The 'logical fallacy list'

The 'logical fallacy list' is often touted as a definitive guide to spotting errors in reasoning. However, the list is itself problematic and ultimately useless.

The first issue is that the list is often presented as a set of absolute, unbreakable rules. This is simply not the case – there is no such thing as a perfect, airtight argument. All reasoning is ultimately based on assumptions, and all assumptions are open to challenge.

Second, the list is often used as a convenient way to dismiss arguments without actually engaging with them. This is a fallacious approach, as it allows people to avoid addressing the substance of an argument by simply pointing to a supposed flaw in the reasoning.

Third, and related to the previous point, the list is often used to shortcut critical thinking. It is much easier to simply memorize a list of fallacies than it is to carefully analyze an argument and its premises. This is a dangerous approach, as it leads to lazy thinking and oversimplification.

Ultimately, the 'logical fallacy list' is more trouble than it's worth. It is a oversimplified, reductionist approach to reasoning that does more harm than good.

When atheists are debating theists, they often appeal to a list of so-called logical fallacies. This list includes such things as 'ad hominem' (attacking the person rather than the argument), 'slippery slope' (assuming that one thing will lead to another without any evidence), and 'straw man' (distorting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack).

It is easy to see why atheists would find this list useful. After all, if they can convince their opponents that they are committing one of these fallacies, then they can win the argument by default. However, there is a problem with this approach: the list of logical fallacies is itself a fallacy.

The first problem with the list is that it is not actually a list of fallacies. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. A logical fallacy is an error in logic. However, many of the items on the list are not fallacies at all. For example, 'ad hominem' is not a fallacy if the person's character is relevant to the argument. For example, if someone is arguing that we should not trust what Bill Cosby says about rape because he has been accused of rape himself, then that is not an ad hominem argument. It is a relevant fact.

The second problem with the list is that it is not comprehensive. There are many other fallacies that are not on the list. For example, the 'false dilemma' fallacy is not on the list, but it is a very common fallacy. This happens when someone presents two options as if they are the only options, when in reality there are other options. For example, someone might say 'You either support Trump or you hate America.' This is a false dilemma, because there are other options (such as not supporting Trump but still loving America).

The third problem with the list is that it is often used to shut down legitimate debate. For example, if I am debating with an atheist and I use the 'ad hominem' fallacy, they can just accuse me of committing a fallacy and then they don't have to actually engage with my argument. This is not fair.

The fourth problem with the list is that it is often used incorrectly. For example, someone might say 'You're using a straw man argument!' when in reality I am not.

So what should we do about the list of logical fallacies? We should stop using it. It is a fallacious list that does not help in productive debates.

There's a popular saying that goes 'There are three types of people in the world: those who can count and those who can't.' And apparently, a lot of people fall into the latter category when it comes to logical fallacies. A quick Google search for 'logical fallacy list' yields over 8 million results. And a search for 'logical fallacy examples' yields over 16 million results. That's a lot of interest in a topic that, frankly, isn't all that interesting.

But what IS interesting is the fact that so many people seem to think that these lists of logical fallacies are somehow authoritative. They're not. In fact, they're often just lists of arbitrary 'rules' that someone made up. And that's the problem with a lot of these lists: they're usually just someone's opinion about what does and does not constitute a logical fallacy.

Now, don't get me wrong: there are some general principles that can be useful in identifying fallacious arguments. But the problem is that these lists often take these general principles and turn them into hard-and-fast rules. And that's where the trouble starts.

Take, for example, the 'ad hominem' fallacy. This is the fallacy of attacking an opponent's character instead of engaging with their argument. And this is a perfectly valid form of argument to point out. But the problem is that, all too often, the ad hominem is treated as if it is always fallacious.

But that's simply not the case. There are plenty of times when an opponent's character IS relevant to the argument. For example, if someone is making an argument that you should vote for a particular candidate, and they point out that the candidate is a convicted felon, that's not an ad hominem fallacy. The person's character IS relevant to the argument.

The same is true of the 'straw man' fallacy. This is the fallacy of misrepresenting an opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack. And, again, this is a perfectly valid form of argument to point out. But the problem is that, all too often, the straw man is treated as if it is always fallacious.

But that's simply not the case. There are plenty of times when an opponent's argument HAS been misrepresented. For example, if someone is making an argument that we should raise taxes on the wealthy, and their opponent responds by saying that they're just advocating for class warfare, that's a straw man fallacy. The person's argument has been misrepresented in order to make it easier to attack.

The bottom line is that these lists of logical fallacies are often more fallacious than the arguments they're supposed to be identifying. So, the next time you see one of these lists, take it with a grain of salt. And, if you're looking for a more accurate guide to identifying fallacious arguments, try checking out some actual philosophy books.

The so-called 'logical fallacy list' is nothing more than a ten commandments for atheists masquerading as a guide to good reasoning. The fallacies it purports to identify are, in fact, nothing more than atheistic assumptions masquerading as objective truth. It is, therefore, nothing more than a tool to be used by atheists in order to attack the reasoning of theists.

The most glaring problem with the 'logical fallacy list' is that it confuses the issue of whether or not a given statement is true with the issue of whether or not the statement is logically sound. This is a fundamental error. Just because a statement is true does not mean that it is logically sound. For example, the statement 'All men are mortal' is true, but it is not logically sound because it is based on the false premise that all men are human. By the same token, just because a statement is false does not mean that it is logically unsound. The statement 'All men are immortal' is false, but it is logically sound because it is based on the true premise that all men are human.

The 'logical fallacy list' also confuses the issue of whether or not a given statement is based on an objective truth with the issue of whether or not the statement is based on a subjective belief. This, too, is a fundamental error. Just because a statement is based on an objective truth does not mean that it is logically sound. For example, the statement 'God exists' is based on the objective truth that there is something rather than nothing, but it is not logically sound because it is based on the false premise that the something that exists is God. By the same token, just because a statement is based on a subjective belief does not mean that it is logically unsound. The statement 'There is no God' is based on the subjective belief that there is no God, but it is logically sound because it is based on the true premise that there is something rather than nothing.

The 'logical fallacy list' is, therefore, nothing more than a ten commandments for atheists. It is based on false premises, confuses important concepts, and is nothing more than a tool to be used by atheists in order to attack the reasoning of theists.

There are many logical fallacies that can be committed in debates or arguments. Some of these fallacies are more commonly committed by atheists, and so a common criticism leveled against atheism is that atheists are more prone to committing logical fallacies. The most common fallacies committed by atheists, according to the so-called 'logical fallacy list', are the following:

1. Appeal to authority

2. Appeal to emotion

3. Appeal to tradition

4. Begging the question

5. Black-and-white thinking

6. Cherry-picking

7. Double standards

8. Faulty generalizations

9. Hasty conclusions

10. Hypocrisy

Atheists often commit the fallacy of appeal to authority by appealing to scientists or other experts when arguing that religious claims are false. However, just because an expert believes something does not make it true. In fact, scientists have been wrong about many things in the past, and will continue to be wrong about many things in the future.

Atheists also often commit the fallacy of appeal to emotion. This is when someone attempts to win an argument by stirring up emotions rather than using reason. For example, an atheist might say 'Religion is responsible for all of the wars in history!' in an attempt to make the listener feel angry at religion, rather than actually providing any evidence to support the claim.

Atheists also sometimes appeal to tradition when arguing against religious claims. For example, an atheist might say ' Humanity has always been evolving, and religion is just a holdover from our primitive ancestors.' However, just because something is traditional does not make it true.

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when someone assumes that the thing they are trying to prove is true. For example, an atheist might say 'There is no God because the Bible says so.' This is a fallacy because the atheist is assuming that the Bible is true in order to prove that there is no God.

Another fallacy that atheists often commit is black-and-white thinking. This is when someone oversimplifies a complex issue into two opposed camps, without considering any shades of grey in between. For example, an atheist might say 'You're either with us or against us. If you believe in God, then you're obviously against us atheists.' This is a fallacy because it assume that there is no middle ground between atheism and theism.

Atheists also sometimes commit the fallacy of cherry-picking. This is when someone only accepts evidence that supports their position, while ignoring any evidence that goes against it. For example, an atheist might say 'There is no God because the Bible has many contradictions in it.' However, the atheist is cherry-picking here, because they are ignoring all of the parts of the Bible that do not have contradictions.

Atheists also sometimes commit the fallacy of double standards. This is when someone holds different standards for different people or groups. For example, an atheist might say 'Theists are gullible because they believe in miracles, but atheists are not gullible because we only believe in things that can be scientifically proven.' This is a fallacy because it is not logically consistent to hold different standards for different groups of people.

Atheists also sometimes commit the fallacy of faulty generalizations. This is when someone draws a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. For example, an atheist might say 'All religions are stupid because they all teach conflicting things.' However, this is a fallacy because it is based on the false assumption that all religions teach conflicting things.

Atheists also sometimes commit the fallacy of hasty conclusions. This is when someone draws a conclusion without considering all of the evidence. For example, an atheist might say 'There is no God because we haven't seen any evidence of him.' However, this is a fallacy because the atheist has not considered all of the evidence, such as the many testimonies of religious experiences.

Lastly, atheists also sometimes commit the fallacy of hypocrisy. This is when someone says one thing but does another. For example, an atheist might say 'You can't trust the Bible because it was written by men.' However, this is hypocritical because the atheist is also trusting the testimony of men when they say that the Bible is false.

In conclusion, the so-called 'logical fallacy list' is itself a fallacy. This is because it oversimplifies the issue, and it does not consider all of the evidence.