“…****…****…********…********…********… Hahahahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha…********…***…***…
****…*******…horse****…*******…*******…****…****…”
—Compilation of ExChristian.Net commentators
I also received the following comment, which I will parse:
Oh, ye of little gray matter; verily, verily, verily I say unto you, the application of skepticism depends on the individual. Some apply a global skepticism…many apply a localized skepticism, to subjects they deem appropriate…
Let us pause for a moment to note that, besides providing a generally useful rule, they have found an excuse to not deal with the issue at hand: what evilbible.com claims about the text of the Bible versus what they text of the Bible actually states (plus evilbible.com’s manipulations of every sort).
But they tried, they really tried, to sound smart and sought, really sought, to label my statements as containing seven logical fallacies and assured me that these are “are by ‘no means’ exhaustive”:
You imply that everyone who refuses to assist you in your quest to continue to ad hominem evilbible.com is somehow logically inconsistent with their skepticism – that implies that you believe everyone having skepticism ‘must’ inherently embrace a globalized skepticism.
Unfortunately, having inferred what I did not imply the supposed identification of my fallacies falls flat. I proposed that evilbible.com, which they references as worthy of providing facts, was presenting inaccuracies of various sorts. Thus, regardless of whether one begs leave based on global versus local skepticism, they were unwilling to defend that which they rely upon and unwilling to consider, in an engaging manner, my refutation of that which they rely upon.
But, for the sake of it and even though it is premised upon a fallacious inference (which is a red herring diversionary tactic which afforded them excuse to not bother with the issue at hand) let us consider my “by ‘no means’ exhaustive” fallacies:
-Hasty Generalization (all skeptics making remarks are global skeptics)
False: I implied that “skeptics” who approvingly reference evilbible.com were not bothering to consider information against that which they learned there. Although, I can empathize with this position: I could make any assertion that I want and when I is challenged I can merely say, “Oh, but you are generalizing; I am not a global skeptic, I am a local skeptic—period!”
-Straw man (your ignorance of skepticism, leads you to ‘misrepresent’ the flexibility of the skeptics position)
Irrelevant: as I was referencing the “skeptics” who approvingly reference evilbible.com but do not bother to consider information against that which they learned there. Although, I can empathize with this position: I could make any assertion that I want and when I is challenged I can merely say, “Oh, but you are ignorant of skepticism; I am not a global skeptic, I am a local skeptic. Thus, I do not have to defend my assertions—period!”
-Ad Hominem (displaying the name ‘evilbible.com’, and conducting a character attack; instead of extracting the character identity from statements, in order to promote an objective discussion)
This is the fallacy of all fallacies as I did, indeed, display the name “evilbible.com” (I am not certain how else to identify that to which I was referring) but I did not conduct “a character attack; instead of…” I never once besmirched the title evilbible.com, I did not dismiss evilbible.com due to its title, I made it clear over and over again that I had conducted research of, and this is key, its contents and I begged again and again that someone, anyone would engage the issue. This has been my frustration all along and Ex-Christain.Netists ongoing failure.
-Red Herring (you appeal to skeptics to make a site inquiry to achieve some skeptical justice; you don’t actually agree with skepticism or skeptical justice, because it is anathema to your apologetic calling – your mission is to ‘defend’ your belief system from ‘all’ forms of criticism.
Perhaps now I can claim to be a local and not a global skeptic—that was easy. What they fail to note is that the Bible praises skepticism (the true and honest sort) as it states “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18), it has Thomas asking for tangible evidence since the rest had experienced it but he had not (see The Apostle Thomas : Patron Saint of Scientists?), the Bereans are praised because when Paul taught them they, daily, check to see if those things were so (Acts 17:11), etc.
Thus, I not only agree with true and honest skepticism as it is most certainly not anathema but praised in the Bible. As for claim that I must shun skepticism because I defend my belief system; note that this person had also stated,
As a localized skeptic…I ‘know’ something to be true based on a standard for justification, I do not ‘need’ to continue being ‘skeptical’ on that particular issue. I ‘know’ things like; I exist. That is knowledge to me, and I don’t need to maintain a constant skepticism re my existence – that is absurd to me.
If they can I “know” things such as that they exist and thus do not need to maintain a constant skepticism in that regards then why cannot I do the same and state: I “know” something to be true based on—note the qualifier employed above—a standard for justification, I do not “need” to continue being “skeptical” on that particular issue. I “know” things like; God exists. That is knowledge to me, and I don’t need to maintain a constant skepticism re my existence – that is absurd to me.
-Equivocation (your use of the word skeptic or skepticism in varying sentences, but with varying meaning, albeit, equivocation is the primary effect of another of your fallacies – bare assertion fallacy)
We come again to the meaning of “skepticism” and it is about time to lay it out in even simpler terms—and this is relevant to comprehending any text at all—context defines words – contexts determines meaning. Thus, by my employment of the terms skeptic and skepticism to a consideration of both evilbible.com and my research I was giving meaning to the terms and thus, defining what I mean by them. Since I provided the context which defined what I was referring to as skepticism the assertion that I am ignorant of skepticism is merely smoke and mirrors.
-Bare Assertion (your assertion that skeptics have some particular guideline or common mission in life, just because you say they do)
As I have been stating; this was no bare assertion for the very reason that my context defined that to which I was referring.
-Appeal to Emotion (because your argument that skeptics should be skeptical of other skeptics, is unreasonable based on your well developed ignorance; your statements are being made solely on emotional foundation)
This comes in a close second to the above identified fallacy of fallacies: this is what happened when you do not engage the issue, barely pay attention to the proposed issue at hand, merely side step the argument, and serve up fancily seasoned red herrings: you miss the point, you waste the time of all involved, you please yourself with your own cleverness, but you end up discrediting yourself.
I never appealed to emotion but constantly went back to appealing to my research.
Speaking of Appeal to Emotion, note how the comment ended:
You are likely dropping the same message on many web-sites, attempting to recruit a network of less-informed and emotively driven individuals, to do your bidding – I thought such childish games were outgrown by elementary school.However, you’re entertaining to watch, sort of like watching an aggressive and passionate dung-beetle push a dung ball, and seeking confederates to remove obstacles. In the end, no matter how far you have pushed that dung, it will still be dung, and you will be none the wiser.Is your next ploy to pull out the old ‘trusty’ – I double-dog dare you? Grow up.
I have no idea what an “old ‘trusty’” is but obviously, these standards are arbitrary and the comment is emotive. One of the best functions of the internet is the ease by which one can find information, and this is key, for and against. If people are relying on the fallacious contents of evilbible.com is it in no ways childish to break in and state, “Have you considered the other side? I have.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.