atheist.
    Atheism as I use term, has only one view & that is a view which is counter to the proposition that "God exists".
    Therefore, the only thing that an atheist can claim is that they do not believe in a God.


    Atheism does not have a burden of proof- this is with reference to atheism/ negative atheism. Positive atheism which asserts that no deity exists has given itself a burden of proof. Atheism should actually be atheism.
    The "a" serves to negate the theistic outlook - a non belief in theism you may say.
    A non belief is not the same as a belief- this may be obvious but many apologists commit themselves to semantic Olympics in an attempt to negate the previous statement.
    Atheists can have burden of proofs but this would result from claims being made, any claim which requires evidence to support it has a burden of proof.
    In conclusion, the only common view that atheists hold is their position regarding "God" and even this position is subject to variations (i.e. negative/positive).  This implies that atheists do not have to have a view about the origins of the universe, personally I hold the view that "I don't know" is more intellectually honest than *Insert my God as an explanation".

    There is an assumption in logic known as the law of contradiction which states that X cannot be non-X at the same time.
    Therefore, the theists redefinition of (negative) atheism as a positive disbelief is self contradictory, regardless of what William Lane Craig or various schools of apologetics think.


    "But do we, as skeptics, have to prove any premise wrong as we are not making a claim, surely all we have to show is the premise is unproven and the breakdown in the logic cascades from there, therefore nullifying the whole syllogism via 'non-sequitor' fallacy from there."


    Logical form:
    Ok, so in terms of the KCA, we cannot accuse this of a non-sequitur. This is because the conclusion does follow from P1 and P2.
    My current view is that the simple syllogism version of the KCA isn't enough to warrant a non-sequitur label.

    A non sequitur can have a conclusion which is true or false, so soundness aka "truth" doesn't really work here as a measure of how the conclusion follows from the premises.


    The KCA is a valid argument - it follows a logical structure known as modus ponens:

    P ->Q
    P
    Q

    Therefore, it follows that the KCA is valid but as explained before, validity doesn't directly imply soundness.


    P1.


    P1 is neither untrue or true, thus it is not a great claim. The WLC formulation the KCA generally invokes what is known as a "transcendent" cause.  Within the field of cosmology, you will not find this as an explanation for anything as it has no predictive capability in that sense. Ergo, P1 isn't a great premise.
    * Many arguments such as the KCA & modal ontological argument can only "define" a God into existence, this does nothing for me*

    Now, I could go on and on about the KCA (I may make my own video about it one day) but here is an illustration of issues wrt P1 by someone who is better than me at this "logic" thing Tongue

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tcPgmmCK8






    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #137 - May 12, 2014, 10:30 PM

    Wow! Qtian, you certainly know your stuff. I knew that an argument had to be both 'valid and sound' but I could never remember which was which and I probably used the wrong terminology in my post. I am going to have a good read through your post as I didn't really go through every detail as you did.

    you AM the best!!  Afro

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #138 - May 12, 2014, 10:39 PM

    Hello again Adey,
    It's important that we first make a distinction between what a "sound" and what a "valid" argument is (sorry if you already know this, I like to begin explanations from scratch).

    A valid argument :
    - premises imply the truth of the conclusion.
    - Validity doesn't care about "truth" it simply examines logical structure.

    A sound argument:
    - If the argument is valid & all premises inc. conclusion are necessarily true.

    It therefore follows that all sound arguments are valid arguments, valid arguments aren't automatically sound. This error is quite common within circles of apologetics, i.e. Hamza Tzortzis has claimed that "denying a valid argument is akin to denying reality".


    The KCA

    First, let's talk about your question regarding the burden of proof.
    A good claim must be falsifiable so it follows that a good claim shouldn't be unfalsifiable. This is a technique used within hypothesis testing, hypothesis tests generally serve to either provide support for/against the alternative hypothesis by proving/disproving the null hypothesis.
    So, if the null hypothesis isn't falsifiable - the test has already failed at the first stage.

    The burden of proof doesn't discriminate between atheism & theism, it is a simple notion which advocates the idea that the claimant must provide support for his position. Within the realm of arguments & discourse, it is plausible for people to "share" the burden of proof if needed.
    For instance, if a positive atheist was to debate with a theist (who also throws out positive claims but this is obvious) they would both share the BOP.

    My opinion is that No, we do not have a duty to "prove/disprove" anything if we are met with a KCA apologist.
    I have a personal justification for this since I am an agnostic atheist.
    Atheism as I use term, has only one view & that is a view which is counter to the proposition that "God exists".
    Therefore, the only thing that an atheist can claim is that they do not believe in a God.


    Atheism does not have a burden of proof- this is with reference to atheism/ negative atheism. Positive atheism which asserts that no deity exists has given itself a burden of proof. Atheism should actually be atheism.
    The "a" serves to negate the theistic outlook - a non belief in theism you may say.
    A non belief is not the same as a belief- this may be obvious but many apologists commit themselves to semantic Olympics in an attempt to negate the previous statement.
    Atheists can have burden of proofs but this would result from claims being made, any claim which requires evidence to support it has a burden of proof.
    In conclusion, the only common view that atheists hold is their position regarding "God" and even this position is subject to variations (i.e. negative/positive).  This implies that atheists do not have to have a view about the origins of the universe, personally I hold the view that "I don't know" is more intellectually honest than *Insert my God as an explanation".

    There is an assumption in logic known as the law of contradiction which states that X cannot be non-X at the same time.
    Therefore, the theists redefinition of (negative) atheism as a positive disbelief is self contradictory, regardless of what William Lane Craig or various schools of apologetics think.


    "But do we, as skeptics, have to prove any premise wrong as we are not making a claim, surely all we have to show is the premise is unproven and the breakdown in the logic cascades from there, therefore nullifying the whole syllogism via 'non-sequitor' fallacy from there."


    Logical form:
    Ok, so in terms of the KCA, we cannot accuse this of a non-sequitur. This is because the conclusion does follow from P1 and P2.
    The KCA is a valid argument - it follows a logical structure known as modus ponens:

    p -> Q
    P
    Therefore, Q.

    In simple terms:

    If P, then Q
    P
    Therefore Q.

    "If P" is known as the antecedent in this argument, it is the first half of the hypothetical proposition which is completed by the introduction of "Q".

    Therefore, it follows that the KCA is valid but as explained before, validity doesn't directly imply soundness.


    P1.


    P1 is neither untrue or true, thus it is not a great claim. The WLC formulation the KCA generally invokes what is known as a "transcendent" cause.  Within the field of cosmology, you will not find this as an explanation for anything as it has no predictive capability in that sense. Ergo, P1 isn't a great premise.
    * Many arguments such as the KCA & modal ontological argument can only "define" a God into existence, this does nothing for me*

    Now, I could go on and on about the KCA (I may make my own video about it one day) but here is an illustration of issues wrt P1 by someone who is better than me at this "logic" thing Tongue

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tcPgmmCK8








    Can I present to you an honest version of the KCA?

    1. IF everything that begins to exist has a cause.

    2. AND IF the universe began to exist

    3. Then the universe has a cause.

    What do you think?

    This would then be a valid and sound version of the KCA, BUT, it is only by inserting the conditional 'IF's at the beginning of steps 1 and 2, and EVEN THEN it only gets you to the conclusion that the Universe had a cause, but NOT to that cause being a god.

    Obviously steps 1 and 2 still need to be demonstrated, so the argument is at best 'presumptuous and premature'

    How am I doing?

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #139 - May 12, 2014, 10:42 PM

    No problem dude, I'm still learning - I would classify myself as a layperson at best. When I have gone through predicate calculus then I can get big headed Cheesy
    I'm going to sleep now, I've had about 30mins sleep within a period of 24hours.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #140 - May 12, 2014, 10:44 PM

    Just looked at it very quickly, I shall check it when I awaken (later on).
    However, it seems that your logical process from 1&2 should lead to the conclusion that : "Then the universe may have a cause"" since 1 and 2 are based on conditionals, we cannot make an absolute conclusion.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #141 - May 12, 2014, 10:46 PM

    Nighty night Q!  bedtime2  

    If this is you with only 30mins sleep, you must be formidable after a full 8hours!! Remind me to stay out of your way in a logical argument.

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #142 - May 12, 2014, 10:48 PM

    Just looked at it very quickly, I shall check it when I awaken (later on).
    However, it seems that your logical process from 1&2 should lead to the conclusion that : "Then the universe may have a cause"" since 1 and 2 are based on conditionals, we cannot make an absolute conclusion.


    Yes that's what I thought, that we cannot reach any conclusion, so a bit useless really, but at least if WLCraig et al, were more honest that is the best they could claim. Any more is just religious flim-flam.

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #143 - May 12, 2014, 10:56 PM

    Just about to sleep lol but noticed a typo/error.

    "A valid argument :
    - premises imply the truth of the conclusion.
    - Validity doesn't care about "truth" it simply examines logical structure."

    It should be:  Premises imply the "logical truth" of the conclusion.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #144 - July 06, 2014, 06:37 PM

    Courtesy of our friend Bigmo:

    13. Red Herring Fallacy: An argument that is irrelevant and intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion. e.g. (In response to "Allah cannot be most Merciful if he tortures people") "Why would this torturer give people eternal paradise?"

    Could one of the moderators add this to the original list. (And perhaps just make it a list and remove all the other blurb please?)

    Hell is an absurd & wicked fiction. You're not a bad person for rejecting something that's cruel, irrational, unjust & lacks evidence. You have nothing to fear. Nothing to feel ashamed about. Enjoy your life. Do the best you can. Make yourself & others happy.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #145 - July 06, 2014, 06:56 PM

    I think that the top fallacy used by Muslim apologists is the argument from personal incredulity.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #146 - July 06, 2014, 07:04 PM

    I think that the top fallacy used by Muslim apologists is the argument from personal incredulity.


    Yes, that's a very common one. If it's not there, could a Mod please add it also:

    14. Argument from (personal) incredulity"I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false!"

    Hell is an absurd & wicked fiction. You're not a bad person for rejecting something that's cruel, irrational, unjust & lacks evidence. You have nothing to fear. Nothing to feel ashamed about. Enjoy your life. Do the best you can. Make yourself & others happy.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #147 - July 06, 2014, 07:56 PM

    I remember that when I was a Muslim I was surprised that the Quran was written in a different manner than other scriptures and the prayers were starkly different too. And I was under the delusion that Islam was the only faith not affected by paganism. So that made me think that Islam must be true.
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #148 - July 07, 2014, 03:09 PM

    "I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false!"


     Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion
     Reply #149 - September 01, 2014, 11:14 AM

    The masked man fallacy.          http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illisubs.html.  tbh many are guilty of this, even those self appointed "sceptics"

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »