Stormbringer's Thunder

Atheist Michael Shermer caught making things up, click here for the video .

As usual, the more I examine logical fallacies, the more I see how people blend their fallacies into dreadful monstrosities. I have had many experiences where people will attack by asserting that they have a bad or ulterior motive, so be careful of Proof by Assertion because it lends itself to reinforcing other fallacies. " Proof by Assertion " (sometimes "Proof by  Repeated  Assertion", a relative of  Circular Reasoning ) is one of my favorite fallacies because I encounter it so  very  often. In its simplest form, Proof by Assertion happens when someone declares a "fact" without offering supporting evidence: This is similar to the mantra, "Evolution is science, creation is religion". An assertion with an excuse. I still say, "Disingenuous". That was a very strange assertion and cop-out. Another reason that I like "Proof by Assertion" is that it is conveniently linked with

Buona sera.  I think we should — "Wait, what's an intermezzo , Cowboy Bob?"   I dunno, Nicky. I think it's that little floor-between-floors in a building. Go ask Ernie the Gambler, he gets around.   As I was saying, I think we should pull back the throttle on the Fallacies Express for a moment. Although I like learning about them as well as writing them up, there are so many logical fallacies, variations, blendings and so forth that the series will go on far too long. I have a few more in mind that I really need to write about, and then I may put a halt to them. From there, I think I will do a kind of summary explaining the bigger aspects. That is, logical fallacies get categorized and sub-categorized, even overlapping. I see some greater principles at work that these sub-categories represent. Also, I have learned that sometimes something will seem  to be a fallacy, but is actually quite valid. For instance, something may resemble an Appeal

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

Ad hominem , or "against the man", is the most common logical fallacy to be encountered, and is a very popular tactic by evolutionists and atheists. People use this to provoke their opponent instead of actually addressing the topic, and it is primarily intended to humiliate. Normally, people find it quite easy to recognize when it is used as a simple insult, but it can be rather well hidden at other times. What complicates matters is that ad  hominem attacks can be mixed with one or more other fallacies to manufacture a particularly loathsome statement. I will bring discuss these mixes again when I write about the "straw man" and "poisoning the well" fallacies. To make matters worse, words with emotionally-laden connotations are used to create a negative response against the opponent. I have seen "redneck" and "homophobe" used in spiteful articles and comments because they are loaded terms. I have been called a &qu

What do Anthony Weiner, my friend Neil, a KKK rally and Norman the Paranoid Troll all have in common? Insufficient Evidence . This article presents one difficulty for me: My sense of humor. People who know me are well aware of my fondness for plays on words, and I could have a field day with the current scandal of Anthony Weiner. It will be hard difficult, but I should be able to refrain from indulging in too many tacky puns. Also, I intend to stay on my topic without expressing my political opinions. The first part of this article could be outdated within hours, but the lesson for the moment is still valid. One thing that people just love to do is believe that they know (or pretend that they know) something when they do not have enough facts for an accurate judgment. Too often, these stem from an emotional basis or bias. From the information that I have right now, Anthony Weiner is accused of using his Twitter account to send a picture of his covered but dist

I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible. — Fred Hoyle Edited for wording 9-06-2012 Buona sera. I have had the opportunity on several occasions to actually use what passes for logic in some atheists' minds right back at them. Since this experience is spread out over several Weblogs and over a period of time, I will give you the distilled essence. But first, caricatures of how it feels to be on the receiving end. Sitting at the table, counting out my medications and putting them in dispensers for the week. A pill rolls off the table onto the floor. Later, I say, "Oh, no. I'm one pill short for the week!" The atheist watching me says, "There's one on the floor. You have the exact amount. You're a liar!" Teasing an atheist, I joke, "Does what you said really pass for rational speech on your planet?" The atheist shoots back, "Liar! I'm not from another planet, and you kno