logical falacies as applied to God

how did you get there from my comment..? just because i mention the bible does not mean i am invalidating other texts..
..Incomplete comparison fallacy: where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison..

i have never said to not read koran or bhagavad-gita..

actually i have tried to get other users to help teach what is is there..(see Chi's thread) and i have said that there is value in those texts..

For you Arioch:
Kettle logic: using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.

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

Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy): when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.(yes my arguments are not perfect.)

Red herring: a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to. (making it about me)

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

Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position (you often do this.)

and in fairness, found a couple i know i do alot..

Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.

Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You did say:

"The best" is a superlative.
If you state that X is superlative, that automatically implies that all others are inferior.

Now go and read some introductions to the topic of logical fallacies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are reading more into what i said than what i said..(even after i explained it..)
i am too tired to look up the fallacy for that, something about intentional misinterpretation(taking what i said out of context)...(anyway, i think i am at the end of my fallacy kick anyway..its getting old..)

did you notice i included myself in there?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I just read what you said, and then furthered the discussion by addressing the strongest counterpoint to your assertion.
This is how it is usually done.

I suggested that you read some introductions to the topic of logical fallacies. You seem to lack the context for them.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

 

@NM --

Really? Where do I engage in those fallacies? Because I looked over my posts again and didn't spot a single one, care to cite some examples?

 

blind spot..and no i do not want to show you, you have no desire to know, just to argue.

 

hehe..you don't like others getting the last word, do you?

from the last link;
'Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people.'

i think you tend to the former.
but bring some snips from those, that you think i am missing.

 

@NM --

Anything which can be asserted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence. In other words, put up or shut up.

I gave you evidence that you seem to favor fallacious arguments, you could at least have common courtesy enough to do the same for me because unlike you I actually try to better my arguments.

 

i said what i wanted to say..you just want to argue..i do not want to argue with you.(see list for my reasons.)

you haven't shown me anything but your disdain for me.
you posted some links and i have called you on a few of them and asked you to clarify the others,which you have not done.(and continue to ignore your lie)(do i need to show you again where you lied?)
you ignore/dismiss my points and change the terms of the argument to suit your own means.
I often catch you being guilty of what you accuse me of, and still you ignore my points..this is why i do not want to argue with you or take any of your criticism seriously.

already tried that..you were more interested in being the winner than learning anything..

case in point..you will not hear what i am saying and you will either get defensive about this or you will try to turn this around by pointing out my shortcomings instead of understanding/learning anything.
(ignoring this post is also a possibility,but i think you won't be able to resist..)

the best you could hope for is to keep our interactions to a minimum.

About the only concession i will make is that just maybe we are too much alike to communicate effectively with each other.

 

A few snips cannot make up for not taking a course in informal logic.

My point is that many people when they are new to the understanding of logical fallacies, are a bit rigid; it can seem to them that everything (that seems in any way suspicious) could be a logical fallacy. It can become difficult to discuss with them, as they are not yet skilled in how to further a discussion.

Sometimes, these people become despondent, negative about other people or also about themselves and life in general. This doesn't help to further the discussion either.

A course in informal logic or critical thinking can help though to make one more flexible and skilled in these matters, without being negative.

 

ok..point taken..i was beginning to think that everything can be qualified as a fallacy.

lol..this is me before the fallacy kick..