Well, I got this idea from Angelus, actually. Kudos to her for inspiring me to do this.
I'm going to make a list of debate fallacies for the Religious Debate section. Why? Because I am noticing some fallacies. Due to privacy matters, I will not use actual quotes from the threads, but I will provide you with imaginary examples. THESE ARE NOT REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES! Chances are, the people I am using in the examples have not done this!
I am asking that this thread be left open for now, so that others may bring in more fallacies or add on/argue the current ones.
This is easily one of, if not the, most common fallacy in religion. Circular logic is using a fact to explain itself. For Example:
Originally Posted by Hera LedroThis is an example of circular logic. Basically what Angelus says here, X cannot equal Y because it is X. There must be proof and fact behind it, not just the existence. A more appropriate example would be:Originally Posted by Angelus-Mortis
Originally Posted by Tedius ZanarukandoOriginally Posted by Booger
Hitting the Strawman
Hitting the Strawman is attacking the points of someone's argument rather than the argument itself. By attacking the evidence itself, you are not debating what the argument is, and instead going off on an irrellevent tangent.
Originally Posted by Hera LedroOriginally Posted by OverFjellAs you can see here, OFJ is knocking down my example instead of the argument. A better strategy would have been to place an alternate example that argued my main statement.Originally Posted by Hera Ledro
Flamatory Fighting/Ad Hominem
Basically, Ad Hominem (Flamatory Fighting was a term I invented xD) is proceeding to knock down your opponent instead of the argument. For example:
Originally Posted by BoogerHere, Z is not contributing anything to the Debate-at-hand. He's simply knocking down Booger's grammar (horrible as it was in the example) without arguing her point: if the Bible is such a holy and great book, why is its main character, YHWH, such an ass to people?Originally Posted by Z
The Red Herring
Basically, going off-topic. A Red Herring is a statement that has the potential to derail the topic (often does), and contributes nothing to the argument. For example:
Originally Posted by Hera LedroOriginally Posted by Mitsuki
Thanks to Angelus for this fallacy. This is a fallacy that is denying logical syllogisms. For example:
Originally Posted by MitsukiHere, Mitsuki overlooked the logic that there are other denominations of Christianity different from Protestantism. This is an example of non-sequitur.Originally Posted by Booger
Appeal to Authority
This is using authority figures to support your argument. Usually, this would be fine, unless you have no idea what it is these figures are really saying or doing with their evidence. Basically, you are taking an authority's views, and relating them to your own, without a single scrap or clue as to whether that argument really supports your own or not.
Once again, thanks go to Angelus. This is a fallacy in which you use someone's argument, but you don't really read it or understand it. Hence, you copy it and paste it, without really looking it over.
Thanks go to Mitsuki. This is when you take somebody's points, and take it completely out of proportion. Blowing things up to be uber-large conspiracies (yes, uber is a word) is one such idea. By blowing something up, you completely discredit your own reliability.
This is taking an argument and applying it to a larger population or sample than needed. For example:
Originally Posted by BoogerI think the example speaks for itself. This won't discredit you, but it will withdraw reliability and validity from your argument.Originally Posted by Mitsuki
Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc
This is taking a situation and saying, without any evidence, that it happens because of a previous situation. For example, if I were to say "The sky is blue because it rained this morning," the syntax is sound: rain is conceived to be blue. However, logically, rain does not cause the sky to be blue, but rather chemicals in the atmosphere that reflect certain wavelengths of sunlight.
To paraphrase Wikipedia, post hoc is when A happens before B, and we assume that B happens because of A.
Appeal to Probablity
Just because something might happen, it doesn't mean that it WILL happen. This is the Appeal to Probability. If I were to assume that, because there is a 10% chance of me rolling a 10 on a 10-sided die I will inevitably roll a 10, that would be the Appeal to Probability. This is not logical, as probability in and of itself simply states the odds. Odds, by definition, are uncertainties, and so we cannot be certain that an uncertainty will happen.
I have more, but I am tired, and I must go to bed. I also want to let others have a crack at contributing