After much debate, I have decided not to include the link to the site from which the fallacy was taken. My reasoning is that by choosing primarily attacks against my own position so that I can't be accused of attacking other positions, my examples are biased in a way that some might erroneously think was intended to make another position look foolish. Note: as a matter of principle, I do not approve of public humiliation so I will not include any examples from the forums.
[quote]
Forgiveness of sins and eternal life is not an assumption, but a promise of God (1 John 5:1, 13).
In the context of argumentation/logic, any statement that is accepted by both sides rather than proved logically is an assumption (presupposition). The statement is both an assumption and a promise of God. This is a classic case of a false dichotomy.
[quote]
Observe that in their private thoughts the scribes accused Jesus of blasphemy, since He claimed to forgive the man of his sins on the spot—an act that only Deity could rightly perform. By asking the question, “Which is easier…?,” Jesus was urging them to reason correctly and think through what was taking place. If Jesus had the power to cause a bedfast paralytic to stand up and walk, instantaneously healing him of his affliction, then He either had divine backing or He, Himself, was God. Anyone can verbally say, “Your sins are forgiven” (cf. Catholic priests).
This is a great example of multiple fallacies packed into the last few words.
- "(cf. Catholic priests) is completely outside the topic "Jesus Used Logic" and there is no other mention of them or their theology in the article - a fallacy of relevance
- The addition of the phrase defeats their own purpose - they are trying to prove a universal "anyone" for which they give only a very specific and limited example. Think of this equivalent statement: "Anyone can verbally say, "You' out" (cf. baseball umpires).
- The mention of priests intentionally misrepresents the Catholic position by implying that it contradicts the premise that only a Deity could rightly forgive sins - a premise that both the Jews present at the miracle and Catholics agree on. Misrepresenting another's position is usually a straw man fallacy.
[quote]
Nowhere in the Scriptures does the Scriptures teach praying the Rosary is necessary or sufficient. I'd ask you to provide us with Scriptures, chapter and verse, to show us where we are to pray with rosary beads
Hmmm ... the context of this sentence is a discussion of the relationship between surety of salvation and free will. Once one gets done laughing at the post one has three options:
- reject the statement as a poorly formed question as it has a false presupposition or as an abuse against relevance
- decide to have some fun going down a rabbit hole of the rosary being a form of prayer and the nowhere does the Scripture teach that prayer is necessary or sufficient. Therefore, the original statement should be expressed in a more general manner.
- be nasty and increase the danger that the discussion will become a quarrel by challenging them to find anything, anywhere that implies the Rosary is necessary let alone sufficient and calling them an idjit for suggesting such tripe. (idjit is a form of idiot implying endearment ... you may be an idjit but you're my idjit.)
Okay, in a reasonable discussion only the first option counts ...
[quote]
Rejecting God's salvation and trusting partly in self is not humble at all but the definition of pride.
This is in the context of the false dichotomy of the faith vs. works arguments. In this classic argument both sides usually believe in the faith/gratuitous gift side but one side requires evidence through works and the other does not. For an analogy think of the getting burned instead of salvation. Both sides agree that putting you hand in/on/near something that is hot will burn you. Let's say the threshold is somewhere a bit under 140 F. One side insists on mentioning open fire, red hot metal ...as signs of something that is hot. The actual theological dichotomy is usually faith vs. faith accompanied by signs of faith.
In addition to the false dichotomy the "trusting partly in self" is another friendly straw man - a misrepresentation of the position of the other side.
"Definition of pride" is best taken as a figure of speech. To object that it is not a literal definition would be a deliberate misreading of the author's intent. It violates the argumentation rule that where you must fill in the gaps or make an interpretative decision, you give the author the benefit of the doubt and show their argument in the best light possible. This saves you time - you debate the best argument not an endless string of mildly faulty ones which are then correct for you to dispose of again.
[quote]
You clearly don't no matter how much you protest otherwise. Your doctrine explicitly denies it. Your belief is an abomination to God
Hmmm ... if you fail to understand the other's position rant and rave rather than listen. If the opponent is protesting that you are missing the point, misrepresenting their position, etc. you have no standing to reject their protest. you have two options:
- You may reject one or more of the premises and be prepared to justify that rejection.
- You may ask a question of clarification of premises or reasoning
Argumentation is most often encountered in dialogue and can be described well as a game with specific rules. You can have a foul called on you when you break these rules. This is generally true of dialogue for example:
P1: Are those elk by the water edge?
P2: Wheat is the common grain for flour here.
Obviously P2 violates the rule of relevance, fails to answer a direct question ...
All of these examples were taken from writings where it is reasonable to think that the author thought they were being reasonable. I hope that you had a bit of fun chuckling and can recognize the error of their ways. I also hope that it awakens in you a bit of a desire not to write the sort of thing, I can draw such examples from.
