Logical Fallacies - Part 1

[z3r0Projects]

So where is the link to the debate that is shown here? I have seen hundreds , but never one like this...

[Cdant26]

GOD Bless!

[mitchldowney]

I am basically agnostic/atheist but this video is succinctly put together and helpful. I'm growing fascinated with arguments and fallacies. Thanks for making it.

It's great to see sound reasoning being taught, regardless of which side of the arguments you take. I think it's a lost but sorely needed art for people to survive the 21st century. The global economy is sinking deeper and deeper into crisis. We need to use reason to dig ourselves out and fast...wait too long and we'll be using bombs.

[Korn1holio]

"God revealed himself"... omg is that supposed to be an argument :))

Sorry don't want to offend you.

Ok it's impossible to disprove the existence of god, and that is why God has nothing to do with science - God theory does not meet Popper's criterion.

Since science is our way to describe world we must choose what we hold in higher regard and separate science from faith.

I choose science, because IMO faith is merely born out of lack of scientific knowledge.

[KeizerrO]

Honestly, the entire religion vs. atheism discussion is getting old. The two have never gotten along (obviously), but their still both here despite endless discussions. Religious people tend to use metaphysical arguments while atheists use arguments based on formal logic. Whichever side you believe is right, you should at least acknowledge that discussions between the two never led to anything constructive.

[PrinceWalter]

The "if-then conditional" does not always appear in traditional "if-then" form, but in the case of Mat 19:17 the hypothesis has been specifically identified.

IF thou wilt enter into life (P), (THEN) keep the commandments (Q).

P -> Q

If the Apostle Paul is "contrary" in Rom 3:28 and Gal 3:11, then LOGICALLY CONCLUDE the truth of the Antecedent (P) without Affirming the Consequent (Q)...

Hello. I am looking for an atheist who uses logic in his videos and debates. DO YOU KNOW ANY?

[Johannson6990]

I get the whole joke here your a christian who uses logic, very funny my friend lol

[xAlex347x]

@Johannson6990 Look! Another falllacy.

[Standuble]

Fuck, I'm a heavily dense walking mass of fallacy. My shame has increased by 16 notches for I am guilty of all mentiones.

[andrjsh]

This was a good introduction to various fallacies, but it was also an unsubtle cannonade of Christian arguments. A seeker after truth would have presented both (or all) sides or different examples of arguments rather than passive-aggressively pushing the pamphlet into one's hand.

[smp156]

what?

to claim that God exists because it was written in a book is a logical fallacy. its a circular arguement

[shizzleman8]

@smp156 No, saying the Bible is true and inerrant because the Bible says so is circular logic. Just don't hold a position and you'll be fine. When you take a position you become prejudiced and lose objectivity to facts and evidence. We have free will, and the only explanation for it comes from God, that sure seems to be the case to me, and if I have this free will and don't choose God, I can't also expect him to send me to hell forever just for exercising MY FREE WILL CHOICE, right? RIGHT.

[tomfooleryprod]

This may in fact be the worst "tutorial" I've ever seen on logical fallacies. Almost every example you give is wrong. Your circular argument example was completely wrong, for instance. A better example would be one of my favorites: "The Bible is God's word. We know this because the Bible says so in 2Timothy 3:16."

[Andy32268]

The equivocation example made me angry, because that general argument is used by many theists to try and disprove biological evolution, albeit phrased slightly differently and, obviously, phrased in a way that doesn't support it. If you have honestly met somebody who thinks the statement you presented is true, they deserve a good punch in the face.

[sailornaruto39]

iam not sure if these are really facalies. i mean #3 is a good argument

[CrazySatanicInfidel]

I was sort of wondering what an honest theist would be like; you still lie horrendously (poisoning the well). The examples work (except for the circular argument, you actually mean the division fallacy; and I don't really follow the false dilemma on Job), but maybe you would want to redo the video without bias? It'd be much more honest to show that, mostly, many theistic arguments bite the dust in the same fashion, from either false premises or invalid arguments.

[DoctorNociceptor]

@CrazySatanicInfidel I'll have to agree with your assessment, although I think it's still a good way to introduce my young earth creationist roommate to logical fallacies, with the added comment; "I've never heard any of these fallacious arguments before, probably because they are so incredibly stupid. So stupid, in fact, that I suspect that they were made up just to make atheists look bad."

[DonVoghano]

You missed a few fallacies:

-God of the gaps fallacy: I don't know how it happens, therefore GOD DID IT.

-Introspection fallacy: I really, deeply believe it - therefore IT (GOD?) EXISTS.

-ethical sense fallacy: I feel good and evil in my gut - therefore IT'S THE HOLY SPIRIT

All the other fallacies are the true staple of any believer.

[Wakingheart]

The most enjoyable presentation of logical fallacies on YouTube. Good work.

[rgaleny]

the Bible is not a scientific document.try three minute theosophy next time.

[KeizerrO]

It's pointless to have a rational discussion about faith. Even if both the atheist and theist avoid all these logical pitfalls, it still boils down to the question "is this universe created by a greater being or not", which reason can't prove or disprove.

[TopRobbo1970]

Very witty! Of course, it's neither a sweeping nor a hasty generalisation. As the video points out, believers' arguments start from a position of foundational bias - that a god exists. ;)

[CarlosMarti123]

@matwil7 You just made a logical fallacy :) Generalization

You just showed how YOU committed a fallacy XD

[CarlosMarti123]

It's funny how atheist drones vote down any video simply because it says "Theist" in it.

Intolerance, much?

[greenhilljohn]

The appeal to pity example is unsatisfactory because the Christian God is said to be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient .

Therefore the argument is reasonable and needs to be addressed.

[jamieft2]

that example of appeal to pity is a prime example of an argument showing how religeon gives evidnece againsts itself

[Grandecasla]

lets pick the arguments apart then, the bible: written by a pre scientific culture that clearly had no idea how the world works. archaeology: there is zero evidence for a historical figure named Jesus. nature: we live, in scientific terms, on the edge of a knife, the sun will eventually swell up and consume us, we have a large chance to be bombarded with an asteroid, so if God designed nature for, as indeed the bible says, it is a rather lousy design.

[TheConcolor]

You forgot to mention that your video is full of straw men :D

[InFromTheVoid]

Isn't accepting a definition for god, begging the question? There is no coherent nor verifiable definition for god. It is speculation put forth by assertion. You would first have to accept someones definiton for god to continue the argument. And not questioning the premise is again..begging the question. Just replace the word god with some made up word like jnrghghog (randomly typed). Your first question would be...what is that? good luck

[RealEros1]

Can these type of stuff apply to anything else besides arguements?

[oober349]

The appeal to force is traditionally used as "Well, you're going to hell anyway"

[wesselbindt]

1:07 Very unrealistic example. So far, the only people I've heard using the appeal to force fallacy are theists.

1:36 This is not an appeal to pity. If there would be something omnipotent and omnibenevolent, injustice should not exist. The starving children are only used as an example.

1:56 Again, very unrealistic. Every atheist knows god is unfalsifiable, and thus uninteresting to science. Statements in the bible about the history of earth are falsifiable, and many of them have been disproved.

[Zeta39Reticuli]

@wesselbindt As silly as it might seem to you, I've seen both sides use 1:07 and 1:56 in arguments. I feel a lot of Atheists do believe that since the Bible is falsifiable, and can be disproved, then God isn't real. But this is just a stance in which someone takes based on the evidence, and honestly, the Bible is just one perception of both the creation of man and the existence of God.

[wesselbindt]

@Zeta39Reticuli

I've seen christians use 1:07, a quick glimpse at the telly generally reveals that side of religion. But atheists? I would like to see an example of this, because this is not just silly, it's very hard to believe. 1:36 is equivalent to "If god is omni-benevolent(which a lot of christians claim), then why are there still unjust things going on?" And this argument clearly isn't an appeal to pity.

Please bear in mind that we're talking about atheist vs christian debates.

[Zeta39Reticuli]

@wesselbindt You're still dealing with different perceptions and views of God and the Bible, even when exclusively talking about Christianity. With Deism, the Bible is either regarded a guide for life and not to be taken literally, or accepted for its flaws regarding God, as it is written by man, not God.

Either way, the debate never goes anywhere.

[Zeta39Reticuli]

@wesselbindt As for 1:36, yes, that is exactly what it is. This is so, because the perception of God and how he works differs from person to person. Sure, your explanation might be true with a Christian, but with someone who takes the stance that God has a cosmic indifference with humanity, then it holds less weight.

But I try not to get wrapped up in talks about religion or God, because they ultimately go no where. The debate never gets anywhere.

[bobbyrubio]

@wesselbindt : "many of them have been disproved"

Would you be able to name some of the "many"? : )

[wesselbindt]

@bobbyrubio

Of course, a four year old could.

According to the bible:

-the age of the earth is approximately 6000 years.

-leprosy can be cured using a complex process of sprinkling oneself with the blood of dead birds.

-the earth was flooded entirely by rain in 40 days.

-the entire world can be seen from the top of a certain mountain. (which implies the earth is flat, obviously)

-people are made of clay instead of flesh.

There you go. : )

[CarlosMarti123]

@wesselbindt Have you ever heard of such a thing called Biblical hermeneutics?

:)

[bobbyrubio]

@wesselbindt  Your kidding right?

[wesselbindt]

@bobbyrubio

To be quite honest, I don't know. What did I write?

[Cookiecutter87]

@wesselbindt I think some of the examples are unrealistic (in the sense that they are not often used), but I also think the point of this video is to give examples of logical fallacies. The examples are just that, examples

[Cookiecutter87]

@wesselbindt Additionally, the discussion of starving children could be an appeal to pity, if it is mentioned in a judgemental context. For example " How can you believe in a God? There are children starving in the world and hence believing in God is mean". Even if something is mean, it could still be true. The point is not that everytime you mention starving children you are commiting a fallacy, it is that you are commiting a fallacy in certain cases.

[jeltetenholt]

@MrJastin You're trying to be funny, right? You're committing this ad hominem on purpose?

[wesselbindt]

@jeltetenholt

Try rereading the author's comments, the second line specifically. Considering MrJastin's comment to be a fallacy would imply 1 that there's an argument going on, which, there isn't, 2 that he is attacking someone(which calling someone an atheist simply isn't), 3 that he's talking about an individual, even though he's actually talking about every single christian in the world who recognizes fallacies. Granted not many do, but they still can't be considered one single individual.

[jeltetenholt]

@MrJastin You're trying to be funny, right? 

[M1NDC0N7R0L]

@ryan84160 which is the definition of faith.

[gilgameshismist]

Another fallacy some believers like to use:

Being Sanctimonious, with that is meant: unjustified moral posturing

[robertwc82]

you should also point out to them what hypocracy is, and what irony is

[mowriter]

I just learned something new!! "Special Pleading". I've lost track of how many times closed minded people would tell me my opposition to closed-mindedness is itself closed-minded. They might as well say "open minded is closed minded" with pure, Orwellian brilliance.

[fistyeah21]

This is a good video for both believers and non believers who wish to engage in an honest debate. Still, atheists are right because religious people suck and are dumb....that's a joke.

[TopRobbo1970]

What interests me here is that every time logical fallacies come up in my discussions with believers and other people's discussions with believers, it is ALWAYS the believers who use logical fallacies.

[CarlosMarti123]

@TopRobbo1970 Logical fallacy. Generalization :)

[TheHonestTheist]

@TopRobbo1970 Wow and I thought believers were the deluded ones, yet here you are claiming that atheists never commit fallacies, which by the way you shouldn't call logical lol. Also check out the debate between WLC and Peter Atkins, you will see plenty of fallacies very clearer shown by WLC committed by the atheist Peter Atkins. It's extremely arrogant and ignorant to claim that only theists commit fallacies and it is extremely biased and blinkered for people to give you comment the thumbs up.

[TopRobbo1970]

@TheHonestTheist And there was me posting that as a joke....

[Ye4hBuddy]

@TheHonestTheist However, in most discussions I've seen between the non-religious and believers, the believers are the ones that are committing the fallacies. Not only this, but the bulk of their arguments have been based on these fallacies. I am not claiming that all believers in every debate ever have committed these fallacies, that would be a hasty generalization. Yet, more than 50% of the debates I've seen between believers and atheists have resulted in disappointment due to those fallacies.

[thesparitan]

@TheHonestTheist You got Ad Hominem fallacy wrong. Simply insulting someone is not an Ad hominem.

[TopRobbo1970]

@TheHonestTheist Congratulations for missing two points:- One I was taking the piss somewhat. Two - the position of believers IS inevitably built on foundational bias. I.e. the existence of your god.

Of course, you also construct a strawman - well done. Where did I ever say that sceptics and rationalists never use logical fallacies? That would be...errr...nowhere.

And thanks for the ad hominem of 'arrogant and ignorant', that's nice work.

[lonewolfM16]

@TheHonestTheist agreed always should never ever be used in a argument as nothing is certain to that degree however if he said usually I would be obliged to agree iwht him as in the debates I have participated in and observed the non-beliver tends towards fallicies. especially slipperly slope and straw-man though ad hominem is used by both sides.

[lonewolfM16]

@TheHonestTheist appeals to force are also mainy theistic as atheists being in the minority have little force to appeal to while theists not only have the magority but the far over used convert or go to hell.

[shizzleman8]

@lonewolfM16 Hell isn't even a word in Hebrew and Jesus is a Rabbi, so I ask you is the servant greater than the Master?

Hell isn't even a word in the Greek New Testament EITHER! see doub u doub u doub u tentmaker doht org articles jesusteachingonhell for what I loosely refer to as the facts on the matter. If choosing God seems like a bad idea to you than their not doing a very good job presenting Him/Her. God's given a lot more to me than I have to myself, but what the hell do i know?

[lonewolfM16]

@shizzleman8 hell is actually a english translation of the greek word hades refering to the underworld and afterlife.

[shizzleman8]

@lonewolfM16 The consensus is that Jesus spoke Aramaic, the very same ancient language the boy the movie The Exorcist was based on was recorded speaking in fluently. You're on the right track though. Imagine when the Bible was written what they understood as their cosmology and cosmogony? People's bodies were buried in the earth, or sealed tombs, the underworld doesn't mean today what it meant there and then. Jesus said the power of the resurrection means no more marriage, we become angels!

[Figaera69]

@TheHonestTheist He isn't saying that atheists do no commit logical fallacies. What TopRobo1970 said was that a lot of arguments for christianity hinge in a logical fallacy... like the circular proof for the bible. You focused on a nuisance in the argument instead of attacking the main point.

[ItssBrian]

@Figaera69 Try proving logic exists without using circular reasoning.

[Figaera69]

@ItssBrian Logic is an assumption, it is to be taken axiomatically for any logical argument to make sense. However, I can prove it empirically; you can't say the same thing about the bible. The bible is an ancient text book that has several historical discrepancies (read lies) and self inconsistencies and the best you can come up with is "The bible is the word of god, because the bible says so." Flimsy objection is flimsy.

[ItssBrian]

@Figaera69 Axiomatic = circular. Ancient ≠ incorrect. The reason you couldn't point out any specific contradictions or errors in the Bible is because there aren't any. And there are plenty of reasons to believe the Bible other than that it itself claims to be accurate. One such reason are the many fulfilled prophesies that have virtually no probability of occurring by coincidence.

[Figaera69]

@ItssBrian "The reason you couldn't point out any specific contradictions or errors in the Bible is because there aren't any." None of the gospels agree on the genealogy of Jesus. There are no records in the roman senate about a census that required people to go to their home towns issued by Augustus--which is odd since there are other contemporary roman records. In Matthew a mountain was described from which you could see all the kingdoms on earth, impossible in a spherical shape. ...

[Figaera69]

@ItssBrian I didn't point some of them out because there's not enough space you overconfident ignoramus. Axiomatic means self evident, something that you can see empirically for instance. Ancient means that it was written by people that have no idea of how western society operates. No prophesies have been fulfilled. Ever. They're either vague enough that several occurrences apply or stories are flat out fabricated. I mean, christianity is the most lucrative con ever designed, there's gain there.

[UnidentifiedRob]

@TheHonestTheist He was not saying that athests never commit fallacies, he was telling you about his own personal experience with theists. I do believe you just committed the strawman fallacy.

[Moshikashitenai]

@TheHonestTheist You just said a fallacy of your own, a false assumption. He said that believers always use fallacies in the discussions that he has had, not that believers are the only ones that use fallacies.

[ghettofreeze]

@Moshikashitenai, Sorry, but you are the one in error. HTopRobbo1970 said "It is ALWAYS the believers who use logical fallacies," which translates to the following: "If one uses a LF, one is a believer." The claim does not allow for the possibility that non-believers use fallacies.

BTW, I'm an atheist, but fair is fair. TheHonestTheist has a point.

[Moshikashitenai]

@ghettofreeze Nope, sorry, you're the one in error. He said that IN ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS !!THAT HE HAS HAD!!, THE BELIEVERS USE FALLACIES. THIS ALLOWS THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME THEISTS DON'T USE LOGICAL FALLACIES! Read his comment again IN ITS ENTIRETY! You're quote mining! For someone who's so eager to teach people about fallacies and stuff, you don't seem to have much ability to detect fallacies in your own line of reasoning.

[ghettofreeze]

@Moshikashitenai: You have a point, partly. Here's the entire claim quoted: "Every time logical fallacies come up in my discussions with believers and other people's discussions with believers, it is ALWAYS the believers who use logical fallacies." This clearly indicates that non-believers have not committed errors in his discussions and that only believers have erred. BUT unless he's had very few such discussions, he's exaggerating.

[Moshikashitenai]

@ghettofreeze Holy shit! You actually got it! I knew you could do it, good job! Here, have a cookie. Good... See what happens when you actually think?

[ghettofreeze]

@Moshikashitenai: What's with the attitude? I've been civil and respectful to you, yet twice you've written to me with sarcasm and condescension. We've never met each other, but we share a common interest in clear thinking, no?

[Moshikashitenai]

@ghettofreeze Well I get pissed! I try to explain things and the people to whom I'm explaining them choose to argue from their viewpoints / belief systems only and they say the same shit spouting the same fallacies that I just pointed out to them. God, do you know how frustrating that is? If there's one thing I hate above all else, it is having to repeat myself about something that should be obvious.

[ghettofreeze]

@Moshikashitenai I share your frustration with such people, but why direct your anger randomly, and at people who are actually your allies? In fact, why be angry at all? Anger tends to cloud the mind and has no effect on your opponents except possibly to make them dismiss what you say.

By the way, you seem to have missed the fact that I didn't admit you were entirely right, only that you were technically right if an implausible condition existed. Just saying. Nothing personal.

[ghettofreeze]

@TheHonestTheist: I'm an atheist, but you are almost entirely right. I disagree about TobRobbo1970 being "extremely arrogant and ignorant," but only because such beliefs are (alas) mainstream and NOT extreme. In any case, I've responded to some of your critics to support your main point.

[ChaosIsAwesome]

I believe that more young people should view videos like this because they are very intelligent and informing to rid the corruption that is ignorance.

[casanovakreg]

yep that was a straw man. u should google learnlogicalfallacies

[UNLebanon]

Some examples are good, others are not. The "Begging the question" example really isn't a good one, b/c agent 2 just states something that is flat out false. At best, agent 2 is using a straw man argument about what science claims about God.

[Skydancer365]

Yes, all of these logic fallacies (which are used extensively to justify religion/faith/belief/whatever­) are the reason why I no longer believe in god(s) and no longer consider myself a Christian. You've pointed out some fallacious arguments against Christianity but you have no legitimate arguments FOR it.  That's what finally convinced me after about 25 years.

You should also consult Wikipedia about "Confirmation Bias" to see why you are able to believe your logic fallacies.

[nahrubwg]

@TheHonestTheist Hey, I'm curious what kind of argument is valid? I'm afraid that everything that we say, always have fallacy in it. I think it will come to very basic problem of logic. Since, now some thinker said we're going to like language game. Even some questions the validity of inductive and deductive logic or even going further like questioning the prove of 1 + 1 = 2. Why did Russell fail to prove it? What did motivate him to go to that far?

[paulmarko]

Appeal to pity isn't a real fallacy. His example for appeal to pity is simply the early stages of a "why is there suffering" argument.

Loling at the "ad populum" argument. That's one of the most common tools in a Christian's tool kit. It's not very effective for atheist use because there aren't an overwhelming majority of us.

[Klingschor]

WOW. Almost every single one of the examples you gave were incorrect and did not fit the arguments that they werre porported to represent. It is almost always the Theists who indulge in Logical Fallacies. Nontheists don't need to, because we (and in truth, I speak only for myself) have evidence, reason, logic and facts on our side. You have lies (like this video, decieving people with your false representations), faith and dogma.

Think about it.

[TheHonestTheist]

@lex811117 Ask any believer why they believe in God and they won't just say "because the Bible says He does" they will also give reasons, as I do, like the fact that the universe had a beginning and therefore needs a cause, that the universe was fine-tuned beyond comprehension to allow life, that there is clear design and intelligence behind the structure of the cosmos and living creatures, etc.

[lex811117]

@TheHonestTheist You, my friend, are giving an example of another fallacy. I never said "why do you believe in god". The arugement is about whether the bible is true. This is the straw man fallacy (misrepresenting opponents arguments). Clearly as an honest theist you were doing this to further exemplify fallacies and not attempting to shift the arguement (note i said THE arguement not MY argument because this is nearly verbatum from a christian friend)

[TheHonestTheist]

@lex811117 You are right, I must of read that too quickly. In any case, just replace "God" with "Bible" and you can get the same counter argument. If you ask people why they believe the Bible is true, if they are anything like me, they will point you to things like historical/archeological evidence that correspond with the biblical narratives, to the fulfillment of prophecy, to a personal experience of the fulfillment of promises made in scripture, etc. Not simply "It says it in the bible".

[lex811117]

@TheHonestTheist I can see that as an honest mistake. No worries. If i were to have that line of logic given to me (history ect), now we can talk about it because it is based on something tangable that can be either proven or disproven. But Mr. thehonestheist, you would be a rare breed. I have been given my example argument many times. The reality is a great majority of the religous dont educate themselves (about the bible) beyond sunday bible school and fall back on faith.

[ryan84160]

@TheHonestTheist A better question would be why do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of God ?

[ryan84160]

@ryan84160 Very well then, I challenge you to come up with an answer to that question without using a logical fallacy.

[grycer]

@TheHonestTheist

You are begging the question. Instead of saying the universe had a beginning, you need to show that the beginning was truly a beginning. I am a christian and struggle with the cosmological argument for God's existence, because I have no real way of knowing that the big bang did not come from former matter which by definition has no beginning or no end (definition of eternity). Please explain and thanks for your video. I liked it!

[FireproofAshes]

@grycer

Spot on!

The other (bigger) problem with the cosmological argument, though, is that causality (as we understand it) requires time. Time is a component OF the universe, so it makes no sense to assume a causal relationship "before" time itself.

For the cosmological argument to even get past its first premise, it either has to be shown that:

a) Time existed before the universe

or

b) Causality is possible without time

[Marri3free]

If theistsdidn't make logical fallacies in their arguments, their woud be no arguments.

[Kbiomech]

Well done, however Telemantros made a partial mistake.

While his definition of a strawman is correct, it's partial. The point of a deliberate strawman is to trick the opposition into defending a position they do not hold. It's not so much a weaker representation as putting words in the oppositions mouth.

Other than that, great video! And I'm an atheist.

[mk00040]

Nicely done - good to see fallacies committed by both sides of the debate - not just one or the other.

For the equivocation example, I think it's more convincing to use languages as an illustration rather than cars (an artificial thing made in a factory). Otherwise the example could be seen as a false analogy itself.

[Plethorix]

@TheHonestTheist:

I'm confused as to how you could understand logic as you do and still be a Theist.

However, that doesn't bother me. Your video was very helpful and I enjoyed watching it, regardless of your religious stance.

Seeing the use of fallacies from a theist's standpoint is a little refreshing and gives me a new way to look at them.

Thanks, nice video.

[831Hawk]

true enough. I found this video searching for examples in media of fallacies, but as much as i find this video helpful, I find it even more bias. The arguer presents his case then does not earnestly reply in a way that one arguing against such a case would present themselves.

every counter argument if you can call it an argument is fake and filled with an angry tone. Which is not giving the other side a true argument. The maker of the video is searching for information only to prove their own.

[Plethorix]

Hehe. I hear that shit all the time.

[TheForthcoming1]

Great video.

[Netheralian]

Good try. Certainly a worthwhile effort. Although it looks like your appeal to pity example is a red herring and your appeal to the popular example is a straw man...

[onlyguitar1001]

oh my fucking god. the example he used for appeal to force. You know, hell would have been a much better example. convert or, not just die, burn for eternity.

[saylok2000]

Well, I'm impressed.....at least this video is valid....good job

[lastrites84]

No I'm not, I'm saying that questioning that the bible seems to offend many Christians.

[lastrites84]

yes it's a much better example then the one I used but the video is intended to give examples that wont' offend Christians, or are from there point of view so that example wouldn't work for this video. Context is key when giving examples. Perhaps using the Koran is the absolute truth, because the Koran says it is. That should satisfy all involved I think.

[lex811117]

You are saying that saying the bible is true because it is the unadulturated word of God is offensive?

[lastrites84]

At 3.05 what you indicate as a circular argument isn't a circular argument and is in fact logically sound. It's an argument known as Modus Ponens. Perhaps a better example (for your purpose here) would be Science is the best way to test knowledge because science has found that other ways arn't as consistant which shows that science is the best way. (not a great example because other factors effect that but it's all I could think of off hand). Thanks for the vid anything that helps teach logic

[MagicofAramis]

How ironic. These are fallacies regardless of who uses them of course, and it's important that we be careful not to undermine the credibility of our own arguments by resorting to them. But what is ironic is that a theist would complain that atheists are the ones using these. Clean up your own house first big guy. If there are non fallacious arguments for a God, then I'd sure like to hear them.

[MaxorZoo]

I agree with you. Yet, I think this is extremely useful! By approaching Christians and teaching them logic from a christian perspective, they might actually get to the point in which they understand them, and realize the truth themselves. The only problem is that they will probably not understand them, and just start screaming "circular argument!" to anything and atheist says, and then quote St. Thomas Aquinas.

[MagicofAramis]

@MaxorZoo Yes, I guess you're right. Most theists will simply dismiss non theistic videos that attempt illustrate logical fallacies.

I guess I simply don't understand how the video author can call himself a theist and still purport to reject arguments which contain such fallacies. He would have to ignore the fact that all the arguments for a God ever produced contains at least one fallacy.

[TheOtherSide100]

1. An "ad hominem" is not a fallacy. It's poor form. Same for "appeal to force."

Convert or die? Who says this? Muslims? Atheists don't say this, for there is nothing to which a person can convert.

"Appeal to pity" is not a fallacy. Again, just poor form. PS - There really are starving children.

"Appeal to the popular" cannot be used by Atheists.

I'm only 1:40 in and haven't seen a "Logical Fallacy" yet. I'm going to assume that you never really get to any.

These items are just poor form.

[inf0dump]

"Ad hominem" isn't necessarily a fallacy, but it can be. It depends how it's used. For example, "Freud had some interesting ideas, but he was a coke-head, so it's probably all bullshit" is an ad-hominem fallacy, since it attempts to use the personal criticism to indirectly cut down the arguments. It's also a non-sequitur.

If you're just insulting someone, but not as a substitute for addressing their argument, it's not a fallacy. Sometimes it's bad form, but sometimes people deserve it.

[lastrites84]

They are all fallacies the ones you are pointing out are formal fallacies rather than informal fallacies.

[Kbiomech]

@TheOtherSide100

Look again. these actually are the major logical fallacies that are impermissible in formal parliamentary debate. He left out slippery slope and appeal to authority, but overall this was a pretty good primer. some of the examples were not well elucidated, but the definitions, aside from Strawman, were spot on.

[appleguy77]

I can remember a real example where a christian used these logical fallacies for almost every one listed. Your dumb for not believing in god, if you don't believe, you'll go to hell, there are millions of christians, they can't all be wrong, etc.

And the examples in the videos didn't seem real to me, I haven't seen anything like that in real life, atheists making an appeal to the popular? I haven't ever seen that.

[emmelawrence]

Interesting video.....anyone of any faith could learn from this..

[TheHonestTheist]

What do you mean "anyone of any faith"? Shouldn't it just be a simple "anyone"

[7omnia7]

Hi Henry! Nice video!

[TheHonestTheist]

Glad you like it! Head over to telemantros and hit subscribe! ;)

[emmelawrence]

My apologies ;)...I only meant to illustrate that anyone, no matter what their religious convictions, could learn from this video ( I saw a few comments stating the opposite)...

[empbac]

Appeal to tradition: According to standard Christian doctrine, God is unchanging. Omnipresent. Therefore, the basic doctrine should not change. Therefore, within the context of Christianity, appeal to tradition is seen as a valid method of reason. Why do you think the Jews in the NT put up such a fuss about Jesus' new ideas? Tradition is important in western religion. It shouldn't be, but according to your doctrine, it is. That's not the fault of any atheist. It's the fault of your god.

[empbac]

Appeal to force (example):

Agent 1: Why should I believe in God?

Agent 2: If you don't, you'll go to hell.

Appeal to pity? That was a horrible example. The reason atheists tend to bring up suffering isn't an appeal to emotion, it's the pointing out of a contradiction, that if God is loving and all-powerful, why would he allow such suffering. IE, why would God create AIDS? Such a creation does not follow the character traits we are told God has. Be careful what you call a fallacy.

[diuryl]

nice vid!

[TheHonestTheist]

glad you like it, I did, head over to youtube. com/ telemantros and hit subscribe ;)

[wtflol420]

geat vid man.

[TheHonestTheist]

"without a god we'd have no absolute standard of morality, that'd be awful, so there must be a god"

That sounds like appeal to emotion to me.

[bitbutter]

I'm surprised that 'Argument from negative consequences' is missing. It's a mistake that's often made implicitly. Here's how it might look if made explicit:

"without a god we'd have no absolute standard of morality, that'd be awful, so there must be a god"

[TheHonestTheist]

"I'm surprised that 'Argument from negative consequences' is missing"

There are two other parts I will upload later, you might find it in part 2 or 3.

[teriy4ki]

Very nice video...except for the examples, those were stupid.

[fa272]

I'm not religious, but I see these type of arguements from religious and non- religuous folks all the time. Good video.

[TheJediCharles]

Haven't we all some scar tissue from each one of these?

[alianchild]

Why is it that all the examples of the logical falicies in this vid are a a total 180 of the way they are usually presented, which is by theists. All logical falacies have been used by them as a staple to their little bag of arguments. And they still refuse to believe it or to accept facts. How is an argument that says he believes in god because of the bible( which has been proven to be false in almost every respect) nature and archeology( which demonstreight no proof whatsoever) is logical?

[G0dspelronin]

All in the eyes of the beholder. Some people see nature and think it beautiful, and that a beautiful designer made it. Some people hate nature, and see nothing in it of beauty. Some people believe in nothing, but find beauty in all things around them. Perception is not cookie cutter. " facts" all too often change as time goes on. Really all you do is live what you believe. Its amazing how loud a life thats well lived speaks. Our beliefs are only as good as the actions they produce in all cases.

[teriy4ki]

Don't put "facts" in quotes like that...I did it because I was talking about the word not the object the word represents.

[G0dspelronin]

People bark off a lot of "facts" here on youtube. I'll put it however I deem fit to express the thought that calling something a fact does not makes it one. If you don't like it, close your eyes and move along. Seems like you might be struggling with that issue yourself if it hit such a nerve. In my time, I have seen the "facts" change, so, when you grow up, you'll see the same phenomena occur miraculously. People deceive themselves. Give it about twenty years.

[teriy4ki]

Opinions and values may change, sure, but facts will never change, otherwise we wouldn't call them "facts". Of course, there are opinions that are presented as facts...

[G0dspelronin]

Booya! You got it kid. Well put.

[Caqui]

"Demonstreight"?

At least learn how to spell correctly before you chide anyone for being hypocritical.

[alianchild]

Nice Ad-hominem "Caqui" I guess you must be a theist. You have just given evidence for what I said. Even if its just a smidge. Which is more evidence then there is for god.

 Its so nice to know that the theists wont let you down when you expect them to step right in it.

[Caqui]

It'd be an ad-hominem had I been commenting on your character or deriding you as a person. But I wasn't.

I was only pointing out the hypocritical nature of your comment.

Then you turned around and personally attacked me (thus, you committed the very thing you accused me of).

Besides, your original post was some sort of hybrid between a loaded question and false dilemma; you presuppose the Bible is entirely incorrect and has been entirely discredited by archaeological without any proof. Kudos.

[alianchild]

You imply I am stupid by commenting on my spelling. That is an ad-hominem.

And if you have read a chemistry,biology, physics, astrophysics , history or geology book that was written by an accredited scientist in that field, you would know the bible is full of shit.

By the way you have to understand the book too. Most creationists don't. That is not an ad-hominem, it is a fact.

[Caqui]

No, I didn't imply anything. I merely commented on your comment.

It's hypocritical because you're scolding ALL Christians for believing in a what you describe to be a grossly inaccurate book, and then you misspell a simple word. Correct spelling tends to give you more credibility when you're telling people something is inaccurate or full of lies.

That aside, I don't see how God, as presented in the Bible, conflicts with any ideas in biology, physics or any of the other sciences you described.

[kamijk]

Well he did create the earth before the sun. That conflicts pretty well, but I suppose that there are always alternate interpretations. Then there is the whole breaking the first law of thermodynamics thing which has never been adequately explained. But like I said it depends on your interpretation, some interpretations contradict science more than others.

[TruthasICit]

Saving this one.  Thanks

[dovad16]

Its next to have a pragmatic discussion about God without anyone who does not already have the same posture as yourself,....I find. All too often one or more of the points you mention gets brought into play.

[TheHonestTheist]

themselves are not impressed by such words. If I see people using specific words that others will not understand, when there is no need to use such words. All I see is someone either impressed with themselves, or someone trying to impress others.

[TheHonestTheist]

I failed to see how that would apply. What they acutally seemed to be doing, was accusing me of avoiding the argument. But instead of just stating that (as you said), they decided to press the Ad Hom button. There are unfortunately many wanna-be philosophers here on youtube, throwing around fallacies in an attempt to look clever. It would be a lot better if they didn't use fancy words, not only because everyone would then be able to understand them. But also because it shows that they...

[TheHonestTheist]

saying it was false. Which is the prime example of an ad hom...

Person A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about Person A

Therefore claim X is false

I was not saying "therefore claim X is false" as I wasn't talking about claim X.

They then claimed that an ad hom, can also be criticising the person who makes it, rather then giving a rebuttal. So basically, if you make a critical comment of any kind, that is what they were calling Ad Hom. Since I was not in a debate however...

[noelplum99]

Good video, everybody needs to be minded of these fallacies on all sides. I certainly see huge numbers of theists falling squarely into the categories listed here and I accept (and see) many atheist posters doing the same thing.

My one comment would be how annoying it is when someone tries to counter by 'listing your fallacies' which is very very tedious. If you believe someone's argument is fallacious state why, don't just list the bloody category as if that is some kind of 'I Win' button

[TheHonestTheist]

"If you believe someone's argument is fallacious state why, don't just list the bloody category as if that is some kind of 'I Win' button"

ha yes! I recently got into some comments on one video. I made the observation that the person who was talking about the origin of the universe with real boldness and certainty, was by no means an authority on the subject or qualified to speak about it. He then accused me of an Ad hominem, despite the fact I wasn't even addressing his argument, nor was I...

[disofchrist]

Thanks for posting... God Bless