How many of these are used by the church and apologists?

http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/rhetological_fallacies.png

I am sure many of us are also guilty of some of these, so it is good to be reminded about what they are so we can avoid them.

A nice list, but some of the examples are NOT examples of that fallacy.

And why "rhetological"? It is a made-up word (see the main website). Why not just the old, usual term "logical fallacies"?

Yeah, I found that word odd as well.

On the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy it talks about an "unqualified" authority. Well, even "qualified" authorities can be wrong. When it comes to objective truths, to say something is true just because a person, no matter how well qualified says something is true does not make it so.

Good point. Just because Newton believed in alchemy does make it true.

The "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is specifically aimed at believing something just because someone says they are an expert, but in reality are not. It is NOT applied to people who actually ARE qualified.

If a person has academic training in a certain field and they are commenting on that field, why wouldn't you believe them? This is only short step away from arguing that no one is qualified, despite their training.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

"Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true."

Any true expert in a fiels wouldn't expect people to believe them just because they say something is true. They would have evidence to back up their position. Unlike religion where something is considered true just because it has been attributed to God or a prophet.

Good point. Excellent citation. Can I take that to the bank?

A Mormon's true path to enlightenment.

My second favorite is the all-or-nothing fallacy. For example, GBH said,

“The evidence for its [the BoM's] truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. Reasonable people may sincerely question its origin; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it ‘came forth by the gift and power of God . . . to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ’ (Book of Mormon title page)” (“Four Cornerstones of Faith,” Ensign, Feb. 2004, 6).

According to GBH, anything other than a purely subjective revelation is completely and utterly irrelevant. It is because of this kind of reasoning that christians (and I'm sure agnostics/atheists as well) find TBMs to be completely and utterly unreasonable. That and the whole circular logic thingy.