每个语句都使用属性修改单词stars。在第一个中，属性large是分布式的。这是每个明星独立持有的品质，无论是否在一个团体中。在第二句中，属性众多是集体的。它是整组恒星的属性，仅因集合而存在。没有一个明星可以拥有“众多”的属性。仅仅因为以某种方式组合在一起的原子构成了活狗并不意味着所有原子都存在 – 或者说原子本身就是狗。这证明了为什么这么多论点都是错误的主要原因。当我们把东西放在一起时，它们通常会产生一个整体，它具有单独的零件无法获得的新属性。这就是“整体不仅仅是各部分之和”这句话的意思。在辩论宗教和科学时，无神论者经常会遇到分裂的谬误。有时候，他们自己可能会犯罪：基督教在其历史上做过许多邪恶的事情。因此，所有的基督徒都是邪恶的，令人讨厌的。使用分裂谬误的一种常见方式被称为“通过关联而感到内疚”。这在上面的例子中清楚地说明了。一些讨厌的特征归因于整个群体 – 政治，种族，宗教等等。然后得出结论，该群体（或每个成员）的某些特定成员应对我们提出的任何令人讨厌的事情负责。因此，由于他们与该群体的关系，他们被认定有罪。虽然无神论者以这种直接方式陈述这一特定论点的情况并不常见，但许多无神论者也提出了类似的论点。如果不说话，无神论者的行为就好像他们认为这个论点是真的一样。这是一个稍微复杂的分裂谬误的例子，它经常被创造论者使用：除非你脑中的每个细胞都能够进行意识和思考，否则你脑中的意识和思维不能仅靠物质来解释。
它看起来不像其他例子，但它仍然是分裂的谬误 – 它只是被隐藏了。如果我们更清楚地陈述隐藏的前提，我们可以看得更清楚：如果你的（物质）大脑具有意识能力，那么你脑中的每个细胞都必须具备意识能力。但我们知道你脑中的每个细胞都没有意识。因此，你的（物质）大脑本身不能成为你意识的源泉。这个论点假设如果某些事情对整体来说是真实的，那么它必然对于这些部分是正确的。因为大脑中的每个细胞都不具备单独的意识能力，所以争论的结论是必须有更多的东西 – 物质细胞以外的东西。因此，意识必须来自物质大脑之外的其他东西。否则，争论将导致真正的结论。然而，一旦我们意识到论证包含谬论，我们就不再有理由认为意识是由其他东西引起的。除非汽车的每个部件都能够自行推进，否则汽车中的自推进力不能仅靠材料汽车部件来解释。没有聪明的人会想到使用或接受这个论点，但它在结构上类似于意识的例子。
Each statement modifies the word stars with an attribute. In the first, the attribute large is distributive. It is a quality held by each star individually, regardless of whether it is in a group or not. In the second sentence, the attribute numerous is collective. It is an attribute of the entire group of stars and only exists because of the collection. No individual star can have the attribute “numerous.” Just because atoms put together in a certain way constitutes a living dog does not mean that all atoms are living – or that the atoms are themselves dogs, either. This demonstrates a primary reason why so many arguments like this are fallacious. When we bring things together, they can often result in a whole which has new properties unavailable to the parts individually. This is what is often meant by the phrase “the whole is more than the sum of the parts.” Atheists often encounter the fallacy of division when debating religion and science. Sometimes, they may be guilty of using it themselves: Christianity has done many evil things in its history. Therefore, all Christians are evil and nasty. One common way of using the fallacy of division is known as “guilt by association.” This is clearly illustrated in the example above. Some nasty characteristic is attributed to an entire group of people – political, ethnic, religious, etc. It is then concluded that some particular member of that group (or every member) should be held responsible for whatever nasty things we have come up with. They are, therefore, labeled guilty due to their association with that group. While it’s uncommon for atheists to state this particular argument in such a direct manner, many atheists have made similar arguments. If not spoken, it’s not unusual for atheists to behave as if they believed this argument were true. Here is a slightly more complicated example of the fallacy of division which is often used by creationists: Unless each cell in your brain is capable of consciousness and thinking, then the consciousness and thinking in your brain cannot be explained by matter alone. It doesn’t look like the other examples, but it is still the fallacy of division – it’s just been hidden. We can see it better if we more clearly state the hidden premise: If your (material) brain is capable of consciousness, then each cell of your brain must be capable of consciousness. But we know that each cell of your brain does not possess consciousness. Therefore, your (material) brain itself cannot be the source of your consciousness This argument presumes that if something is true of the whole, then it must be true of the parts. Because it is not true that each cell in your brain is individually capable of consciousness, the argument concludes that there must be something more involved – something other than material cells. Consciousness, therefore, must come from something other than the material brain. Otherwise, the argument would lead to a true conclusion. Yet, once we realize that the argument contains a fallacy, we no longer have a reason to assume that consciousness is caused by something else. Unless each part of a car is capable of self-propulsion, then self-propulsion in a car cannot be explained by the material car-parts alone. No intelligent person would ever think to use or accept this argument, but it’s structurally similar to the consciousness example.