[THREAD]
Every time you argue with an atheist, they use many fallacies; an atheist can’t make a valid argument without making fallacies and that’s a fact.
Here is a thread discussing the most used fallacies by atheists.
Every time you argue with an atheist, they use many fallacies; an atheist can’t make a valid argument without making fallacies and that’s a fact.
Here is a thread discussing the most used fallacies by atheists.
1-Fallacy of Equivocation: In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.
For example, misusing the word “belief” which is done a lot by atheists.
For example, misusing the word “belief” which is done a lot by atheists.
“Belief is accepting what’s unseen by eye; and that’s a proof of its corruption. Because faith (belief) corresponds to what the proof testifies to.” The atheist tried to show you that belief in the unseen can’t be parallel with what’s seen.
2-Straw man Fallacy: it’s a fallacy in which an opponent’s argument is misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted.
For example: Islam is a religion that calls for denial of scientific laws and believing that everything in this world is caused by supernatural~
For example: Islam is a religion that calls for denial of scientific laws and believing that everything in this world is caused by supernatural~
~causes. So a person either believes in Islam or science.
3-False authority: the fallacy of appeal to false authority occurs when someone uses a statement from an irrelevant or poor authority as evidence for a particular claim.
3-False authority: the fallacy of appeal to false authority occurs when someone uses a statement from an irrelevant or poor authority as evidence for a particular claim.
The authority is not a real expert on the issue under consideration, and thus their testimony doesn’t provide reliable evidence to support a claim regarding the issue. For example, using atheists’ physicians’ possession as an argument against religion when they are not experts.
4-Argumentum ad lapidem (appeal to a stone): it’s a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement for its absurdity without giving actual proof.
For example: believing in god is stupid, only ignorant, lazy people who don’t want to search for a~
For example: believing in god is stupid, only ignorant, lazy people who don’t want to search for a~
~materialistic explanation of our existence can believe in god
5-False dilemma: it’s a logical fallacy that falsely claims it’s an either/or situation when in fact there is at least one more logically valid option.
For example: you either belief that science explains everything~
5-False dilemma: it’s a logical fallacy that falsely claims it’s an either/or situation when in fact there is at least one more logically valid option.
For example: you either belief that science explains everything~
or belief that everything is explained by myths and legends (there is a third option, science explains some phenomenon and revelations and logic explains some others. While there are still some phenomenon that science can’t explain and the revelations didn’t mention)
6-Argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance): asserts a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
For example: Ibrahim the prophet didn’t exist; we don’t know if there is a proof he existed
For example: Ibrahim the prophet didn’t exist; we don’t know if there is a proof he existed
7- Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion): is a logical fallacy which consists in apparently refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted.
For example: most of the terrorism lately has been by religious people –as western media claims-
For example: most of the terrorism lately has been by religious people –as western media claims-
so therefore there can’t be peace without fighting religion.
8- Begging the question: it’s a fallacy when the premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning.
For example, the world is matter only, therefore believing~
8- Begging the question: it’s a fallacy when the premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning.
For example, the world is matter only, therefore believing~
in a god outside of matter is absurd.
9-Shifting the burden of proof: the 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.
9-Shifting the burden of proof: the 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.
For example, every organism came to existence by chance, so a creationist has to prove that a creator created them.
10-Special pleading fallacy: it’s a fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle. This is the application of a double standard.
For example, there is no free will in the universe, everything is ruled by the laws of matter except humans,
For example, there is no free will in the universe, everything is ruled by the laws of matter except humans,
they have brains to go against those laws.
11-Red herring fallacy: this fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. Or things totally irrelevant.
11-Red herring fallacy: this fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. Or things totally irrelevant.
For example, there is no god, religious people are all terrorists and violent.
12-Ad Hominem fallacy: you attack the person’s character or personal traits instead of their arguments in an attempt to undermine their argument.
12-Ad Hominem fallacy: you attack the person’s character or personal traits instead of their arguments in an attempt to undermine their argument.
For example: Muslims are backwards economically so them talking about a human renaissance is worthless.
13-Poisoning the well: it’s a part of ad hominem where you spread irrelevant information about the person you are arguing instead of his argument.
13-Poisoning the well: it’s a part of ad hominem where you spread irrelevant information about the person you are arguing instead of his argument.
For example: supporters of intelligent design in America are chrisitians who believe in the myths in bible, therefore their arguments are all myths and irrelevant.
14-Contextomy fallacy: fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
For example: taking an ayah about fighting from the Quran to show how islam calls to violence to prove it’s false.
For example: taking an ayah about fighting from the Quran to show how islam calls to violence to prove it’s false.
15-plurium interrogationum fallacy: a question that has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked
For example, you are an intelligent person. So why do you accept the existence of god when there are no proofs for it? (The question here presupposes that there are no proofs for god’s existence)
16-False analogy fallacy: It states that since Item A and Item B both have Quality X in common, they must also have Quality Y in common.
For example: religious books are against science, don’t you see that the bible had many mistakes in it? People ended following science~
For example: religious books are against science, don’t you see that the bible had many mistakes in it? People ended following science~
~instead of the bible! (the assumption that all religious books are wrong like the bible)
17-Fallacy of reification: a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing.
For example, nothingness can cause the universe to exist out of nothing.
{END}
source: book proofs of Allah by @DrSamiAmeri
{END}
source: book proofs of Allah by @DrSamiAmeri
Loading suggestions...