RE: Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?
April 14, 2014 at 11:57 am
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2014 at 11:58 am by archangle.)
(April 10, 2014 at 3:04 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: 1. (Shifting the) Burden of Proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. Even a negative claim that they want refuted.
2. Argument from Ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – Assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa. Or, something is so complex it must be designed.
3. Moving the Goalposts (raising the bar) – Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
4. Red Herrings – A speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to. And there are many many many Red Herrings that people use. It may be the most frustrating.
5. Cherry Picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – The act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
6. Straw Man – Possibly the most annoying. It's a Red Herring where an argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
7. Poisoning the Well – A type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. Religious people love doing this to Darwin etc.
Well, those are some of the most frustrating and common ones I hear. If you're not big on fallacies go to the wiki page here and pick your favs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
lmao the old "I don't have to prove my claim."
total bs. Making a claim is not the same as "proving a null". Most 100% IQ-er atheist don't understand that one either. It seems to me a dope is a dope regardless of belief.
You have to have good information to support a claim. what ever that claim may be. But since when are dope heads helds to that anyway.
