I stumbled across this topic on a different debating site:
Basically, they make up fallacious arguments and you have to guess what kind of fallacy was committed.
I figured that would be cool to try here.
"Guess the Fallacy and What is the most common?"
Posts
Total:
49
"there is absolutely no evidence for God"
that's my favorite fallacy
-->
@Christen
Gods.
-->
@Christen
That's a classic.God commits genocide!
The bible must either be taken totally literally or totally figuratively.
They never answer why.
-->
@ethang5
@zedvictor4
@n8nrgmi
This site shows some common logical fallacies.
Can any one of you identify which logical fallacy this argument is?
Why won't you donate all your money to those poor kids that are starving in that country? You're so mean and cruel if you don't give away all your money to every homeless person and starving child!
Well.
The statement is a logical generalisation and fallacious in it's non-specific presentation. Ergo a logical fallacy I suppose.
Though the generally non-specific nature of it's presentation doesn't render it readily identifiable.
There might be a God.... Is an obvious example of a logical fallacy.
-->
@zedvictor4
It was supposed to be an appeal to emotion...
-->
@Christen
It seemed too demanding and critical to me.....Certainly wouldn't appeal to my emotions.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Theres plenty of evidence for a God
-->
@ethang5
Your #4:
"They" never know.
-->
@n8nrgmi
"there is absolutely no evidence for God"that's my favorite fallacy
It's an appeal to ignorance ("evidence" is not rigorously defined and "god" is not rigorously defined).
The reverse is also a logical fallacy (also an appeal to ignorance), for example, "there is tons of evidence for god" ("evidence" is not rigorously defined and "god" is not rigorously defined).
-->
@Christen
Why won't you donate all your money to those poor kids that are starving in that country?
This is a question, not a logical fallacy.
You're so mean and cruel if you don't give away all your money to every homeless person and starving child!
This is an ad hominem attack ("you're so mean and cruel" is a bald assertion logical fallacy and is also an attack on internal personal motives, which is also known as "the mind reader fallacy" which is a type of ad hominem attack) and it's also an appeal to ignorance because it neglects to rigorously define "mean" and "cruel".
-->
@ethang5
The bible must either be taken totally literally or totally figuratively.They never answer why.
(EITHER) the bible must be taken totally literally (OR) the bible must be taken totally figuratively (ELSE) you must provide some rigorous (non-subjective) framework to explain exactly WHEN you believe the bible must be taken literally and when you believe it must be taken figuratively (otherwise your framework is purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent).
-->
@3RU7AL
No sir. Your logic is shoddy. Watch.
(EITHER) the bible must be taken totally literally....
Why? The bible contains history. No sane logical person assumes it must be totally figurative
(OR) the bible must be taken totally figuratively
Ditto. The bible contains songs. Who thinks song are always completely literal?
(ELSE) you must provide some rigorous (non-subjective) framework to explain exactly WHEN you believe the bible must be taken literally and when you believe it must be taken figuratively (otherwise your framework is purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent).
Absolute nonsense. Did Camu give a framework to explain exactly WHEN he believe his work was to be taken literally and when it was to be taken figuratively?
Did Churchill? Your expectation is ludicrous. Even if we do not know which parts of a work are figurative and which parts are literal, it is none-the-less irrational to assume it must be taken all literally OR all figuratively.
..purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent.
Purely subjective does not equal logically incoherent.
...you must provide some rigorous (non-subjective) framework to explain...
No. School is enough. Notice that works of literature don't come with rigorous, non-subjective, frameworks to explain when they are literal and when they are figurative.
This is just an ad hoc illogical burden you slap onto the bible. Have you read Lord of the Flies? The Old Man and the Sea? The Grapes of Wrath? Did you have a rigorous, non-subjective, framework to explain when they were literal and when they were figurative?
I'm going to guess you can't answer why either.
-->
@Christen
"Guess the Fallacy and What is the most common?"
The most common logical fallacy is the "rush to disqualify", which often takes the form of a direct or indirect ad hominem attack.
The second most common logical fallacy is the "appeal to ignorance", which includes the "appeal to complexity". Common examples include, "go look it up" and or "it's too complicated for me to explain at the moment" and or "it's obvious" which is an appeal to common sense (appeal to ignorance, appeal to vagueness and an indirect ad hominem attack) and it's also a bald assertion.
-->
@ethang5
What is your litmus test (Uniform Standard Of Evidence) to determine if "biblical history" is accurate?The bible contains history. No sane logical person assumes it must be totally figurative
For example, do you consider the story of "Noah's Ark" "accurate history"?
-->
@Christen
Any statement that is not an explicit, rigorously defined, appeal to LOGOS (logic) is a fallacy.
-->
@3RU7AL
The same as for any ancient history book.What is your litmus test (Uniform Standard Of Evidence) to determine if "biblical history" is accurate?
You now suddenly want to jump to another topic? Shall we settle the first?
It is ridiculous to demand that any work of literature must be all literal or all figurative.
That is simply not rational.
Plus you skip over my questions and ask additional ones of your own? Do you want a dialogue or are you only interested in grilling someone?
How come logic escapes you whenever you're asked a question?
-->
@ethang5
What is your litmus test (Uniform Standard Of Evidence) to determine if "biblical history" is accurate?The same as for any ancient history book.
Ok, so, WE AGREE THE STORY OF NOAH'S ARK IS PURELY FIGURATIVE.
I'm glad we finally got that cleared up.
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol!!
That was probably the most shameless dodge I've ever seen.
This from the guy who fashions himself a logic teacher. Hilarious.
-->
@ethang5
That was probably the most shameless dodge I've ever seen.
Please be slightly more specific.
Oh, and one question at a time. Your penchant for full-bore Gish Gallop is itself an appeal to ignorance.
-->
@3RU7AL
So because there are more than one question you couldn't answer one?Oh, and one question at a time.
You made a point, I showed it to be illogical. You dodged your own point and started blabbering about Noah's flood.
Post #14 is still there, and the question you dodged are still there. Dodge or answer, my point will stand, the requirements you place on the bible are illogical and unfair.
-->
@ethang5
That was probably the most shameless dodge I've ever seen.
Please be slightly more specific.
-->
@3RU7AL
The Gentle Readers see your dodge. That is enough.
And pos #14 is specific enough.
-->
@ethang5
No sir. Your logic is shoddy. Watch.
Bald assertion. Appeal to ignorance.
(EITHER) the bible must be taken totally literally....Why? The bible contains history. No sane logical person assumes it must be totally figurative
The argument that the bible must be taken totally literally hinges on the claim that it is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god.
Would a perfect god lie to us?
Would a perfect god write a muddled and confusing book that nobody, even "true believers" (thousands of denominations and sects) can't agree upon?
(OR) the bible must be taken totally figurativelyDitto. The bible contains songs. Who thinks song are always completely literal?
Songs can be literal.
The argument that the bible must be taken totally figuratively hinges on the claim that it is "just like any other ancient collection of stories by different authors" just like The Epic of Gilgamesh and Homer's The Odyssey and The Tao Te Ching.
These may reference some Historical Events, but they cannot be taken on-their-own as unbiased, purely factual and 100% accurate records.
(ELSE) you must provide some rigorous (non-subjective) framework to explain exactly WHEN you believe the bible must be taken literally and when you believe it must be taken figuratively (otherwise your framework is purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent).Absolute nonsense.
Personal opinion stated as fact (negative characterization, indirect ad hominem attack, AXIOLOGY).
Did Camu give a framework to explain exactly WHEN he believe his work was to be taken literally and when it was to be taken figuratively?
Did Albert Camus make the claim that their work is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god?
Do Albert Camus followers make the claim that the work of Albert Camus is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god?
Did Churchill?
Did Winston Churchill make the claim that their work is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god?
Do Winston Churchill followers make the claim that the work of Winston Churchill is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god?
Your expectation is ludicrous.
Personal opinion stated as fact (negative characterization, indirect ad hominem attack, AXIOLOGY).
Even if we do not know which parts of a work are figurative and which parts are literal, it is none-the-less irrational to assume it must be taken all literally OR all figuratively.
Skepticism should be the default position of any investigator.
A skeptic would approach any tome as wholly fictional until each specific claim was either verified or demonstrated to be logically necessary.
No preponderance of verified claims CAN EVER give any book (or person) carte-blanche (the benefit-of-the-doubt).
Each claim must be examined in isolation on its-own-merit.
..purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent.Purely subjective does not equal logically incoherent.
Any statement that is not an explicit, rigorously defined, appeal to LOGOS (logic) is a fallacy (functionally indistinguishable from incoherent).
...you must provide some rigorous (non-subjective) framework to explain...No. School is enough. Notice that works of literature don't come with rigorous, non-subjective, frameworks to explain when they are literal and when they are figurative.
Notice that most works of literature don't come with pre-packaged claims that their work is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god.
This is just an ad hoc illogical burden you slap onto the bible.
Your statement (bald assertion) is incorrect. This is the exact same standard I apply to all books and all claims.
Have you read Lord of the Flies? The Old Man and the Sea? The Grapes of Wrath? Did you have a rigorous, non-subjective, framework to explain when they were literal and when they were figurative?
NONE of these examples are widely considered to be unbiased, purely factual and 100% accurate records.
I'm going to guess you can't answer why either.
This is the exact same standard I apply to all books and all claims.
-->
@ethang5
Your scathing critique is appreciated.
-->
@3RU7AL
No sir. Your logic is shoddy. Watch.
Bald assertion. Appeal to ignorance
You should watch first instead of knee-jerking first.
The argument that the bible must be taken totally literally hinges on the claim that it is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god.
Then the argument that the bible must be taken totally literally is even more stupid than I thought.
Would a perfect god lie to us?
No. But not because of perfection, but because of omniscience.
Would a perfect god write a muddled and confusing book that nobody, even "true believers" (thousands of denominations and sects) can't agree upon?
No. The book seeming "muddled and confusing" is only in your mind. To normal, unbiased, non-antitheist people, the bible is the world great work of literature.
The bible contains songs. Who thinks song are always completely literal?
Songs can be literal.
OK, now answer the question I asked.
Did Albert Camus make the claim that their work is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god?
No. Did any of the 60 writers of the bible make that claim?
Did Winston Churchill make the claim that their work is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god?
No. Did any of the 60 writers of the bible make that claim?
And if they did, how does a response that the work must be taken either totally literally or totally figuratively make sense? It is nonsense.
Skepticism should be the default position of any investigator.
Exactly, not the completely ludicrous claim that the work must be taken either totally literally or totally figuratively.
A skeptic would approach any tome as wholly fictional until each specific claim was either verified or demonstrated to be logically necessary.
An idiot skeptic maybe. Is that how you approached, say, Winston Churchill's account of WWII? Did you verify all of it?
..purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent.
Purely subjective does not equal logically incoherent.
Any statement that is not an explicit, rigorously defined, appeal to LOGOS (logic) is a fallacy (functionally indistinguishable from incoherent).
Purely subjective statements, like your statement above, still does not equal "logically incoherent."
Notice that most works of literature don't come with pre-packaged claims that their work is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god.
The bible doesn't either. And if it did, the claim that it must be taken either all literally or all figuratively is idiotic.
This is the exact same standard I apply to all books and all claims.
While I have my doubts, I'm telling you that this is just an ad hoc illogical burden you slap onto the bible.
NONE of these examples are widely considered to be unbiased, purely factual and 100% accurate records.
Then it is untrue that this is the exact same standard you apply to all books and all claims.
The bible doesn't claim to be an unbiased, purely factual and 100% accurate record.
The claim that the bible (or any work) must be taken as all figuratively or all literal is brain dead. It is irrational.
-->
@ethang5
The argument that the bible must be taken totally literally hinges on the claim that it is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god.Then the argument that the bible must be taken totally literally is even more stupid than I thought.
Nice. We're in agreement. This whole thing was just a classic misunderstanding.
-->
@3RU7AL
(EITHER) the bible must be taken totally literally (OR) the bible must be taken totally figuratively (ELSE) you must provide some rigorous (non-subjective) framework to explain exactly WHEN you believe the bible must be taken literally and when you believe it must be taken figuratively (otherwise your framework is purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent).
Nah, I don't think there was any agreement or misunderstanding.
-->
@ethang5
The book seeming "muddled and confusing" is only in your mind. To normal, unbiased, non-antitheist people, the bible is the world great work of literature.
I see. So how do you explain the FUNDAMENTAL differences in interpretation between the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist RABBIS and the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist CATHOLIC PRIESTS and the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist BAPTIST PREACHERS and the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist ESSENES?