What do you think is the most widely committed logical fallacy involving a relig

Position:Home>Philosophy> What do you think is the most widely committed logical fallacy involving a relig

Question:

!.!.!.besides the countless strawmen and red herrings, of course, those are used in almost every context!.

My personal favorite is shifting the burden of proof!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Take your pick, there are dozens to choose from!.!.!.!.
http://atheism!.about!.com/library/FAQs/sk!.!.!.
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/List_of_fal!.!.!.

With regards to religious/philosophical arguments, from personal experience I would say the most common fallacy is simply mistaking a _belief_ for a fact or truth!.

BTW to a couple of answerers above, intolerance is not actually a fallacy!. A moral shortcoming perhaps, but not a logical fallacy!. For instance, is it intolerant to reject ideas which are provably and demonstrably incorrect!? I would argue that a necessary part of avoiding logical fallacies is the rejection of plainly wrong ideas!. (Wrong in a logical sense!.) It is acceptance of factually and logically incorrect ideas which directly leads to using them and thus committing a logical fallacy!.

P!.S!. to James (Y): Older versions of the bible are more authentic than newer versions, which have undergone additional editing!. also, each time it is translated into a new language (Aramaic into Latin into Old English into modern English for example), you are introducing new differences in opinion as to how certain passages and specific words should be translated, along with the occasional translation error!. Furthermore, a central tenet of nearly all of xtianity is that the bible is the word of god, so when a critic points out how the xtian god has ordered the genocide of whole cities and societies, you really have no basis for saying "oh that was taken out of context" or "oh that's not _real_ xtianity!." You yourself appear guilty of confusing your beliefs in xtianity and the bible for objective truth!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

As I would see it, before embarking upon any philosophical or religious arguments there is the basic necessity in understanding and agreeing on the terms that are being used!.

We discuss "God" or "Reality" or "Consciousness" etc!., and yet how has it been defined in the first place so that we know what, where, and how we are not agreeing!? Example, who or what is "God" who does this or that!?

To my thinking, this is highly illogical and represents the first mistake made in any discussions!. I'm sure you will agree!.

More can be said about what comes after!. This is just to answer your question!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Qualities:
Intolerance
Closed mindedness
First impressions
Lack of knowledge
Lack of perception
Lack of experience
Lack of empathy
Government

More specific examples:
Arguments against Christianity:
Specific verses taken from old versions of the Bible, pointing out "unGod" qualities that were really just part of the society that lived at the time the verse(s) were written!.
Specific verses taken from teh Bible, seemingly completely unGod like and violent, when really taken out of context or purposefully interpreted the way it's obviously not meant to be
No "proof," bu the problem with that is that the definition of proof is debatable, at least, what people consider proof, also faith/lack of faith backing up/attacking certain examples of proof, and people simply looking to deny any evidence/accept any evidence
Pointing out certain people that are "unChristian" like, ignoring the fact that the Bible itself states that all men are sinfulWww@QuestionHome@Com

I think the bandwagon fallacy!. Of course, the fact that most people in the world believe in God is proof of God's existence does indeed hold up LOL!Www@QuestionHome@Com

Intolerance!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Complete faith in it being the truth!.Www@QuestionHome@Com