Most frustrating Fallacies that Religious people bring up?

[DeistPaladin]

Here's a fallacy I've used. I don't know which it is.

If part of your brain is deactivated, you lose some of your mental capacities.
Therefore, if your entire brain is deactivated, you lose all of your mental capacities.

I think that's the slippery slope fallacy, that assumption when A happens then B will necessarily follow, without having done the research to properly conclude A leads to B.

A famous and fairly recent example was when the fundies were arguing against gay marriage, saying, "if we allow that, next we'll be allowing incest and beastiality and underage marriage, etc."

[John V]

I think that's the slippery slope fallacy, that assumption when A happens then B will necessarily follow, without having done the research to properly conclude A leads to B.

A famous and fairly recent example was when the fundies were arguing against gay marriage, saying, "if we allow that, next we'll be allowing incest and beastiality and underage marriage, etc."

Another recent example was Bill Nye arguing that a rejection of evolution will lead to losses in all sciences.

[Chas]

I think that's the slippery slope fallacy, that assumption when A happens then B will necessarily follow, without having done the research to properly conclude A leads to B.

A famous and fairly recent example was when the fundies were arguing against gay marriage, saying, "if we allow that, next we'll be allowing incest and beastiality and underage marriage, etc."

Another recent example was Bill Nye arguing that a rejection of evolution will lead to losses in all sciences.

Except for the fact that he is correct.

Denial of the truth of evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence makes a mockery of the scientific method, thus damaging to all science.

[archangle]

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.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Reject evolution and you reject biology, medicine, and as mentioned above, the scientific method itself. Science does not allow for "I don't believe it, therefore it's not true"

[DeistPaladin]

I think that's the slippery slope fallacy, that assumption when A happens then B will necessarily follow, without having done the research to properly conclude A leads to B.

A famous and fairly recent example was when the fundies were arguing against gay marriage, saying, "if we allow that, next we'll be allowing incest and beastiality and underage marriage, etc."

Another recent example was Bill Nye arguing that a rejection of evolution will lead to losses in all sciences.

I bolded the parts of the definition of "slippery slope" to help out with where you got confused. The identification of this fallacy is not to say cause and effect can't ever be linked. It's the assumption of inevitability without any cause to think so.

[John V]

I bolded the parts of the definition of "slippery slope" to help out with where you got confused. The identification of this fallacy is not to say cause and effect can't ever be linked. It's the assumption of inevitability without any cause to think so.

I bolded what Bill Nye did.

[Esquilax]

Another recent example was Bill Nye arguing that a rejection of evolution will lead to losses in all sciences.

Except that it literally will: aside from the demonstrably negative effects rejecting evolution would have in medical and biological sciences, this idea that you can reject those facts that you don't like is poison to the scientific method. It's a big heaping helping of all the biases that mainstream science strives so hard to remove from its processes.

[DeistPaladin]

I bolded what Bill Nye did.

No, he really didn't.

I know this is hard for Creationists to accept but a biologist who rejects evolution is like a medical doctor who rejects germ theory. Germ theory is so interwoven into much of how medical science is currently practiced that a lot of it would make no sense if it turned out germ theory was false. Evolution is the same way with biology, from taxonomy to our studies of DNA so much of what we know is founded upon it.

If germ theory were proven false tomorrow, we'd have to account for why it worked so well in producing cures and preventing the spread of disease. It's mind-boggling to think of how it would even be possible. Now imagine the same for evolution. Not only would much of our understanding of biology need to be thrown out, we'd have to explain why it was so effective in both explaining and predicting the diversity of life.

So if you understand why a doctor who rejects germ theory is not off to a good start in his/her medical career, I hope you understand why a biologist who rejects evolution has a similar problem. Biology is a pretty big field in science. I suppose it's possible to study some other field without touching on biology but taking biology out leaves a pretty big hole in our education.