Reducto ad absurdem?

Person 1: The Bible says….

 

Person 2: People who say the Bible says anything is already false the Bible doesn’t actually say anything, there’s no voice that actually comes from the book to say something to those who open it. 

This feels a reduction to absurdity, followed by an impending straw man to me. Person 2 is taking a common phrasing of something written is “saying” something by making it seem like people who say something says something meaning they actually hear a voice coming from it. Thus they make  the notion seem all the more preposterous and therefore more dismissible. Also implying that what person says is arguing something preposterous, straw manning them thereby easily dismissing them. 

Am I wrong? 

Unless I am misunderstanding this, this seems more like something a 8-year-old would say, a person not fluent in English, or someone with Asperger's who doesn't grasp expressions and nuances with the English language.

Let's analyze the stated dialogue and reasoning step by step regarding logical fallacies and issues in reasoning:

### Dialogue Analysis:

**Person 1:** "The Bible says...."

**Person 2:** "People who say the Bible says anything is already false the Bible doesn’t actually say anything, there’s no voice that actually comes from the book to say something to those who open it."

### Breakdown:

1. **Ad Absurdum (Reduction to Absurdity):**
- **Explanation:** “Reduction to absurdity” (Reductio ad absurdum) involves extending an argument to a point of absurdity to show its irrelevance or falsity.
- **Identification:** Person 2’s statement that a book can't "say" something because it lacks a physical voice is extending Person 1’s common figurative language use to a literal and absurd interpretation.
- **Conclusion:** It could be argued that Person 2 is employing a reductio ad absurdum by taking the figurative language literally to make Person 1's statement seem absurd.

2. **Straw Man Fallacy:**
- **Explanation:** A straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
- **Identification:** Person 2 implies that Person 1 believes a physical voice comes out of the Bible, which is not what Person 1 likely meant. This misrepresentation frames Person 1's argument in a more extreme and easier-to-dismiss manner.
- **Conclusion:** This does seem like a straw man fallacy since Person 2 is not engaging with the real argument (the content or message of the Bible) but rather with an obviously flawed version of it.

### Your Analysis:
- **Summary of Your Point:** You suggest that Person 2 is using a reduction to absurdity by literalizing the phrase “the Bible says” to make it seem absurd, followed by a straw man argument to easily dismiss Person 1's point.
- **Evaluation:** Your reasoning appears sound. Person 2 does engage in a form of reductio ad absurdum by taking a common figure of speech literally, and this sets up a straw man argument by implying that belief in the Bible's content equates to believing in a talking book, which can then be easily dismissed.

### Conclusion:
You are correct in identifying both the reductio ad absurdum and the straw man fallacy in Person 2’s response to Person 1. The response misrepresents the common expression “the Bible says” by taking it unnecessarily literally, thereby making it easier to dismiss. This combination of logical fallacies undermines the actual point person 1 might have been trying to discuss about the Bible's content.

I don't think reductio ad absurdum fits this one. This fallacy refers to a statement which appears reasonable, but reveals itself to be absurd once you explore the implications. The fallacy you're describing sounds more like appeal to ridicule , but I don't think that's the best fit here either. When someone commits appeal to ridicule, they are typically reframing a point their opponent is actually stating in order to make it seem absurd, rather than attacking a point their opponent isn't making. One example I see a lot is atheists making fun of Christians by saying something to the effect of "You believe that magic sky daddy watches you naked."

The fallacies I am seeing here:

Appeal to definition - The obvious fault with this person's argument is their insistence that "say" can only mean "speak." In common usage, "say" can more broadly be interpreted as "convey information or ideas," and is even used when an inanimate object or intangible concept does so. 

Logic chopping - Person 1 seems like they are about to cite some Biblical text in order to make a point. But, even if the wording of that sentence was such that it was reasonably understood to mean that the book was speaking, that is not really relevant to the point being made. You could really only say the statement is false in a logically sound way if that text didn't actually appear in the Bible.

And, I agree, strawman fallacy does apply here as well.

I'd also say that, if Person 1 wanted to be equally pedantic, they could point out that the Bible has been published not just as a book, but also in electronic audio formats which do produce a voice.