Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Simply put, a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. People have to use logical thinking every day and seldom think about thinking. Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and other peoples used geometry, which requires logic. Logic as a discipline became more formalized with people like Aristotle. Some people will say that logical fallacies only apply to debate situations, but such an idea cannot be supported. A twist on Aristotle by Luca Giordano, 1653 On the surface, spotting logical fallacies seems rather easy. Sometimes it is. Other times, the lines blur because fallacies share different names, different fallacies resemble each other, people combine them, and more. Those times are like a social media relationship status: it's complicated. We cannot be clinical all the time, and some fallacies appear in our everyday speech. For example, reification (assigning a characteristic to something that is abstract) happens frequently. No, your car d

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen For several years, I've been emphasizing how identifying logical fallacies can not only sharpen our own presentations, but help us spot deception coming from certain people. While I focus on evolution, creation science, and theology, it's easy to see how sneaky wording is used in other areas, especially those that are politically orient ed . It seems to be increasingly important t o have people to define their terms, and to nail down an understanding for a discussion, debate, or reporting. That is because there is a great deal of deliberate confusion going on, especially regarding connotations of loaded words. One of my favorite examples is "fundamentalist". That word is often used as a pejorative because of the connotations of a dour legalist , and the definitions are flexible; Calvinists, Lutherans, me, others can be considered fundamentalists because we believe in the fundamentals of the faith (we ll, duh) . Many of us don't cott

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is not only very helpful to learn about informal logical fallacies, but can be fun. At least, they are for me. Prove it! Not only does this help you in discussions so you can see if some owlhoot is building an argument with faulty reasoning, but helps you check your own arguments so you can present present them as accurately as possible. Back up your assertions! The more I learn about fallacies, the more I see that not only can many of them get combined and overlap (a comment can a contain complex question, an ad hominem  and a genetic fallacy all at the same time, for example). Are you afraid to back up your claims, or just too stupid to cite something from a real source and not from creatard sites? More than that, I keep seeing additional "fallacies" that appear to be simply made up. Someone accused me of committing a fallacy because I pointed out his own fallacies, therefore, I was "negated" and he was free to continue buil

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  In a previous "Logic Lesson", I touched on the Argument from Silence , but I forgot that I did it! Diddly dur hay. Anyway, this is a more complete treatment. Arguments from silence, like other fallacies, have some clear-cut examples that are easily identifiable. The basic form is that if someone does not answer a question or give a response, it is taken as confirmation that the other person is right. Unfortunately, I do not have screenshots of one of my favorite examples. An atheopath on Twitter was attacking me for something or other, and I had better things to do (such as watching television). When I came back to Twitter, I realized that I had lost a "debate". The guy had been firing of questions and comments. Because he did not get responses from me, he declared victory for himself — I lost a debate that I did not know I had! Here is another one. It was posted in a forum, and I found out that it was e-mailed to me from a spammer-stal

“What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”  —Richard Dawkins Sounds just like many modern atheists today. This quote is from Table Talk. For some reason, many atheists want to "give" Adolph Hitler to Christianity. "Hitler was a Christian!", they gloat. But that is the opposite of the truth. "He said he was a Christian, Cowboy Bob!" Ummm...yeah. How often do you believe politicians, especially those that have murdered millions of people and were obvious maniacs? Get that? He was a politician, striving for power. Also, who was Jesus to him, what was God, what was Christianity to him? The same problem exists with many atheists today — they redefine the terms to suit their own ends. I have some ideas on why Christophobes try to pretend that Hitler was a Christian. First, to make the atrocities of the greatest mass murderers of history, the atheists Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol P

One of my favorite topics is logical fallacies. Many atheists and evolutionists love to attack Christians and creationists, claiming that they believe in "reason". They demonstrate that they do not understand even rudimentary logic, and it turns out that Christians use logic better than their attackers! And why not? The laws of logic come from God . Since the atheistic worldview is fundamentally flawed, irrational and self-refuting , when an atheist and/or evolutionist uses logic, he or she is tacitly admitting that his or her worldview does not work, and has to borrow from the biblical creationist's worldview! Plato and Aristotle doing philosophy and logic stuff. Even when we show atheists that they are being illogical, it must be in the Atheist Code© to never admit that a Christian is correct over something of consequence. Instead, they increase their attacks. Many times, in very sneaky ways. The atheist worldview is one that revolves around denial of the sel

So many logical fallacies, so little time... In this series, I gave particular emphasis to some of the most frequent logical fallacies that I have encountered from atheists and leftists. There are quite a few, and some are even being "invented", but they are variations on a theme and fit into broader categories. I don't believe that there's a need to learn each and every fallacy by name. By the way, I suggest caution instead of tactlessly naming someone's logical fallacy during a friendly discussion. Especially when discussing Immanuel Kant while shooting a game of billiards at a biker bar. You'll probably look pretentious. But if someone is being a condescending jerk, go for it. Not at the biker bar, though. Yes, this happens! Like the guy who cries, "Libel!" while committing (documented) libel himself. Some fallacies are the monstrous illegitimate offspring of other fallacies. That is, they can be blended and compounded. There have

In my dealings with evolutionists, I have been amazed at the number of logical fallacies that I have encountered. Many of them stand alone, but many others are combined into a Chaotic Crawling Casserole of Illogic. That is, there are so many errors, conversation becomes almost impossible and you're much better off watching reruns of "Columbo". Among the logical fallacies I have encountered (in English) are: Attacking the person instead of discussing the topic "You do it too!" Appealing to numbers, as in, "Everybody believes this way" (or "Bandwagon") to the extreme of accepting evolution on faith, not evidence Confusing cause and effect Straw man (misrepresenting the beliefs of creationists, ID proponents, Christians, the other political party &c. and then ridiculing the caricature that was made up) Appealing to emotion Appealing to unqualified authority Hasty generalizations Appeal to faith in scientism ("Science wil

Within the past week, I posted some material on the fact that modern obstreperous atheism is fading, and how to deal with them [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] . Worse for them, Christianity is growing — especially in atheist-governed and Mohammedan-governed countries! I had supporting links, so I am not going to ruin my morning by repeating myself. Instead, I am going to have a bit of fun by letting atheo-fascist humiliate themselves. You see, I posted those articles and let the, uh, whaddyacallit, auto-posting announce them on Twitter and Facebook. What to my wondering eyes did appear but more of the same old stuff: Personal attacks, misrepresentation, moving the goalposts, change the subject and try to get me to defend a different position — if they love "reason", they had jolly well better learn to actually use the stuff, capcie? So I decided to play. Let me point out that I did not approach anyone. They saw the auto-posts and decided to demonstrate their debating skills. Not goo

Buona sera. You've had atheists lie to you about not having an agenda, haven't you? Well, they want to evangelize us away from our faith. That's why I keep trying to encourage Christians to know how these people act, and to get into the Word. You can't stand up for the truth if you don't understand it, capice? While attempting to destroy the faith of individuals (if you don't believe me, you're not an open Christian on Facebook or Twitter), they also want to destroy religion itself . Especially Christianity. Just ask Richard Dawkins about his hypocritical crusade destroy Christianity . Of course, when we have events like "Question Evolution Day" in "The Question Evolution Project", the foundation of the atheist religion is threatened and they get really mean. Perhaps they'll be discussing this at their " Unreason Fest " or whatever that gathering is called. Yeah, dare to show flaws in evolutionism, and you can find

Buon giorno. Normally, I save this atheist stuff for the weekends, but I plan on being busy. Whaddya think? Should I just drop the atheist stuff next year? On one hand, they're boring and predictable with their absence of critical thinking. On the other hand, I get amazed at the lack of reasoning ability and the vituperative hate. Let's start with a self-appointed atheist Thought Police officer. He kept badgering me about being a Christian and a creationist, but kept refusing to answer my question as to why it mattered to him what I believe. Finally, I got an answer: No link, the original was deleted. Isn't that precious? He cares because he thinks that "religious" people will do stupid things. He's committing the  Fallacy of Composition . Yeah, gotta watch out for those "religious" types, can't have the Amish crashing their buggies into crowded bus stations or something. And we can't have "religious" people buildi