Illogic Lessons: A Rant

This article will be less cerebral and more "from the heart" as well as the mind. 
 
While writing and researching my "Logic Lessons" series, I have learned quite a few things. Especially when I am on the receiving end of people who claim to be "thinkers", "rational", "logical" and so forth. Very few have given me anything rational. Instead, they hit me with interesting combinations of logical fallacies that are based entirely on emotion.

Actually, their reactions are based in hate. They do not even know me, but they hate what I am saying and the Savior that I stand for (John 15.18-21). When I promote an article about creation science, I receive personal attacks from strangers on Twitter. Does that sound like a rational response to you? Me, neither. But so what? It's part of the job for which I enlisted. But I'll never understand what they hope to gain by demonizing the person instead of dealing with the concept; that is the stuff of shallow thinking and petty vendettas.

But I wanted to dwell on something else. Several of the reactions contain the same logical fallacies (the ad hominem personal attacks are the most popular). Unfortunately, I see some other fallacies frequently coming from these weak minds:

• Poisoning the Well
• Genetic Fallacy
• Selective Citing
• Straw Man
• Red Herring ... mmmm... Red Herring ... with lemon...

These fallacies tend to merge or overlap sometimes, and it gets confusing. Suffice to say that they are all distractions as well as avoidance techniques. Instead of dealing with the material presented in a manner worthy of true scientific or intellectual inquiry, the items are dodged.

One way to avoid dealing with the sources is to say that they are false, or spurious. I believe it's because they don't like the sources (Genetic Fallacy). Let's think about this for a moment.

It's absurd enough to insult me for using them, but they only have emotionally-based insults instead of reasons for disparaging the sources. It seems to me that some people cannot be pleased because I often (but not exclusively) use Christian and Conservative sources. (By the way, I have a reasonable expectation that people can see op-ed pieces for what they are.)

So, this should be taken to its logical conclusion.

The implication is that Christian and Conservative sources are lying. Do you know what, Little Paulie Prejudiced? You are indicating that people who believe in a Holy God who disapproves of lying (Rev. 21.8) are going to deliberately use a tactic that the God they serve hates in their efforts to further his kingdom. Using defamation of character makes you even more contemptible.

In addition, the brush-off claim that the sources are lying is astonishingly stupid. That's right, I said it! Atheist associations would like nothing better than to shut down news organizations that promote a Christian worldview. If the sources were lying, then lawsuits would be flying left and right, and these agencies would be out of business.

Conservatives are used to attacks from Leftists. Even though we have higher standards than Leftists rags like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the mainstream networks, you keep going on about dishonest Conservatives. How dumb can you get? How low can you get, slandering the character of people just because you don't have the guts to even hear or read what they have to say?

Disparaging sources, especially without even looking at them, is cowardly. Saying that they cannot be trusted is libel. (If a source is consistenly biased and unreliable, such as (ir)RationalWiki, that's a bit different.) I had a link to a site showing strong evidence that, despite the efforts of modern atheists to "give" him to us, Adolph Hitler was not a Christian. One coward avoided reading the site because he said it looked "spurious". But far worse, Norman the Paranoid Troll raved, "Currently, he [Stormbringer] is claiming that Hitler was not a christian based on an apologetic site that is manufacturing quotes." (Learn to capitalize according to the rules of the language, Snowflake Boy!) Aside from his hateful, incomprehensible ranting, he did manage to commit outright libel against that site! Hiding your real name won't help if they want to sue you, Snowflake Boy.

Listen up: Nobody cares if you don't like the looks of a site, and your excuses for ignoring what it contains. If you can disprove what is written, by all means, try to do so. However, the site in question is full of references, so you'll have to expend a great deal of effort to discredit it. And then, you'll have to discredit all of the references available. Unless, of course, you go to atheist or Leftist ignorance pools and dip out nonsense that fits your preconceptions. It is folly to keep trying to rewrite history, thereby humiliating yourselves. The rest of us will continue to speak the truth, no matter how much you don't like it, capice?

But keep the slander and libel to yourselves.