New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining

[Edwardo Piet]

Is there any particular logical fallacy or theistic argument you guys would like me to tackle next in a video?

The equivocation fallacy is my favorite fallacy of all to spot.

People saying shit like "To atheists, emotions are not from God. Therefore, to atheists, emotions are merely "all in your head", "all in your head" means they are imaginary, "imaginary" means they are not real, "not real" means they don't exist. So if you're an atheist you are saying you can't have emotions. But you do have emotions, so your emotions must be real, they must come from God and not simply be brain chemistry".

Equivocating fuckwits. I actually had this argument made to me by a highly intelligent theist who used to be on these forums called Arcanus/Ryft, I'm paraphrasing him.

He was a very good debater and got major kudos despite his fallacious reasoning. He was very logical (although clearly not in all cases!!!) and in many ways I'd say he was much more intelligent than myself... or at least more well read. I couldn't say he was necessarily smarter than Evie The Turtle. I just don't read as much as I should. I'd say my father has trouble grasping some concepts that I can grasp and yet he has two first class honors degrees and an IQ of 154... I'm just lazy and uneducated and I have no fucking excuse.

Most things just simply bore me unfortunately. Very under-stimulating.

And I'm pretty sure my mom's IQ is at least 160.

* Edwardo Piet has finished humble bragging.

But seriously I have no proof that I'm actually that intelligent.

But anyway, boy was that fallacious. I think many couldn't spot the fallacy despite not agreeing with him, and that's the trouble:

I wanted to not just doubt the error in reasoning, but point out exactly what the error was. Thankfully I think I would do it much more eloquently now, although I still spot it back then.

What Bertrand Russell said about the ontological argument, applies to an awful lot of logical fallacies before we get to spot them properly:

[...]it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.

I feel like I've become an expert in spotting exactly where the fallacy lies when it comes to the equivocation fallacy.

Reading from a big all in one dictionary+thesaurus combo every day for 8 months certainly helped, reading all the different senses and meanings of the same words. Really ramming it home--oo err lol--the fact that any word can be used to mean several things, so constructing an argument where the same word is used in different senses needs to seriously be spotted and discarded.

So anyway,"real" as in "not imaginary" is very different to real as in "not there/present/not existent". The imagination exists in the sense it is present in our brain and our brain is very real, as is our mind. I would say the imagination exists but is only real in one sense. There is "real" in the sense of "existent" and "real" in the sense of "not imaginary". Different.

I would fucking love it if you did the equivocation fallacy, I used to hate it when people used it so I became an expert at spotting it.

It's also used for people to pretend mental illness isn't anything serious. When they say "it's all in your head". I would always say, "Yes, it is in my head. Literally. My brain chemistry is very real." - all the while whilst feeling like telling them to go fuck themselves for making out that mental illness didn't exist simply because they were equivocating bastards.

I'd really love it if you did the equivocation fallacy and why it's a fallacy, Rob.