And how to avoid them

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

– G. K. Chesterton

Anyone, whether theist or atheist, can fall for a logical fallacy, which refers to a flaw in reasoning or an error in an argument. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument,” while Merriam-Webster defines it as “a false or mistaken idea.” Both definitions highlight that fallacies result from flawed logic, potentially leading to misconceptions. It’s crucial to identify these errors for clear, effective reasoning. The key is not to avoid mistakes altogether, but to recognize fallacies within our own arguments. This way, we can correct our reasoning and avoid reaching false conclusions or making unsound claims.

Here’s a list of 21 common logical fallacies, along with definitions and examples from theistic and atheistic perspectives. The aim is to correct errors, so examples from Christian theism and skeptical atheism and agnosticism are presented. These examples are based on personal experiences, conversations, and various written and oral resources in philosophical literature. There are more than these 21, but this list provides a good starting point to enrich exchanges between Christian theists and skeptical atheists/agnostics. They are presented in no particular order.

“Facts are stubborn things, but, as some one has wisely said, not half so stubborn as fallacies.”

– Lucy Maud Montgomery

1. Strawman Fallacy

The strawman fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents, exaggerates, or distorts an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of addressing the actual argument, the person creates a weakened or inaccurate version of it and then refutes that version, which misleads the audience and avoids genuine engagement with the original point.

• Theist Example: “Atheists believe in nothing and hate God. They want to live without rules, so how can they possibly live moral lives?”

This misrepresents the atheistic viewpoint by suggesting that atheists universally believe life has no meaning or moral structure. Many atheists derive meaning and morality from sources other than religion, such as humanism, philosophy, or personal ethics. By distorting the atheist position into an extreme or inaccurate form, the argument attacks a “strawman” rather than engaging with the actual beliefs held by most atheists.

• Atheist Example: “Christians believe in a magical sky fairy who grants wishes. They are afraid to face the reality of death so they made up God to feel better.”

This argument reduces all theistic belief to a simplistic and emotionally driven need for comfort. It ignores the many intellectual, philosophical, and spiritual reasons why people believe in God. By oversimplifying the motivations behind religious belief, the argument avoids addressing the more complex theological and philosophical arguments theists make for the existence of God, thereby attacking a strawman version of their beliefs.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

In both cases, the strawman fallacy is committed by misrepresenting the other side’s beliefs to make them seem weaker or less rational. In the theist example, atheists are unfairly portrayed as nihilistic and without morals, which ignores the actual diversity of moral and existential views among atheists. In the atheist example, theists are reduced to being motivated purely by fear of death, which oversimplifies a wide range of theological arguments and reasons for belief. These distortions prevent meaningful dialogue and engagement by attacking simplified, exaggerated versions of the opposing views rather than the real arguments, making the debate less productive.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” 

– Socrates

2. Ad Hominem

This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character, motive, or other personal traits of an individual making an argument rather than engaging with the argument itself. This fallacy shifts the focus from the validity of the argument to irrelevant personal attacks, undermining the possibility of productive discussion.

• Theist Example: “Richard Dawkins’ arguments against God are not sound, he’s an arrogant person. I simply don’t trust him.”

Instead of addressing the atheist’s argument regarding the existence of God, this response attacks the atheist’s supposed personal qualities or motives. The person’s attitude or actions are irrelevant to the strength of their argument. The fallacy here is in dismissing the argument based on an assumption about the person’s character, not the logic or evidence they present.

• Atheist Example: “You believe in your God because you’re uneducated and brainwashed. You worship an invisible sky daddy. So your arguments for God’s existence are worthless.”

This response attacks the believer’s intelligence or background rather than addressing their arguments for God’s existence. Even if the individual were uneducated, it would not necessarily mean their arguments lack merit. The fallacy lies in attacking the person rather than the argument they are making, which avoids engaging with the actual points they present.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples commit the ad hominem fallacy because they focus on personal attacks instead of addressing the arguments at hand. In the theist example, the atheist’s character is questioned rather than their reasoning, and in the atheist example, the believer’s intelligence is insulted rather than their argument. These personal attacks do nothing to address the validity of the claims being made and distract from rational debate. By targeting individuals rather than ideas, ad hominem arguments derail discussions and avoid genuine engagement with the issues.

“Ignorance is the root of misfortune.”

– Plato

3. Appeal to Ignorance 

The appeal to ignorance (“argumentum ad ignorantiam”) is a fallacy that occurs when someone argues that a claim must be true because it has not been proven false, or that a claim must be false because it has not been proven true. This reasoning assumes that the absence of evidence is itself evidence, which is logically flawed because it overlooks the possibility of other explanations or undiscovered evidence.

• Theist Example: “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, so God must exist.”

This argument relies on the lack of evidence disproving God’s existence as proof that God must exist. However, the absence of disproof does not constitute positive evidence. The fallacy lies in shifting the burden of proof (see fallacy #12) to the skeptic rather than providing direct evidence for God’s existence.

• Atheist Example: “There’s no concrete evidence for God’s existence, so God doesn’t exist.”

This argument assumes that because there is no empirical proof of God’s existence, God must not exist. However, just because empirical evidence hasn’t been found (or hasn’t been found yet) doesn’t mean that the claim is false. The lack of evidence for something doesn’t prove its non-existence, making this an appeal to ignorance. Additionally, such a claim ignores other types of evidence (see my blog post, Debate, Evidence, Argument, And The Burden Of Proof).

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

In both instances, the appeal to ignorance shifts the argument to a lack of evidence instead of focusing on the merits of the claim itself. In the theist example, the failure to disprove God’s existence is taken as evidence of God’s existence, while in the atheist example, the lack of empirical evidence for God is taken as proof that God doesn’t exist. Neither approach offers positive evidence or reasoning to support their claim; instead, they rely on the assumption that what hasn’t been disproven or proven must be true or false. This undermines logical argumentation by avoiding the need for substantive evidence.

“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

– Everyone’s Boss

4. False Dilemma

This fallacy, sometimes called the “Either/Or Fallacy,” occurs when someone presents only two options or outcomes in a situation where more possibilities exist. It forces a choice between two extremes while ignoring other potential alternatives, thereby oversimplifying the argument.

• Theist Example: “Either you believe in God, or you believe life has no meaning.”

This argument presents only two options: belief in God or a meaningless life. However, many people find personal meaning in life through secular philosophies, human relationships, or personal values without believing in God. The false dilemma ignores the possibility that someone can have a meaningful life without religious belief, thus oversimplifying the issue.

• Atheist Example: “Either you accept science, or you believe in God.”

This argument assumes that one must choose between science and belief in God, ignoring the fact that many religious individuals also accept scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang (in fact, the discovers of the Big Bang Theory, Fr. George Limiter and Alexander Friedmann, were both very devout Christians). The false dilemma presents science and faith as mutually exclusive when, in reality, many people find ways to reconcile both, making this a flawed either-or scenario.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples commit the false dilemma fallacy by reducing complex issues to a simple binary choice, ignoring other possible positions. In the theist example, there are many ways to find meaning in life outside of belief in God. In the atheist example, there are various ways people integrate scientific understanding with religious belief. By presenting only two options, these arguments oversimplify the debate, prevent consideration of other valid perspectives, and mislead the listener into thinking there are only extreme, opposing choices.

5. Slippery Slope

Arguing that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in significant (usually negative) outcomes, without providing evidence that these events will necessarily happen. It assumes a cause-and-effect relationship that is not justified.

• Theist Example: “If we allow atheism to spread, it will lead to a breakdown of moral values, and society will fall into chaos and lawlessness.”

This assumes that atheism will inevitably cause moral decay and societal collapse, without demonstrating a concrete connection between atheism and the destruction of social order. Many atheists live moral lives based on principles other than religion, so the argument unjustifiably links atheism to negative consequences without evidence.

• Atheist Example: “If we allow religion to influence government or schools, it will eventually lead to the imposition of a theocratic government and the loss of individual freedoms.”

This argument presupposes that allowing religious influence in education will inevitably result in theocratic control, ignoring the fact that religious involvement in schools and government can take many forms and does not necessarily lead to the erosion of personal liberties. It overlooks the complexity of political systems and individual rights protections.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

In both cases, the slippery slope fallacy is used to predict extreme negative outcomes based on an initial action without providing a rational or evidenced argument to support the inevitability of these outcomes. The connection between the initial event (atheism spreading, religion influencing schools) and the extreme conclusion (societal collapse, theocracy) is assumed rather than demonstrated. Without strong evidence of such a causal chain, these arguments rely on fear and speculation rather than reason and facts.

“The starting point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.”

– Cornelius Van Til

6. Circular Reasoning 

Also known as “begging the question” is when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in its premises without method (or explaining why). Instead of offering evidence or proof, the argument simply restates the claim as its justification, resulting in a circular loop that offers no real support for  the conclusion. 

• Theist Example: “The Bible is true because it is the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible is true.”

This argument assumes the very point it’s trying to prove—that the Bible is the word of God. Instead of providing evidence for why the Bible should be trusted or why it is true. It lacks methodology for its claim. 

• Atheist Example: “God doesn’t exist because religious beliefs are false, and we know all religious beliefs are false because there is no God.”

This argument assumes the conclusion (God does not exist) in its premise (religious beliefs are false). Instead of providing evidence or arguments to support the claim that God does not exist, the argument simply restates the initial assumption in a different form, making it circular.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples commit the circular reasoning fallacy because they fail to provide independent evidence or reasoning to support their conclusions. Instead, the conclusion is simply restated as part of the argument itself, creating a logical loop. Circular reasoning doesn’t add any new information or justification, so it doesn’t genuinely advance the argument or offer a basis for persuasion. Instead of building on verifiable premises, these arguments rely on their own claims as justification, which undermines the logical validity of the argument.

7. The Argument from Incredulity

This occurs when someone dismisses or rejects a claim or concept simply because they find it difficult to understand, accept, or believe. Instead of engaging with the evidence or reasoning, the person assumes that if something seems implausible or incomprehensible to them, it must be false.

• Theist Example: “I just can’t believe that life could have arisen through random processes like evolution. It’s too complex, so God must have created it.”

This argument dismisses the scientific explanation of evolution simply because the person finds it hard to believe or understand. However, personal disbelief does not serve as evidence against evolution or as proof for divine creation. The complexity of life can still be explained by scientific theories, regardless of one’s personal incredulity.

• Atheist Example: “I can’t imagine how an all-powerful, all-knowing God could allow so much suffering in the world. He is either uncaring or unable. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.”

This argument rejects the possibility of God’s existence based on the person’s inability to reconcile the concept of a benevolent God with the existence of suffering. However, just because the individual cannot comprehend how a good God and suffering might coexist does not logically disprove God’s existence. Philosophical and theological arguments attempt to address this issue, but dismissing the existence of God purely due to personal incredulity is logically flawed.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples commit the argument from incredulity fallacy because they rely on personal disbelief rather than evidence or logical reasoning to refute a claim. The fact that someone finds a concept difficult to understand or believe does not mean the concept is false. Complexity in nature or the existence of suffering might seem challenging, but these phenomena require evidence-based engagement rather than dismissal based on emotional or intellectual discomfort. In essence, the argument from incredulity replaces reasoned analysis with subjective disbelief, which weakens the overall argument.

“Life is full of a thousand red herrings, and it takes the history of a civilization to work out which are the red herrings and which aren’t.”

– Peter Greenaway

8. Red Herring 

A red herring fallacy occurs when someone introduces an irrelevant topic into a discussion to divert attention from the original issue. This distraction leads the conversation away from the central point and makes it harder to engage with the actual argument at hand.  The phrase was popularized by English writer William Cobbett in 1807 when he told a story of having used a red herring to distract hounds from chasing a rabbit

• Theist Example: “Atheism can’t be right because atheists have no sense of purpose or hope in life.”

This argument shifts the discussion away from the central question of whether atheism is true or false and instead focuses on how atheism might impact someone’s emotional well-being. The truth or falsehood of atheism is unrelated to whether or not it provides purpose or hope, making this a red herring that distracts from the core debate.

• Atheist Example: “How can anyone believe in God when so many religious leaders are corrupt or hypocritical?”

This argument distracts from the actual question of whether God exists and instead focuses on the behavior of religious leaders. While corruption in religious institutions may be a valid concern, it does not address the truth of theism or the existence of God. The argument diverts attention from the central issue by focusing on unrelated moral failings.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

In both cases, the red herring fallacy is used to divert the conversation away from the core issues (if atheism is true or the existence of God is true) and toward irrelevant topics such as the emotional impact of beliefs or the behavior of individuals. These distractions do not engage with the actual arguments being presented but instead lead the conversation in a different direction, making it harder to address the main point. A red herring fallacy weakens the debate by sidestepping the real issues, preventing meaningful discussion and resolution of the original argument.

9. Appeal to Authority Fallacy

This occurs when someone argues that a claim must be true simply because an authority or expert says so, without considering the actual evidence or reasoning behind the claim. While expert opinions can be valuable, this fallacy arises when authority is used as the sole or primary justification for the argument, especially if the authority cited is not an expert in the relevant field.

• Theist Example: “God must exist because the Pope and William Lane Craig believe in God.”

This argument relies on the authority of a religious leader or philosopher rather than presenting evidence or logical reasoning for God’s existence. While a religious authority or philosopher may have valuable insights, their belief alone does not constitute proof. The fallacy lies in accepting the conclusion purely because of who made the claim, rather than evaluating the argument itself.

• Atheist Example: “There is no God because Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking do not believe in one.”

This argument assumes that because a well-known scientist (like Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking) does not believe in God, that non-belief must be correct. While these individuals may be experts in their fields, their personal belief or disbelief in God is not sufficient evidence to prove or disprove God’s existence. The fallacy is assuming that the authority of a scientist automatically validates the claim, without evaluating the underlying reasoning or evidence.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples commit the appeal to authority fallacy by substituting the opinion of a respected figure for actual evidence or reasoning. In the theist example, belief in God is justified solely by the authority of a religious figure, while in the atheist example, disbelief is justified by a scientist’s personal opinion. In both cases, the argument relies on the status of the person making the claim rather than critically assessing the evidence or logic behind it. While experts and authorities may have valuable perspectives, their statements do not automatically make a claim true unless supported by evidence.

10. False Cause Fallacy

The false cause fallacy, also known as “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (“after this, therefore because of this”), occurs when someone assumes that because one event followed another, the first event must have caused the second. It confuses correlation with causation, attributing a cause-and-effect relationship between two unrelated or loosely related events without sufficient evidence.

• Theist Example: “People stopped going to church, and shortly after, natural disasters increased. This must mean that God is punishing us for abandoning religion.”

This argument assumes that the decrease in church attendance caused the increase in natural disasters. However, no evidence is presented to show a causal link between these two unrelated events. The timing could be coincidental, not necessarily causal. Natural disasters can occur for many reasons, independent of religious behavior, making this a classic example of post hoc fallacy.

• Atheist Example: “As societies become more secular, they tend to have lower crime rates, proving that religion causes crime.”

This argument assumes that the reduction in religious belief directly causes the decrease in crime rates. However, other factors such as economic development, education, and social policies may explain the reduction in crime. The fallacy lies in attributing the decline in crime solely to the rise in secularism without proving a direct causal connection between the two.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

In both cases, the post hoc fallacy is committed by assuming that because one event followed another, the first must have caused the second. In the theist example, a correlation between church attendance and natural disasters is assumed to be causal, without considering other explanations for natural events. In the atheist example, secularism is claimed to reduce crime, overlooking the complex factors that affect crime rates. In both cases, the mere sequence of events is taken as evidence of causality, without sufficient proof that one actually caused the other, making the arguments logically flawed.

“The genetic fallacy is trying to invalidate a position by showing how a person came to hold it, and that’s obviously an invalid way of reasoning. A person might come to hold a belief for any number of reasons, some of them inadequate, but that doesn’t show that the belief itself is false.”

– William Lane Craig

11. The Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy occurs when someone rejects or accepts a claim based solely on its origin or source rather than evaluating its merits. It focuses on where a belief or argument comes from, rather than assessing whether the belief or argument is valid or true. This fallacy wrongly assumes that the source of an idea automatically determines its truth or falsity.

• Theist Example: “Atheism is wrong because it originated from immoral thinkers like Nietzsche and Marx.”

This argument dismisses atheism based on the perceived character or worldview of some of its prominent historical proponents. The validity of atheism should be evaluated based on evidence and reasoning, not on the character or philosophies of people who supported it. The origin of an idea does not inherently affect its truth or falsity.

• Atheist Example: “The reason why most Christians are Christian is because they were raised in a Christian home. Had they been born in a Muslim country they would be Muslim.”

This argument rejects a religion based solely on the fact that most of those around a person reflect that same religious belief. While it’s true that religious beliefs affect cultures, this does not automatically invalidate them. The argument ignores the substance of Christianity and focuses solely on its modern status, committing the genetic fallacy.  

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples commit the genetic fallacy by focusing on the source or surroundings of one’s belief rather than the belief itself. In the theist example, atheism is dismissed because of the perceived negative traits of its early proponents, while in the atheist example, Christianity is rejected because Christianity advanced and influences culture . Neither argument engages with the actual content or evidence for or against atheism or Christian theism. Instead, they rely on an irrelevant critique of the origin of the ideas, which does not determine their validity. Evaluating ideas based on their origins alone leads to an incomplete and illogical conclusion.

12. Shifting Burden of Proof 

The shifting burden of proof fallacy occurs when someone attempts to make their opponent responsible for disproving their claim, rather than providing evidence to support it. In formal debate, the person making a claim has the responsibility to provide evidence or reasoning to back it up. Shifting this burden is a way of avoiding the need to substantiate the claim.  In casual discourse the burden of proof can be shared equally. 

• Theist Example: “God exists, and if you don’t believe it, you need to prove He doesn’t.”

This argument shifts the burden of proof onto the atheist, forcing them to disprove God’s existence rather than providing evidence for God’s existence. The person making the claim (that God exists) has the responsibility to support it with arguments or evidence. Shifting this burden to the skeptic avoids defending the original claim.

• Atheist Example: “The Christian God of the Bible does not exist, and it is up to the Christian to prove He does exist. I just lack belief and the theist has to provide proof so I can overcome my lack of faith.  If they can’t then I am justified in not believing.”

In this case, the atheist shifts the burden of proof onto the theist, demanding proof of God’s existence instead of supporting the claim that God does not exist, or offering reasons for their lack of faith. These claims should be substantiated by reasons or evidence for such assertions rather than requiring the theist to disprove the atheist’s claims. 

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

In both examples, the burden of proof is unfairly shifted onto the opponent, avoiding the responsibility of defending the original claim. In the theist example, the person claims that God exists but demands that the skeptic disprove this claim, while in the atheist example, the person claims that God does not exist or that they lack faith and expects the theist to disprove atheism or overcome their lack of belief. Shifting the burden of proof undermines logical argumentation by evading the responsibility to provide evidence or reasoning for one’s own claim or position. In proper discourse, the person making an assertion must back it up with evidence rather than shifting the responsibility to the other side.

“Before we can study the central issues of life today, we must destroy the prejudices and fallacies born of previous centuries.”

– Leo Tolstoy

13. The Hasty Generalization Fallacy

The hasty generalization fallacy occurs when someone makes a broad conclusion based on insufficient or limited evidence. It involves drawing a conclusion about a whole group or concept based on a small or unrepresentative sample, leading to overgeneralization that doesn’t account for the complexity or variety of the issue.

• Theist Example: “I have met some atheists who were selfish and immoral, so all atheists must be immoral.”

This conclusion is based on the behavior of a few atheists, which does not represent all atheists. People have different reasons for being atheists, and their morality can vary widely. The argument makes a sweeping generalization about all atheists based on a small and biased sample, which is logically invalid.

• Atheist Example: “I know some religious people who are hypocrites, the church is full of hypocrites. Religion makes people hypocritical.”

This claim generalizes the behavior of a few religious individuals to all religious people. Just because some religious people act hypocritically doesn’t mean that everyone who is religious does. The generalization is made too quickly and without considering the broader diversity within religious communities, making it a hasty conclusion.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples commit the hasty generalization fallacy by drawing a broad conclusion based on limited evidence. In the theist example, the behavior of a few atheists is used to generalize about all atheists, while in the atheist example, the actions of a few religious individuals are used to stereotype all religious people. These overgeneralizations ignore the diversity within both groups and lead to faulty reasoning. By using small, unrepresentative samples, the arguments fail to account for the broader complexity and variability of human behavior, making the conclusions invalid.

14. Non Sequitur 

A “non sequitur” fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn that does not logically follow from the premises or evidence provided. This type of fallacy is characterized by a breakdown in logical connection, where the final claim is unrelated or unsupported by the preceding argument.

• Theist Example: “The Bible is the best-selling book in history, therefore God must exist.“

The popularity of the Bible, while a significant cultural and historical fact, does not logically prove the existence of God. Just because the Bible is popular does not provide evidence for the existence of God, anymore than when the Bible was unpopular or burned provides evidence for God’s non-existence. The conclusion (“God must exist”) is unrelated to the premise (“the Bible is a best-seller”), making the reasoning fallacious.

• Atheist Example: “There is no physical evidence of the soul, therefore God does not exist.“

The lack of physical evidence for the soul does not logically disprove the existence of God. While the premise focuses on the soul as a metaphysical concept, the conclusion leaps to a broader claim about God’s existence. The two ideas are not necessarily connected, as arguments about God’s existence extend beyond just the existence of a soul, making the argument a non sequitur.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples illustrate the non sequitur fallacy by offering conclusions that do not logically follow from their premises: In the theist example, the widespread popularity of a religious text does not provide any logical connection to the existence of God. Popularity does not equate to truth or divine reality, making the argument irrelevant to the conclusion.  In the atheist example, the absence of physical evidence for the soul does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist. The argument fails because the premise (about the soul) does not address broader questions about God, making the conclusion unsupported by the original premise.

In both cases, the conclusions are disconnected from the arguments and premises, rendering them logically flawed.

“His reason is as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved to death.”

– Abraham Lincoln

15. The Composition Fallacy

The composition fallacy occurs when someone assumes that what is true for the parts of something must also be true for the whole. This fallacy arises from incorrectly applying characteristics of individual components to the entire group or system, even though the overall structure may not share the same properties as its parts.

• Theist Example: “Every part of nature is complex and designed, so the universe as a whole must be designed by God.”

While individual elements of nature (like organisms or ecosystems) may appear complex or designed, and very well may be complex and designed, it does not follow that the entire universe is designed in the same way. Complexity in specific parts of nature doesn’t necessarily mean the entire universe is just as complex. The fallacy lies in assuming that because individual components appear designed, the whole universe must also be designed.

• Atheist Example: “Humans are made up of purely physical components like cells and atoms, so human consciousness must be purely physical.”

Just because humans are composed of physical parts doesn’t necessarily mean that consciousness—an emergent property—can be fully explained in physical terms. The fallacy occurs by assuming that since the individual parts of a human are physical, the non-physical aspects, such as consciousness or experience, must also be purely physical. This overlooks the complexity of emergent properties.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

In both cases, the composition fallacy is committed by incorrectly generalizing from the parts to the whole. In the theist example, the apparent design of parts of nature is taken to mean that the entire universe is designed, ignoring the possibility that the whole may not follow the same logic as its parts. In the atheist example, physical components are assumed to fully account for consciousness, without considering that consciousness could involve more than the sum of its parts. In both instances, what is true for individual components is incorrectly applied to the whole, leading to a flawed conclusion.

“Look out
Here comes the Spider-Man”

– Bob Harris / Paul Francis Webster

16. The Spider-Man Fallacy 

The Spider-Man fallacy is a variation of the appeal to fictional evidence, where someone argues that if a concept exists in a fictional or mythological context, it can be taken as evidence for a real-world truth. The fallacy occurs when fictional narratives or characters are used as proof of reality, despite their purely imaginative origins.

• Theist Example: “The Bible mentions miracles, and since people believe in miracles in fictional stories like Harry Potter, miracles must be real.”

This argument draws a connection between the miracles described in religious texts and those in fictional works, like Harry Potter. It implies that belief in miracles in fiction somehow supports their occurrence in real life. Fictional depictions do not serve as evidence for real-world phenomena, so using fiction to justify the existence of miracles is logically unsound.

• Atheist Example: “Just like Spider-Man doesn’t exist even though there are many stories about him, God doesn’t exist just because people write about Him.”

While Spider-Man is a fictional character, using him as a comparison to God assumes that the two are equivalent simply because both appear in written stories. This ignores the significant differences in the nature of religious texts and their claims versus fictional comic books. Equating God with a fictional superhero to argue against God’s existence commits the Spider-Man fallacy by oversimplifying and misrepresenting the nature of religious belief.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

In both cases, the Spider-Man fallacy is committed by treating fictional narratives as if they provide evidence for or against real-world claims. In the theist example, the existence of miracles in fiction is used to bolster the idea that miracles in religious texts are real, which is illogical because fictional accounts don’t constitute evidence. In the atheist example, comparing belief in God to belief in a comic book character reduces the complexity of religious faith to fiction, which overlooks the philosophical and theological arguments that differ from mere storytelling. Fictional depictions, no matter how detailed or widely accepted, do not serve as proof of reality, making both arguments fallacious.

17. The Puddle Fallacy  

The puddle fallacy, often linked to anthropic reasoning, occurs when someone assumes that the environment is perfectly suited for them, while ignoring the fact that they are shaped by the environment. The name comes from a humorous analogy by Douglas Adams, where a puddle marvels at how well the hole it fills fits its shape, not realizing that it is the result of the hole, not vice versa. This fallacy arises when people assume that the world was designed specifically for them rather than recognizing that their existence is a consequence of their environment.

• Theist Example: “The Earth is perfectly suited for life, and we have no evidence of other planets with such conditions. Therefore, Earth must have been designed for us by God and we are the only life in the universe.”

This argument assumes that because we don’t have evidence of similar planets elsewhere (argument from silence), Earth must have been specifically designed for life. The puddle fallacy comes from the idea that because life exists here, the conditions must have been purposefully tailored for existing human life. The absence of evidence for other life-supporting planets is not proof of divine design.

• Atheist Example: “Human beings are perfectly adapted to survive on Earth, which proves there is no need for a God to explain our existence.”

While humans have adapted to survive on Earth, using this as proof that there is no need for a divine creator commits the same error by assuming that because we are suited to the environment, it must automatically negate the possibility of a designer. This reasoning overlooks the larger debate about whether the universe’s fine-tuning or the existence of a creator played a role in shaping these conditions (see my blog, Fine-Tuning.)

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

In both cases, the puddle fallacy is committed by assuming that the suitability of the environment for life (or vice versa) leads to a conclusion about design or the lack thereof. In the theist example, the fallacy lies in assuming that there is not other life elsewhere other than Earth. In the atheist example, the fallacy occurs by jumping from “humans are adapted to Earth” to “there is no need for a God,” without considering that adaptation doesn’t inherently negate divine creation. Both arguments wrongly interpret the fit between humans and their environment as evidence for or against divine design, without considering the full range of explanations.

18. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy  

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy occurs when someone selectively focuses on evidence that supports their argument while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. This fallacy derives its name from a metaphor in which a shooter fires randomly at a barn, then draws a target around the shots to make it look like they were accurate. The fallacy happens when a person draws a conclusion after clustering data to fit a predetermined narrative, rather than objectively analyzing all available evidence.

• Theist Example: “Many people have prayed and experienced miracles, so prayer must be effective.”

This argument cherry-picks cases where prayer coincide with positive outcomes (miracles), while ignoring situations where prayers go unanswered or are followed by negative outcomes. By focusing only on the instances that support the belief in the effectiveness of prayer and disregarding contrary evidence, the argument commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

• Atheist Example: “Religious people have committed atrocities throughout history, so religion is harmful.”

This argument highlights instances where religious individuals have caused harm while ignoring instances where religion has led to positive actions, such as charity work or community building. By selecting only the negative examples to support the argument, the atheist overlooks the full range of evidence and draws a biased conclusion, committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious 

In both cases, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy occurs because the argument selectively focuses on evidence that supports a particular conclusion, ignoring contradictory evidence that would provide a more balanced view: In the theist example, the argument focuses on instances where prayer coincides with miracles while disregarding cases where prayer appears ineffective. This selective use of data leads to an exaggerated claim about the effectiveness of prayer. In the atheist example, the argument emphasizes historical instances of religious harm while ignoring positive contributions made by religious groups. This selective approach distorts the broader picture of religion’s impact and leads to a biased conclusion.

Both arguments are fallacious because they involve cherry-picking evidence to fit a narrative, rather than examining all relevant data in an objective manner.

 “We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language.”

– Oscar Wilde

19. Equivocation  

The equivocation fallacy occurs when a word or phrase is used with different meanings in different parts of the argument, creating a misleading or unclear argument. This often involves shifting between multiple definitions of a word to draw a conclusion that would not logically follow if the meaning were consistent.

• Theist Example: “Faith is required in science just like it’s required in religion, so believing in God is as rational as believing in science.”

This argument uses the word faith in two different senses. In science, faith may refer to trust in the scientific process or evidence, while for Christians, faith often refers to trust. By equivocating on the meaning of faith, the argument falsely equates religious belief with scientific belief, which relies on different forms of justification.

• Atheist Example: “Science is based in evidence. Christianity is based in faith without any evidence, so religious faith is the same as being gullible.”

Again, this argument equivocates on the word faith. It assumes that faith is alway blind faith and without any evidence. It overlooks that faith can and often does have evidence, especially when it is used in relation to the words “trust” or “dependence.” Likewise, the word evidence is used to mean empirical evidence to the exclusion of other types of evidence (such as logical arguments or transcendental truths).

Why These Examples Are Fallacious  

In both cases, the equivocation fallacy is committed by using the same word with different meanings, leading to a misleading argument. In the theist example, faith is used in both a religious and scientific sense, creating a false equivalence between belief in God and belief in scientific processes. In the atheist example, the word faith is manipulated to downplay trust. By shifting the meaning of words mid-argument, both examples fail to provide logically sound conclusions.

20. Loaded Question Fallacy

A loaded question is a logical fallacy where a question contains an implicit assumption that traps the respondent into seeming to accept that assumption, regardless of how they answer. It forces the respondent to agree with something controversial or unproven by the way the question is framed, making it difficult to provide a neutral or unbiased response. It is famously oft used in the quote, “have you stopped beating your wife?”

• Theist Example: “When did you stop rejecting God’s love?”

This question assumes that the respondent has previously been rejecting God’s love, even if they never accepted the premise of God’s existence. It’s fallacious because it presupposes guilt (rejection of God’s love) without establishing that the respondent had such a belief or attitude in the first place. Answering “yes” or “no” to this question would still imply agreement with the assumption.

• Atheist Example: “Why do religious people refuse to think for themselves?”

This question presupposes that all religious people do not think independently, implying that their faith automatically means they lack critical thinking skills. This is an unfair and unproven assumption, as many religious individuals actively engage in critical thinking while also practicing their faith. The question forces the respondent to either defend against the hidden accusation or accept the negative premise.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples are fallacious because they unfairly frame the conversation by embedding assumptions that are not universally true and have not been proven: In the theist example, the question assumes that the respondent had been rejecting God’s love, forcing them into a defensive position without even discussing whether they believe in God. This traps the respondent into addressing the presumption instead of engaging in a fair conversation about their beliefs. In the atheist example, the question unfairly assumes that religious people do not think for themselves. This generalization is not based on evidence and forces the respondent to refute the assumption before they can properly answer. The loaded nature of the question derails any meaningful dialogue.

Both cases highlight how loaded questions distort discussions by embedding unproven assumptions, leading to an unfair or misleading exchange.

21. The Argument Ex Silentio Fallacy

Argument ex silentio (argument from silence) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on the absence of evidence or the silence of a source, rather than on any actual evidence. The assumption is that if something is not mentioned or proven, it must either not exist or not have happened, which is a flawed reasoning.

• Theist Example: “There is no scientific evidence disproving God’s existence, therefore God must exist.”

This argument relies on the lack of disproof (the silence of science on God’s existence) to conclude that God exists. The absence of evidence against something does not serve as evidence for it. The conclusion assumes that silence implies truth, which is logically unsound.

• Atheist Example: “There are no historical records of miracles occurring in modern times, therefore miracles never happen.”

This argument assumes that because no modern historical records (silence) document miracles, they must not occur. However, the absence of documentation does not logically prove that something never happens; it only highlights the lack of records. Concluding from silence rather than evidence is fallacious reasoning. It likewise could be based not on the lack of documentation, but on the one making the argument’s lack of knowledge. There could be modern-day miracles of which they are unaware.

Why These Examples Are Fallacious

Both examples illustrate the argument ex silentio fallacy by relying on the absence of evidence (silence) to make definitive claims: In the theist example, the fact that there is no scientific evidence disproving God’s existence does not mean that God exists. The absence of disproof is not evidence for existence. This is a faulty argument because it draws a conclusion based on what is not said or not found, rather than on positive evidence. In the atheist example, the lack of modern records of miracles does not prove that miracles never happen. Silence in the historical record does not mean the non-existence of something, as there could be other reasons for the lack of documentation (e.g., bias, oversight, or limitations of historical record-keeping).

In both cases, the fallacy occurs because the argument incorrectly equates silence or absence of evidence with a conclusion, rather than recognizing that silence alone cannot serve as proof or disproof of a claim.

“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.”

– Mike Tyson

The above quote is as true whether in the boxing ring or the arena of ideas. Getting “punched in the face” (as it were) can be avoided to some degree by not using logical fallacies. And, when the punches do come (and they will), be ready by sticking to the facts and evidence. Knowing these fallacies will help you to keep your guard up.

These fallacies highlight common errors in reasoning on both sides of the theism-atheism debate.  Clear and rational thinking is essential for productive discussions and debates, particularly when dealing with complex and emotionally charged topics like the existence of God, morality, or the nature of reality. Logical consistency helps participants avoid misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and emotional outbursts that often derail meaningful conversations. When both sides apply sound reasoning, they not only sharpen their own views but also foster mutual understanding and respect.

“The purpose of learning logic is not only to help you argue well, but also to help you think well.”

– Mortimer J. Adler

Better logic is the foundation of more constructive and insightful discussions. When individuals engage in debates with a clear and logical structure, they can focus on the actual issues at hand rather than getting caught in emotional distractions or misunderstandings. Logic helps avoid fallacies, ensuring that arguments are based on sound reasoning rather than flawed assumptions. This not only deepens the quality of the debate but also promotes mutual understanding, allowing people to engage meaningfully even when they disagree.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”

– John Stuart Mill

(For a list of more logical fallacies see: Master List of Logical Fallacies, and List of Fallacies. If you have a favorite logical fallacy not discussed, please feel free to use the comment section to address it. Just list the fallacy, define it, provide examples from both theists and atheists alike, and conclude with why the examples are fallacious as in the above 21 examples.)