These three arguments are based on subjective response. You explain your points on each subject and elaborated your points. Although, you should point out the fallacies of each of and make your assessment on the three. Besides this, the arguments you responded to are of evaluated with reasonable explanation and back up with human emotion.
I think all three arguments have been correctly matched with each corresponding fallacy and the naming of the particular error in each. I think your reasoning has qualified each for it’s falseness in components of the premise and conclusion. Especially on the third argument where it is visibly so of a political campaign of advantageously taking consequences of another’s blunder to rise into good light despite only being an attack on the other without any basis for their points and only their appeals to public vulnerability on escalating sides. Good work.
- This is a red herring for it depicts an emotional and supposed position of beatitude of living when in the aligned belief of the existence of God. It’s a false diversion of lifestyle and roaming path of belief and not a justified argument in the fullest sense of all individuals and people in their life beliefs and living standards. I think it is therefore a sway of emotion and mental projection of harmony that is indicated here. This argument doesn’t explore all possible beliefs and philosophies in order to be reasonably facilitate a good argument with good standing.
- This is a very sharp apparent example of ad hominem. There is no merit or basis for this argument. It is lambasting and pulling personal life examples to prove his philosophical point of view is wrong and false. If anything, the argument hasn’t provided any reasonable or any exploration of similar people who had taken this same or elaborated stance. It is just an attack and nothing more.
- This is a false situation. It is really a campaign effort to utilize a good light on the opponent. It doesn’t refute facts of this political figure but is an attack for opportunistic purpose. It is to make the public pressured without any evidence and understanding as it is. It is only personal and not substantiated in this political figure’s lifespan and activities of power. It’s only desperation and timing.
well, in reality, this argument would be better in reverse because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy happy, and meaningful lives that God exists because in reality without the believers there is no god making this a red herring.
the second is ad hominem because it doesn’t have a true argument other than he was a bad person and was an atheist. just because he was a bad person his theory could be correct.
this is a false dilemma he only gives himself the opportunity to be seen as the right choice.
- Red herring
- Ad hominem
- False Dilemma
you are correct, I like how you said that there is no merit or basis for the second argument
- Red Herring. since it states that just those who are religious are happy and healthy creates a false statement as to whether you are atheist or not you can live happy and healthy.
- Bertrand Russell Statement. the final thing he says is he was nasty this is not needed and added bias to the sentence
- false dilemma. there could be multiple people running for office since it is not stated it is false.
I agree I said very similar things in what i wrote. great minds think alike.
I disagree with your first statement. Setting aside whether you believe in God or not there are many religions that do not center around a God and those people believe they live happy healthy lives.
- Religious people are more satisfied with their lives than nonbelievers, but a new study finds it’s not a relationship with God that makes the devout happy.in my opinion some people believe because they need to feel reassured and comfortable thinking about whether or not God exists.
- God and immortality … find no support in science… No doubt people will continue to entertain these beliefs, because they are pleasant, just as it is pleasant to think ourselves virtuous and our enemies wicked. But for my part I cannot see any ground for either. And yet, noting that the existence or nonexistence of a god cannot be proven for it lies “outside the region of even probable knowledge,” he considers the special case of personal immortality, which stands on a somewhat different footing” and in which “evidence either way is possible.
- We need others in our lives, especially when we talk about a political position, for example. I will give my voice to an educated and wise person to bring us a good life with him and get our rights as citizens. In general, the world needs good people, so if I find a suitable person I will vote for him for life.
red herring, distraction from the main argument
ad hominem, attacking the opponent’s character
false dilemma, makes it seem like there are only two options
I think in first statement there is no fallacy because it is based on the gained data that most people who believe in God are living happy, healthy and meaningful life most importantly and it can be logically proved as having that sense of being accountable to some greater power gives meaning to life which without it can’t be obtained.
In second statement again there is no fallacy because the claim of existence of objective morality of atheist is wrong.
In third statement there is inconsistency or no relevance within the statement, so there is fallacy.
- This is both a red herring because although it can be logical to some, it might be false for others who do not believe in God and derive prosperity elsewhere. There is also ad populum in this argument, particularly charged towards those who are religious and thus excluding those such as atheists who probably live happy lives without the belief in a higher being.
- This is clearly ad hominen because it is a direct attack towards someone who doesn’t believe in God and persecutes on that basis but excludes the potential validity of his claim.
- This is a false dichotmony because it gives limited alternatives besides Candidate X and the foe running for office and doesn’t exhaust all possible options
Interesting thinking. While I understand your train of thought, there is actually a fallacy in the first two because atheists can be happy without the belief in God and it appeals to people of religion rather than those who do not. Secondly, the second one directly attacking the character of an atheist because he said something against religion.