Some common logical fallacies used
It’s only usual for atheists to be usually unusually foolish (usually atheistic). So it’s up to Theists to teach atheists about science, logic, and reasoning. After all highly super-religious Theists (who were more religious than all the other scientists that lived during their era) invented classical physics, modern mathematics, the electromagnetic field theory, and the big bang theory.
Atheists and others tend to use laughable weak illogical arguments. I’ll explain slowly how and why they’re illogical with examples to make it easier for atheists to understand.
Here are just three common ones:
- argumentum ad populum – appeal to the population
For some reason some atheists on YouTube really believe that if a comment receives many thumbs up or thumbs down that some how validates or invalidates the comment. The problem with this is that you cannot determine whether or not a statement is true or false by the number of thumbs up or thumbs down it gets. If someone comments “The Sun revolves around the Earth” and get lots of thumbs up it doesn’t prove that statement true.
“This comment got lots of thumbs up, votes, etc….so it must be true”
“No one agrees with you so you must be wrong”
“Everyone agrees with me so I must be right”
“Millions of people believe this, so it must be true”
“He’s the only person in the world who thinks so, so he’s wrong”
“If this really works, then why isn’t everyone doing it?”
The reason why an appeal to the population is illogical is because you cannot determine whether or not a statement is true or false by knowing the amount of people who agree or disagree with the statement. Historically the majority has always been wrong.
- argumentum ad verecundiam – appeal to authority
This argument is always commonly used by many people. You simply cannot show that a statement is true by showing that authority figure says so. What an authority figure believes is irrelevant and does not prove anything.
“Einstein believed this or that, so it must be true”
“Most scientists believe this or that, so it must be true”
“Only someone with a Ph.D. must be right”
“This person with the highest IQ believes this, so it must be true”
“This great physicist or mathematician believed this, so it must be true”
The reason why an appeal to authority is illogical is because you cannot determine whether or not a statement is true or false by knowing which authority figure believes so. An authority figure saying so isn’t by itself evidence of anything. You can’t show that something is true or false by saying someone says so.
- argumentum ad hominem – personal attacks
Probably the most commonly used fallacy. For some reason many people tend to think if someone personally attacks someone that refutes their argument. This occurs when instead of refuting an argument you throw personal attacks. If you throw personal attacks, but refute an argument, then it’s simply name-calling as opposed to an argument ad hominem.
“He’s a troll, an idiot, a fool, a moron”
“He hasn’t written any books, so he’s wrong”
“He doesn’t have any education or authority in this area, so he’s wrong”
“He’s only X years old, so he must be wrong”
The reason why ad hominems are illogical is because throwing personal attacks doesn’t refute any statement. I can’t refute Newton’s theorems by saying “Newton was a crackpot” or anything like that.If you refute an argument by throwing what is perceived to be a personal attack, then it’s not actually an ad hominem. Like for instance if someone claims to have a PhD but research shows that he does not, that is not an ad hominem, because pointing out research showing him not have to a PhD directly refutes his claim of having a PhD.On the other hand if someone proposes a theory or hypothesis and you say “they don’t have a PhD so their theory or hypothesis is wrong” this is an ad hominem because pointing out that they do not have a PhD by itself does nothing to refute their theory or hypothesis.
Some people may say there are exceptions to logical fallacies, but there are not. They are only things mistaken as logical fallacies. There is no such thing as an “exception” to a logical fallacy.
Many things found in logic books are completely wrong and inaccurate, why? Professors aren’t forced to come up with valid reasons to support their assertions.
I hope atheists and others stop using common laughable arguments. It’s just usually unusually annoying (usually).