Atheists Fail at Logic
Post link: logicfails.tk
The Corrupt Logic of Anti-Christian Atheists
Recently, while studying logic and trying to find references, I’ve noticed that Google has been giving biased search engine results by entirely showing logic fallacy lists that are only supportive of atheism as a whole. For example, about.com lists its logic fallacy list within in atheist web page; how is it NOT a logic fallacy to associate atheism with being logical and theists illogical MERELY BECAUSE AN ATHEIST IS REPEATING LOGIC FALLACIES AND ONLY OR ALMOST ENTIRELY PREJUDICES THE EXAMPLES AGAINST THEISM, TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS IF THEISTS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO MAKE MISTAKES? Aren’t those acts indicating circular reasoning and ad hominem within the minds of those copying and pasting these lists? Isn’t that deliberately conniving, bitter, deception? IT’S CALLED “LYING”.
Here is another example, a blatant one, in which a former psychology professor at Shippensburg University, George Boeree, copy-pasted a fallacy list and contradicted one of the fallacies using hate speech against theists, which Shippensburg University has sanctioned by hosting:
“We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.”
But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior? Of course not!
This hack philosopher, WITH NO DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY LET ALONE LOGIC, who copied and pasted a fallacy list and made it anti-theistic, made a circular argument himself: he’s making a personal attack against religion (ad hominem) and is committing the fallacy of “appealing to obviousness” by his weasel word: “of course not!” and committing the fallacy of “appealing to emotion” by using an exclamation mark. He’s also indirectly committing the fallacy of “appealing to authority” by implying that his mere word as a former professor with a degree in psychology and whatever works he’s written (which are obscure, and not authoritative, so he’s being a vain hypocrite on top of all this). On top of that, this moron is obviously ignorant about religion BECAUSE his statement is grammatically nonsensical: worship is apart of religion, and he spoke as if they were two entirely different things. His error is analogous too this statement, “But does eating apples and apple pieces actually produce nutrients in the body?” On top of that he even showed with the biased example he thought up, that he understands religion and worship to be intertwined, because the example doesn’t say, “religion”! Talk about eating your own words! Some professor eh? As usual, the accusations of Satan’s children punch them right back in their deceiving mouths.
The oldest logical fallacy list on the Internet is hosted by Georgia State University, from 1992, notice it makes NO REFERENCE TO GOD, which shows that it was deliberately used for propaganda by atheists (I put the title in bold):
I’ve been bothered for a number of years, really for most of my adult life, by how poorly individuals will construct their arguments in everyday life and in academic debate. Along the way, I stumbled upon a collection of fallacies (see references) that I’ve found to be a convenient yard-stick by which to critique others’ arguments. They are offered here in a hypertext form that I originally wrote to be read by my PalmPilot personal digital assistant (PDA).. – Art
Fallacies of Relevance
Affirmation of the Consequent
Argumentum ad Antiquitam
Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force)
Argumentum ad Crumenam
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive)
Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)
Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance)
Argumentum ad Lazarum
Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity)
Argumentum ad Nauseum
Argumentum ad Novitam
Argumentum ad Numeram
Argumentum ad Populam
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)
Converse Accident (hasty generalization)
Denial of the Antecedent
Dicto Simpliciter – Sweeping Generalization
Fallacy of Interrogation
Non Causa Pro Causa
Petitio Principii (begging the question)
Plurium Interrogationum – Many Questions
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Tu Quoque – Two Wrongs Make a Right
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Accentus – Accent
Fallacies of Correlation
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Affirmation of the Consequent.
Description: An argument from the truth of a hypothetical statement, and the truth of the consequent to the truth of the antecedent. In the syllogism below, P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent: P implies Q Q is true <– Affirming the consequent ______________ Therefore: P is true.
Argumentum ad Antiquitam.
Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old; that is, because "that's the way it's always been."
Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force).
The arguer appeals to force or the threat of force to compel acceptance of the conclusion.
Argumentum ad Crumenam.
Description: Fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right.
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive).
"The phrase argumentum ad hominem translates literally as 'argument directed to the man.'" The abusive variety occurs when one attacks the other person rather than the other persons argument.
. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial).
In this case, one tries to convince the opponent to agree to the conclusion based on the opponents circumstances. For example (from Copi), a hunter may claim an anti-hunter must say hunting is acceptable since the anti-hunter is not a vegetarian.
Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance).
* "The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any."
* The argument that something must be true simply because it hasn't been proved to be false, or vice versa.
Argumentum ad Lazarum
Description: A fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the informal fallacy "argumentum ad crumenam."
Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity).
The arguer appeals to pity where the conclusion is a matter of reason and not one of sentiment, e.g. referring to a murder suspect's dependent family.
Argumentum ad Nauseum.
Description: The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseum" is one that employs constant repitition in asserting a truth.
Argumentum ad Novitam.
Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer than something else. Or that something is better because it is newer. This type of fallacy is the opposite of the "argumentum ad antiquitam" fallacy.
Argumentum ad Numeram.
Description: A fallacy that asserts that the more people who support or believe a proposition then the more likely that that proposition is correct; it equates mass support with correctness.
Argumentum ad Populam.
"the attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude, rather than by appeal to the relevant facts."
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority).
This is especially the appeal to authority outside the field of that authority's expertise. In the field of the authority's expertise, "this method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority's competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. … Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it."
"The fallacy of accident consists in applying a general rule to a particular case whose 'accidental' circumstances render the rule inapplicable." For instance, while generally one should not exceed the speed limit, it is acceptable for emergency vehicles to do so.
Description: Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation is the presentation of a situation or condition with only two alternatives, whereas in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.
* This is a question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety.
* Arguing based on a response, or assumed response, to a complex or "loaded" question, where no simple yes or no response is reasonable — "have you stopped beating your wife?" "will you vote for the Republicans and prosperity?"
Converse Accident (hasty generalization).
Making a general rule based on a few atypical cases. For instance, considering the effect of alcohol only on those who indulge to excess, and concluding that liquor is harmful and should be outlawed.
Denial of the Antecedent.
Description: An argument in which one infers the falsity of the consequent from the truth of a hypothetical proposition, and the falsity of its antecedent. P implies Q Not-P ____________ Therefore: Not-Q.
Dicto Simpliciter – Sweeping Generalization.
Description: Sweeping Generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the features of that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty generalization.
Fallacy of Interrogation.
Description: The question asked has a presupposition which the answerer may wish to deny, but which he/she would be accepting if he/she gave anything that would count as an answer. Any answer to the question "Why does such-and-such happen?" presupposes that such-and-such does indeed happen.
* Description: An analogy is a partial similarity between the like features of two things or events on which a comparison can be made.
* A false analogy involves comparing two things that are NOT similar.
* Note that the two things may be similar in superficial ways, but not with respect to what is being argued.
* This is mistaking a event to be the cause of some other event.
* Arguing that one event causes another on the basis merely that it occurs earlier, or more generally mistaking what is not the cause of something as its cause. For instance, arguing that beating of drums causes the sun to reappear after after an eclipse by citing that every time drums have been so beaten the sun has reappeared.
Description: An argument in which a proposition is used as a premise without attention given to some obvious condition that would affect the proposition's application. This fallacy is also known as the "hasty generalization." It is a fallacy that takes evidence from several, possibly unrepresentative, cases to a general rule; generalizing from few to many. Note the relation to statistics: Much of statistics concerns whether or not a sample is representative of a larger population. The larger the sample size, the better the representativeness. Note also that the opposite of a hasty generalization is a sweeping generalization.
* Description: An argument that is supposed to prove one proposition but succeeds only in proving a different one. Ignoratio elenchi stands for "pure and simple irrelevance."
* An argument which supports one conclusion is made to prove a different conclusion.
* Copi's example is a legislator who, in discussing a housing bill, argues only that decent housing for all is desirable, rather than whether the bill in question would achieve that goal.
Non Causa Pro Causa.
Description: An argument to reject a proposition because of the falsity of some other proposition that seems to be a consequence of the first, but really is not.
Description: An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. Another way of putting this is: A conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical connection to it.
Petitio Principii (begging the question).
* The conclusion of an argument is contained in one of the premises assumed.
* Assuming the truth of one's proposal as a premise for the conclusion one is trying to prove.
Plurium Interrogationum – Many Questions.
Description: A demand for a simple answer to a complex question.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
Description: An argument from a premise of the form "A preceded B" to a conclusion of the form "A caused B." Simply because one event precedes another event in time does not mean that the first event is the cause of the second event. This argument resembles a fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization.
Description: An argument of the syllogistic form in which there occur four or more terms. In a standard categorical syllogism there are only three terms: a subject, a predicate, and a middle term.
Description: A fallacy when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being discussed, such that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points being made, and toward a different conclusion. It is not logically valid to divert a chain of reasoning with extraneous points.
Description: To reify something is to convert an abstract concept into a concrete thing. Reification is a Fallacy of Ambiguity. Reification is also sometimes known as a fallacy of "hypostatization".
Shifting the Burden of Proof.
Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
Description: Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than he or she would make when evaluating someone else's arguments.
Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.
Tu Quoque – Two Wrongs Make a Right.
Description: Two wrongs never add up to a right; you cannot right a wrong by applying yet another wrong. Such a fallacy is a misplaced appeal to consistency. It is a fallacy because it makes no attempt to deal with the subject under discussion.
Description: An argument in the course of which at least one term is used in different senses. Also known as equivocation. There are several types of "fallacies of ambiguity," including REIFICATION, EQUIVOCATION, AMPHIBOLY, COMPOSITION, DIVISION, and ACCENTUS.
* Using the same word in two different senses.
* A fallacy arising from the ambiguity or multiplicity of possible interpretations of a repeated word or phrase. "An elephant is an animal, therefore a small elephant is a small animal".
* Arguing from premises which are ambiguous due to their grammatical construction.
* An argument whose premises contain statements with grammatical constructions capable of being interpreted in more than one way. Classical example: "if Croesus went to war with Cyrus, he would destroy a mighty kingdom". Based on that advice Croesus went to war with Cyrus and in so doing destroyed a mighty kingdom: his own.
* Stressing a word in a sentence which thereby changes the meaning.
* An argument based on a change in meaning through emphasis or accent. "we should not speak ill of our friends", unaccented, may be valid, while by accenting the last word the implication is added that it may be acceptable to speak ill of others. Similarly, quoting or emphasizing something out of context ("the captain was sober today").
* Attributing to the whole the properties of the parts.
* Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself: "all of the parts of this machine are light, therefore the machine itself is light". Or, to infer that what may be said of a term distributively may be said of the term collectively: "a bus uses more gasoline than a car, therefore buses use more gasoline than cars".
* Attributing to the parts the properties of the whole.
* The reverse of composition: reasoning from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of its parts, or inferring that what may be true of a term collectively is true distributively. "HP is a very important company; I am an HP employee; therefore I am very important"; "Dogs are frequently seen in the streets; Afghan hounds are dogs; therefore Afghan hounds are frequently seen in the streets".
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
Description: A fallacy of correlation that links events because they occur simultaneously; one asserts that because two events occur together they are causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. This fallacy is similar to the "post hoc" fallacy.
1. Message-ID: Sender: email@example.com (USENET posting account) Nntp-Posting-Host: avatar_r.ch.apollo.hp.com Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 18:05:01 GMT .
2. From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Justin M. Sanders) Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Definition Time — Strawman Date: 25 Apr 1992 10:42:00 -0500 Organization: Kansas State University Lines: 105 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu.
3. From: bcushman@envy.Reed.Edu (Ben Cushman)Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: catalog of everyday fallacies? (long) Message-ID: Date: 26 Apr 92 23:39:51 GMT Article-I.D.: reed.1992Apr26.233951.29296 References: Sender: email@example.com (USENET News System) Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR.
At about 9 AM I decided to study logic a little more. And discovered more evidence of atheists hijacking the original logic fallacy list, from an apparent atheist named Zack Smith, who, I wonder, if coincidentally, is using a .tk domain to direct people to his propaganda website on logic, atheism and religion, which was last worked on in 2010, the year I wrote up this post. More suspicious is that he does not say when he last edited it. It’s suspicious to me because he’s using topics on my website and the redirect is close to the one I use, and hides credit, just like the other atheists who parrot the list. Translation: I wonder if he’s stolen credit from me too. Here is my reply to what I found on the part of his website on with those subjects:
Zack: if information-avoidance (concerning what is morally right from wrong) is a sin in your arbitrary illogical rulebook, (and it is in the Bible: the most popular and most influential spoken and gathered information in the world, which YOU AVOID), why then do you hide your email from your atheism propaganda pages, and not only that, not tell people something as important as to WHERE YOUR TRUNCATED FALLACY LIST ORIGINATED FROM, OR FACTS CONCERNING THE HELPFULNESS OF THE BIBLE FOR LIVING A PEACEFUL, LOGICAL AND PROGRESSIVE LIFE?
And lest you claim you did provide your email, I’ve saved your pages.
And religion isn’t “a mind virus”, it’s a method of worship; it’s a logical fallacy to over-generalize, a fallacy which you illogically and deliberately did not include in “your” arbitrary credit-robbing fallacy list. Further: do you know who the father of biology is, bitter Mr. Religion is Mind Virus? Don’t avoid that information Mr. I Love Truth. Hint: wain’t your father Deluded Darwin who spread is mental virus called Darwinian Evolution which is used as an excuse by every God-hater whether they call themselves Christian or not to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, covet, blaspheme, forget that God worked to give eternal life freely, and to dishonor their parents. You do recognize those list of wrongs don’t you atheist, Mr. All Religion Is Bad For Your Mind and There is No God? Yeah: none of those things, not even murdering babies or abusing children is wrong, WRONG.
It’s also a false argument when you DO NOT SHOW INFORMATION THAT REFUTES YOURS AND PRETEND THAT YOU ARE RIGHT BY EXCLUDING SUCH INFORMATION.
As for strawmen, why don’t you point out that many Christians don’t claim that atheism is a religion, let alone a spreading one, BUT THAT HUMANISTIC ATHEISM IS? Yet you point out that strawman arguments are bad. And are weasel arguments fallicious in your mind either? If I point out the arguments made by atheists which only have bad grammar or who are very poor in school or who are mentally ill, would I be being a “weasel”? Would I be AVOIDING INFORMATION? Be ashamed you liar. Stop being a bitter, fault-finder and hypocrite and avoiding information and restoring to lies, hiding truth and misleading to make yourself feel better.
Here’s an excellent example of atheists biasing the logic fallacy list, using examples from Zack the infantile copy-paster:
Here, the source or origin of a claim is discredited or bolstered in order allege that the claim itself is false or true.
It comes from the bible and the bible is the word of Yahweh therefore it must be true.
That research was done in China therefore it must be full of errors and crap data.
Legitimacy From Effort.
This religion has taken millenia to get built up therefore you should believe in god.
It took years for Microsoft to produce Windows therefore we should use it.
It took years for the seagulls to cover the rocks completely with shit therefore it is pretty like a Jackson Pollack painting.
It took years for such-and-such minority to build up their own separatist subculture therefore members should not interact with outsiders and they deserve respect.
In the Genetic fallacy, Parrot Zack uses an incorrect example, and showing his hatred of those who are religious, blasphemes God’s name to make himself look wise (if you show deep hatred for someone let alone hatred at all while claiming to be teaching the truth, that makes what you say suspect as being false Zack; that’s obvious), which is that to say that if Yahweh said it is true that it must be. Parrot: Yahweh doesn’t lie as is shown by the historical accuracy of the Bible and eye witness testimony to the things it says exist and that still happen. If you’d like to attempt to cure yourself of your insanity of doubt try sleeping next to a knife in various houses haunted by violent demons. Keep in mind that you deserve to die if one of them attempts you; don’t blaspheme after being hurt by one being that it will be your own fault to sleep with demons. Notice also how Parrot Zack weasels in the example of China, a communist dictatorship. Zack, are you aware communist atheists with the silence or aid of humanistic atheists murdered or indirectly murdered 250 million people in the last 100 years, the most killed by any group and in that short a time, AND AFTER THE SUPPOSED AGE OF FREE-THINKING AND ENLIGHTENMENT BROUGHT ON BY ATHEISTS? That’s not evolution Mr. Pretentious Genetics, that’s thinning the genetics humans have to work with to continue to survive and be fit and to adapt. Humanistic Communism is evil Zack, stop denying that murder is wrong, let alone murder of those who disagree with the personal feelings of others. Murder exists Zack, just like Yahweh who forbids. Psychopathic parroting, truth-twisting and disgust won’t change that.
In Zack’s Legitimacy From Effort fallacy he put’s first as an example “This religion has taken millenia to get built up therefore you should believe in god.” How about also adding, “Pagan Roman, Catholic Roman, Muslims, and Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian and Baltic Communist atheists fought to suppress, oppress and murder millions of Christians and those who spoke out against their gods who were no gods, therefore you shouldn’t trust in Yahweh.”? How about these ones: “If it survives it must be fit.” or “If it survives it must be best.” Or “If it survives it must be right.” Or “If it survives it must be just.” Or, “If it took millions of years to evolve it must be best.” Do any of those lines of reasoning sound familiar, hypocrite? Strange you don’t use any of them as examples but rather some arrogant biased rants with a snotty fanboy tone.
Or how about including these examples somewhere: “A man looks like a monkey, therefore one of them must have come from the other.” Or, “A bird looks like a giant lizard, therefore one of them must have come from the other.” Or, “Because animals look alike they must have all biologically have come from a single thingy.” Or, “If there is a column of animals in the order of little to big big animals then big animals must have come from little animals.” Do you know what types of logical fallacies those fall under, Mr. Logical?
That’s your fallacious logic blind Zack who magnifies his error in his one eye that can see with a false lens.
It’s also a logical fallacy to think that because you point out right from wrong that you must therefore be wise in morality and moral, yet clearly you’re neither, but rather a parasitic parrot.
That’s the end of my reply. I’m trying to finish with a book on logic and arguments against religion which I mostly finished last year, but I wanted to add another argument I remembered about three days ago, refuting in my original version of the book in 2005 or 2006, which was on a justification for homosexuality, and then yesterday I think, remembered another, on God supposedly wrongly treating us like children, which I also refuted. Ironically one of the logical fallacies Zack listed in his list, one which I didn’t remember having read and thinking about is the basis points out the error of this justification for homosexuality (but doesn’t explain why it’s wrong, no surprise being that Zack is merely parroting without little to no understanding or critical after-thought on what he’s talking about). I wasn’t going to mention that I’d never read it because I think I already did in my book, but after commenting about the homosexuality argument and seeing it tied into it; it was too strange to not mention. Divine coincidence I call it. The logic fallacy Zack listed which I’m talking about, I personally call it the The Superiority or Inferiority/Moral Characteristics/Relation by Origin Fallacy, at the moment. If it’s in my book already I don’t remember whatever term I have for it in there. I’ll try to update this post later to point out if I already mentioned it in my unpublished book, for history.
“How do ye say, ‘We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us? Lo: certainly in vain made he made it’: rather it is the pen of the scribes that lies.” – Jeremiah 8:8