The Rules About Logical Fallacies are Actually Contradictory

Believe it or not, the rules about committing logical fallacies, actually appear to be contradictory in nature. Below are examples:

It is the "Hasty Generalization" logical fallacy to lump in all religious people together or all atheists together as being part of the same group, and it is the "Guilt By Association" logical fallacy to condemn Martin Luther King Jr as being religious just like Al Qaeda is religious.

But! It is the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy if you are a moderate Muslim or Christian and you object to being lumped in together with Al Qaeda or the KKK!

So according to these rules about logical fallacies, it is logically-flawed to lump in all religious people AND it is logically-flawed to object to being lumped in!

Another example would be: "Appeal to Authority" and "Ad Populum" fallacies contradicting the common, everyday appeal that we make to a consensus or majority of scientists.

Then there is the atheist principle of logic, which demands "extraordinary evidence" for "extraordinary claims." But this is an example of the "Argument From Incredulity," rejecting something because it sounds incredible to you.

Finally, think about logic itself. The only way to prove that we should use logic is by using logic. This is "circular logic," which is a logical fallacy. Therefore, you commit a logical fallacy every time you attempt to prove that we should use logic!