List of Fallacies

Logic is the study of reason, and there are correct and incorrect ways of reasoning. 

In today's world, we are constantly bombarded with logical fallacies, which may initially seem appropriate, but the reasoning is false.  These exposures come from advertising, news, politicians, atheists, theists, college professors, and other sources. Everyone thinks they know logic, but few people can define, 

Premise 1: Governor So and So is a liar

Premise 2: Governor So and So is always talking to people 

Therefore, Governor So and So is a liar

The first step in evaluating an argument is to determine if the conclusion flows from the premises or is inferred by them: it does. Excellent, but are the premises valid? Premise 1 might be accurate, but it attacks a person with minimal information. This is called an ad hominem attack fallacy and may be based on emotions. Premise 2 is probably valid. Regardless, the problem is that the conclusion is included in the premise, which is called circular reasoning or begging the question which is a fallacy.

It is not always easy to spot fallacies. The writer of the article about the cause of climate change is skilled at deceiving readers. His book "A Manual For Creating Atheists" is so impressive that I label him the fallacious-minded professor. It is meant to deceive people and bring about their deconversion. 

Can you "spot the not-good reasoning?" Remember, this man has a doctorate and hopefully has the best interests of students in mind; after all, he is paid well to prepare students for life. He used to be well-loved by his students who joyfully attended his after-school talks. They enjoy how he skillfully deceives believers, and his favorite topic is the word faith. He frequently says faith is "pretending to know things you don't know. Below is a quote from his book "A Manual For Creating Atheists." on page 36.

 " 3. Hebrews 11 defines faith: Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence (elenchus) of things not seen. What is interesting is the use of the term 'elenchus' in this passage.

"Elenchus in Homer (8th century) is variously: to put to shame, to treat with contempt, to question with the aim of disproving, with the aim of censure, accusation, to accuse someone and perhaps to convict them –oftentimes in uses we are superior officers dress down rank-and file-soldiers. In courts of law, the term is also used: to bring charges, to bring accusations, but also to bring proofs, evidence, to offer convincing proofs. Pre-Socrates, like Parmenides (early 5th century), uses it as Socrates does: an argument, scrutiny, cross-examination for the purpose of refutation or disproof.

 In Koine, the verb elencho is "I accuse, rebuke, reprove" and also "I expose, I showed it be guilty, I prove" (in the same sense of putting the lie to a public statement), it's in John 3:20, first Corinthians 14:24, Ephesians 5: 11, 13; James 2:9. Souter's Lexicon of the New Testament lists elenchus as "proof, possibly a persuasion" (Souter 1917). The evidence points to a straightforward fact: in the Apostolic Age, the word elenchus expanded in an important new context to take on the sense that is on the stage in Hebrews 11, that is, in a new way. They advocated, practiced, and helped make a success of using the word elenchus. Socrates used this term to indicate a rigorous process of argumentation or persuasion, or some other species of willing and satisfied affirmation - without argument - without going through the Socratic process of rigorous argumentation."

Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination. The anonymous author of Hebrews writes. instead, that faith is the substance of things hoped, for, and the conviction (elencus) or persuasion of things not seen. If Socrates were to hear this phrase, I imagine he would say, ", this may be conviction, But it is not an argument, not a cross examination and testify scrutiny, but is a jump without any justification – without proof, and without earning it. Where is the virtue in this?"

Perhaps it's me, but when I read this for the first time, I was unaware of logical fallacies and had to read it several times to understand. Unfortunately, I  didn't understand. I thought, is this gibberish? Of course not; the man has a doctorate. 

Gibberish 

Premise 1: Having faith makes no sense.

Premise 2: An incoherent history of a word, other than faith, including its' different meanings, in different languages, and in different settings. 

Therefore having faith is rediculous

Perhaps it's me, but why use the meaning of a word as it was used 2,800 years ago. 

Etymological fallacy

Premise 1: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." is foolish.

Premise 2:  The meaning of a word, other than faith, had a different meaning 2800 years ago.

Therefore: Faith means I accuse, rebuke, reprove" and also "I expose, I showed it be guilty, I prove" 

If the topic is faith, why does he spend so much time on the Greek word Elenchus? Why the 2800-year history of the word, and should I care about Socrates and Parmenides? Why can't I find the word elencho anywhere? I didn't know why I needed to know Socrates philosophical beliefs to understand how silly the word faith was.

to bring charges, to bring accusations, but also to bring proofs, evidence, to offer convincing proofs.

Perhaps it's me, but I got distracted trying to figure out Greek, Koine, elenchus, and the mystery word echo. I didn't know about the red herring fallacy. In past times, during fox hunts, someone would drag the fish over the path between the fox, the horse, and the rider. Untrained dogs started chasing the fish and not the fox. Oh well.

Perhaps it's me, but I didn't think I needed to know about Socrates and Parmenides and their beliefs. I didn't know the argument from the age fallacy. Although not accurate, you are supposed to believe that someone who really, really lived a long time ago, never changed his clothes or took baths, was incredibly wise. Not exactly, Perhaps he was, but I've never heard of Socrates Jr.

Perhaps it's me. but I don't know why our fallacious- minded professor mentions John 3: 20; 1 elenchthē Corrinthians 14:24;   elenchetai        Ephesians 5:11   elenchete      ; James 2: 9. elenchomenoi. Oops no elencho. None of them have anything to do with faith. This is a bait and switch fallacy. It is reasonable to think he is talking about faith. Not exactly.

Perhaps it's me, but I think the pretending professor is pretending to not be pretending when he wildly quesses what Socrates would say. He displays a lot of faith in something he apparently knows nothing about. Had he looked for evidence, he could of read Platos beliefs about God during the trial at the end of his life.  Had the professor read Plato, The Apolpogy of Socrates (33c)

"Athenians, the whole truth [alēthēs] about this: they like to hear the cross-examination of the pretenders to wisdom [sophiā]; there is amusement in this. And this is a duty which the god has imposed upon me, as I am assured by oracles [manteia], visions, and in every sort of way in which the will of divine power was ever signified to anyone". 

Perhaps it's me, but why a 2800 year history of a word. The greek word elenchus used to mean

Perhaps it me, but I'm not surprised that verses in the Bible that are not about faith are different from verses that are about faith.

Perhaps it's me,  ut I can't find the word elencho anywhere; search for it yourself. Now, there is a different Koine Greek word that means "I expose, I showed it to be guilty, I prove." I must give the fallacious-minded professor credit; I have to giveI'm convinced that different words have different meani gs: learn something new every day. 

Ephesians 511, 13; James 2:9. Souter's Lexicon of the New Testament lists elenchus as "proof, possibly a persuasion" (Souter 1917). The evidence points to a straightforward fact: in the apostolic age, the word elenchus expanded in an important new context to take on the sense that is on the stage in Hebrews 11, that is, in a new way. 

Socrates used this term to indicate   rigorous process of argumentation based on the strict application of logic. In the new sense, elenchus is used as conviction, persuasion, or some other species of willing and satisfied affirmation—without argument—without going through the Socratic process of rigorous argumentation.

Perhaps it;s me, but why does he use Souter's Lexicon of the New Testament (1917). Darn, I left mine at home on top of the kitchen table; I normally carry it with me. If I had it would 

'Now for the piece of resistance: Souter's Lexicon 1917 edition of the New Testament. Just what is "expanded new way" 

Did you notice the bait and switch of the  ord elencho. Perhaps it is me, but I can't find the word anywhere. Really?

Socrates ear ed the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination. The anonymous author of Hebrews argues instead that faith is the assurance of things hoped  or and the conviction or persuasion (elenchus) of things not seen. If Socrates were to hear this phrase, I imagine he would say, "This may be conviction, but it is not an argument, not a cross-examination and test by scrutiny, but cross-examinationa jum  without any justification, without proof, and without earni g it. Wh re is the virtue in this?"

Alrighty,  hen, I'm confused. Are you? What is the meaning of the word faith? Below I point out the fallacies used to hurt Christianity.

Recognizing fallacies is not easy when someone will do anything to deceive or persuade another person. Of course, this is prevalent inside a political arena and when trying to stamp out Christianity. I believe the Atheist Peter Boghhosian is one of the best at using fallacies, and he is the one who introduced them to me—that was not his intention. I break down his writing and respond to parts of it one at a time.

Hebrews 11 defines Faith, "our faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence (elenchus) of things not seen. What is interesting is the use of the term elenchus in this passage.

"Elenchus" in Homer (8th Century) is variously: to put to shame, to treat with contempt, to question with the aim of this proving, with the aim of censure, accusations, to accuse someone and perhaps to convict him-often times and uses. Where is superior officers dressdown rank and file soldiers. In courts of law the term is also used: to bring charges, to bring accusations, but also didn't bring approves, evidence, to offer convincing proofs. Pre-Socrates, like Parmenides(early 5th century) use it as Socrates does: as argument, scrutiny, cross-examination, for the purpose of refutation or disproof.

Boghossian states:' In Koine, the verb elencho is "I accuse, rebuke, reprove" and also "I expose, I show it be guilty, I prove" (in the same sense of putting the lie to a public statement), it's in John 3:20, first Corinthians 14:24, Ephesians 511, 13; Ja es 2:9. Souter's lexicon of the new testament lists elenchus as "proof, possibly a persuasion" (Souter  917). The evidence points to a straightforward fact: in the apostolic age, the word elenchus expands in an important new context to take on the sense that is on the stage in Hebrews 11, that is, in a new way. Socrates uses this term to indicate a rigorous argumentation process by strictly applying logic. In the new sense, elenchus is used as conviction, persuasion, or some other species of willing and satisfied affirmation without argument – without going through the Socratic process of rigorous argumentation.

Please appreciate some high-quality, fallacious arguments. This is, without a doubt, prize gibberish. Note that his purpose is to belittle the word faith in the Bible. Although he cleverly uses Greek, this forces him to skip the Greek transliteration of the word Pistis (faith). Here, it is used to affirm God's existence. 

Now, for a magic carpet ride through the 2,800-year history of the Greek word, which is not faith. Why? Because it is confusing. It's not confusing enough, no problem; stick in the word elencho. Where did he get this word? I don't know, but it adds to the confusion. How do you check the meaning of the word elencho? I wish you lots of luck.

 Response: It is interesting that the writer uses a relatively obscure term such as elenchus and gives the reader a 2,800-year history of the word. I believe this is a gibberish fallacy and a red herring fallacy. The gibberish is simply meant to confuse the reader, and the red herring fallacy is meant to distract the reader. The term came about due to the sport of fox hunting; a scent of fish was dragged diagonally between the fox and the dog to get the dog off the trail. 

Response: The equivocation fallacy is the choice of the wrong form of the word. Here is a list of different forms of his equivocation the author uses:

I accuse, 

rebuke,

 reprove" and also 

"I expose, 

I showed it be guilty, 

I prove" (in the same sense of putting the lie to a public statement

conviction, 

persuasion,

 a rigorous process of argumentation by strict application of logic.

But that's not all, folks. He mentions the definition from "Souters Lexicon of the New Testament" but leaves out the definition of the word specifically used in Hebrew 11: 1,  "that by which invisible things are proved." Ask yourself why he leaves out the correct form of the word.

Now for additional fallacies

 Boghossian continues: "Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination. The anonymous author of Hebrews writes instead that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction or persuasion (elenchus) of things not seen. If Socrates were to hear this phrase, I imagine he would say, this may be conviction, but it is not an argument, not a cross examination and test by scrutiny, but is a jump without any justification without proof, and without earning it. Where is the virtue in this?"

An additional three fallacies here: alleged certainty, argument from age, and mind reading. The argument from the age fallacy is based on the belief that people in the past supposedly had superior wisdom and knowledge than modern-day people. Of course, this is absurd. Socrates did not know what a syllogism was,much less the terms premise deductive or inductive. 

Boghossian states, "Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination. There is no such thing as the balcony fallacy, but it is meant to give alleged certainty. It is true that Socrates was one of the first philosophers, but the field of philosophy has advanced dramatically in the last 2,500 years.

Then, Boghossian uses the mind-reading fallacy. Since Socrates believed in an invisible God, he has no reason to make such a statement.