Post your real world logical fallacies...

[Guido Fawkes]

I propose that we start posting real world logical fallacies (one per post) here so that others can correctly identify the logical fallacy and post it in reply. Other's who view this thread can use it as a, sort of, guide book in correctly identifying logical fallacies.

Let the games begin...

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent idea. Just this morning, a Christian named Tim posted (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/09/14/why-i-quit-christianity-part-2-2/#comment-407481) an extended textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy on my blog. Here it is:



“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:” (1John 5:1)

You do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, therefore you are not “born of God”.

“And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth… If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” (1John 5:6, 9-12)

I believe the record that God gave of his Son, therefore I have the witness within myself that I am “born again”. You do not believe His record, therefore you do not have the “witness” within yourself that you have been “born again”, but rather, you have made God to be a “liar”.

“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (John 4:2-3)

I have the witness of the Spirit of God within myself because I believe in my heart that Jesus Christ is “come in the flesh”. You do not believe in your heart that Christ has “come in the flesh”, therefore you do not have (and never had) the Spirit of God come into your heart; but, rather, you have in your heart that spirit of antichrist which is “…the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:” (Ephesians 2:2)
It all comes down to John 3: 3, 6-7:

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see (i.e. understand) the kingdom of God.” “That which is born of the flesh (i.e. man’s nature and wisdom) is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

If you had ever been “born of the Spirit”, then you would have received at that moment His eternal Spirit … not the spirit of “antichrist” which you so openly manifest by your current words.


:pop2:

[Guido Fawkes]

Excellent idea. Just this morning, a Christian named Tim posted (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/09/14/why-i-quit-christianity-part-2-2/#comment-407481) an extended textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy on my blog. Here it is:



:pop2:

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counter example to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").

A simple rendition of the fallacy:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Essayist Spengler compared the distinguishing between "mature" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them, with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, since, according to Spengler, the US academic dogma is that no true democracy starts a war. Farzana Hassan suggests another example of the fallacy: saying that Muslims would not commit the atrocities that ISIS have carried out, and that they are therefore not "true Muslims".

The use of the term was advanced by British philosopher Antony Flew:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton [(England)] Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen [(Scotland)] man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".

================================

Richard,

I just want to make sure I understand the fallacy correctly.

This is considered a "No True Scotsman" fallacy solely based on the fact that Tim is saying that "No True Christian" would "openly manifest yada-yada [as you do] by your current words."? Or have I missed the point again?

[Guido Fawkes]

Suppose that a woman thinks to herself: "My peers all disbelieve in climate change, and they would shun me if I believed in it, therefore I won't believe in it."

What type of logical fallacy has the woman committed?

[Guido Fawkes]

NATURALISTIC FALLACY:
There are two fundamentally different types of Naturalistic Fallacy statement: statements of fact which describe the way that the world is, and statements of value which describe the way that the world ought to be. The naturalistic fallacy is the alleged fallacy of inferring a statement of the latter kind from a statement of the former kind.



It's called taking responsibility and if your god were real he should take responsibility for creating humans with the desire to do bad things. Under your belief system, if god's design is not flawed then that means he intentionally designed humans in a manner that would allow them to "Self program" themselves to do wicked things. So, which is worse ... admitting to flawed workmanship, or intentionality in designing sinful creatures that delight in causing harm to each other?

I would much rather admit to a flaw in designing my robot that caused him to commit harmful acts, then to say I intentionally designed it in a manner I knew would result in negative actions.

I intentionally removed the name of the person who posted the statements above, because the name of the poster is not important to question being asked here.

Is the quote above an example of a Naturalistic Fallacy?

Specifically, is stating what anything ‘should do’ considered a Naturalistic Fallacy?

Please disregard this post. It was brought to my attention that quote was taken out of context - and therefore bad form for me to use it as I did.
:sEm_ImSorry:

[Rose]

NATURALISTIC FALLACY:
There are two fundamentally different types of Naturalistic Fallacy statement: statements of fact which describe the way that the world is, and statements of value which describe the way that the world ought to be. The naturalistic fallacy is the alleged fallacy of inferring a statement of the latter kind from a statement of the former kind.

It's called taking responsibility and if your god were real he should take responsibility for creating humans with the desire to do bad things. Under your belief system, if god's design is not flawed then that means he intentionally designed humans in a manner that would allow them to "Self program" themselves to do wicked things. So, which is worse ... admitting to flawed workmanship, or intentionality in designing sinful creatures that delight in causing harm to each other?

I would much rather admit to a flaw in designing my robot that caused him to commit harmful acts, then to say I intentionally designed it in a manner I knew would result in negative actions.


I intentionally removed the name of the person who posted the statements above, because the name of the poster is not important to question being asked here.

Is the quote above an example of a Naturalistic Fallacy?

Specifically, is stating what anything ‘should do’ considered a Naturalistic Fallacy?

I must say Mark, I am not very happy with your taking a quote from me completely out of the context in which David and I were talking, and then to use it as an example of "Naturalistic Fallacy" ?!?! :mad:

Here is the full discourse in context:


The creation of man was exactly as God planned it, and so it is untrue to say that God's creation was flawed. His creation was all "very good" as he wanted it to be.


http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=67663#post67663)
If the creation of sinful man was exactly as god planned, then of course it was flawed! If I create a robot knowing that it will go against what I created it for, then I am the one guilty of creating a flawed product.

It is called; taking responsibility. God's design is not flawed; not when it is as designed. Man is a self-programming creature by what enters into the mind. A person's character is formed or programmed. The mind is a very complex subject, and is a remarkable creation. Man is playing God if he thinks he will be able to duplicate the mind. Man does not understand enough to do that. I admit knowledge is increasing, but you will never know whether whether man will achieve what he thinks might be possible.

Hello David

Yes, it's called taking responsibility and if your god were real he should take responsibility for creating humans with the desire to do bad things. Under your belief system, if god's design is not flawed then that means he intentionally designed humans in a manner that would allow them to "Self program" themselves to do wicked things. So, which is worse ... admitting to flawed workmanship, or intentionality in designing sinful creatures that delight in causing harm to each other?

I would much rather admit to a flaw in designing my robot that caused him to commit harmful acts, then to say I intentionally designed it in a manner I knew would result in negative actions.

[Guido Fawkes]

I must say Mark, I am not very happy with your taking a quote from me completely out of the context in which David and I were talking, and then to use it as an example of "Naturalistic Fallacy" ?!?! :mad:

Here is the full discourse in context:

Rose,

:sEm_ImSorry:

It was not my intent to make you unhappy. Was it bad form to redact your name from the quote? If so, I apologize. I will add it back in if you say I should.

I don't understand why you say I took your quote out of context? I intended to use the quote only as a standalone phrase so that I could ask the question that I did about it. I really don't know the answer to my question, which is why I asked.

Also, I never said that your quote is a Naturalistic Fallacy. I asked if it is a Naturalistic Fallacy. I still don't know the answer. If it's not a Naturalistic Fallacy, just say so and explain where I went wrong.

The reason I started this particular thread was strictly for educational purposes. I am honestly new to using actual logical reasoning in written arguments and in recognizing logical fallacies (<-- especially in recognizing logical fallacies). I know from past experience that I learn best by seeing real examples - things that people have actually written.

I would love for you to go back over my posts and find all of the logical fallacies that I have used, and post them to this thread. If you decide to do so, please also highlight the particular fallacy and leave me a brief explanation which will help me to recognize my error.

I don't want any bad blood between us, so I will delete the post if that is your wish, and I will no longer cull material from your posts.

[Rose]

Rose,

:sEm_ImSorry:

It was not my intent to make you unhappy. Was it bad form to redact your name from the quote? If so, I apologize. I will add it back in if you say I should.

I don't understand why you say I took your quote out of context? I intended to use the quote only as a standalone phrase so that I could ask the question that I did about it. I really don't know the answer to my question, which is why I asked.

Also, I never said that your quote is a Naturalistic Fallacy. I asked if it is a Naturalistic Fallacy. I still don't know the answer. If it's not a Naturalistic Fallacy, just say so and explain where I went wrong.

The reason I started this particular thread was strictly for educational purposes. I am honestly new to using actual logical reasoning in written arguments and in recognizing logical fallacies (<-- especially in recognizing logical fallacies). I know from past experience that I learn best by seeing real examples - things that people have actually written.

I would love for you to go back over my posts and find all of the logical fallacies that I have used, and post them to this thread. If you decide to do so, please also highlight the particular fallacy and leave me a brief explanation which will help me to recognize my error.

I don't want any bad blood between us, so I will delete the post if that is your wish, and I will no longer cull material from your posts.

Good Morning Mark

First off, the quote cannot be used as a proper example, because as I stated it is not in CONTEXT ... it was plucked out of its context from a conversation between me and David. Secondly, anyone reading the thread where you took the quote from knows who wrote it.

I don't have a problem with you quoting from me, but if you wish to do so please make sure it is not randomly plucked out of context, otherwise it makes it appear that I am saying things which I am not.

It probably would be best for you to cull through your own posts for examples, or at least make sure that the quote you are using is a "Stand alone" statement to assure it is not miss-applied.

No worries, all is good :yo:

Kind regards,
Rose

[Guido Fawkes]

Good Morning Mark

First off, the quote cannot be used as a proper example, because as I stated it is not in CONTEXT ... it was plucked out of its context from a conversation between me and David. Secondly, anyone reading the thread where you took the quote from knows who wrote it.

I don't have a problem with you quoting from me, but if you wish to do so please make sure it is not randomly plucked out of context, otherwise it makes it appear that I am saying things which I am not.

It probably would be best for you to cull through your own posts for examples, or at least make sure that the quote you are using is a "Stand alone" statement to assure it is not miss-applied.

No worries, all is good :yo:

Kind regards,
Rose


Good Afternoon Rose,

:signthankspin:
I edited the original post by striking through all of its text and leaving a note at the bottom asking everyone to disregard the post because the quote was taken out of context. Don't worry, it won't happen again.

[Guido Fawkes]

In one of my earlier posts I made the following standalone quote:

In no other topic do I ever witness such unbridled hatred than from an Atheist railing against a God of which he purports does not exist.
As a logical fallacy, I believe that this would be considered an Appeal to Emotion. Am I correct, or is this some other logical fallacy?