Logical Fallacy: loaded questions

"Are you still beating your wife?"

The correct answer to the classic trick question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is 'mu'.

Assuming that you have no wife or you have never beaten your wife, the answer "yes" is wrong because it implies that you used to beat your wife and then stopped, but "no" is worse because it suggests that you have one and are still beating her.

According to various Discordians and Douglas Hofstadter the correct answer is usually "mu", a Japanese word alleged to mean "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions".

The word 'mu' is actually from Chinese, meaning 'nothing'; it is used in mainstream Japanese in that sense. In Chinese it can also mean "have not" (as in "I have not done it", or "lack of", which may or may not be a definite, complete 'nothing').

Native speakers of Japanese do not recognize the Discordian question-denying use, which almost certainly derives from overgeneralization of the answer in the following well-known Rinzai Zen koan:

A monk asked Joshu, "Does a dog have the Buddha nature?" Joshu retorted, "Mu!"

------------------ 

A common way out of this argument is to not respond with a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer, but with a full statement that also includes context. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" would be either
"I have never beaten my wife" or
"I have never had a wife."
This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. 

However, the askers of said questions have learned to get around this tactic by accusing the one who answers with "dodging" the question. A rhetorical question such as "Then please explain, how could I possibly have beaten a wife that I've never had?" can be an effective antidote to this further tactic, placing the burden on the deceptive questioner either to expose his tactic or stop the line of inquiry.

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"

"For how long are we going to tolerate this abuse of power?"

"Why can't you accept these simple facts?"

"What did I do to deserve this abuse...?"

"Why does everyone hate me?"

-------- 

"How am I to get in?" asked Alice again, in a louder tone.
"Are you to get in at all?" said the Footman, "That's the first question, you know."

-- Lewis Carroll

---------

"I recently had the 'pleasure' of being presented with a loaded question:

"When is being true to self a rationalization for stomping all over other people?"

it appeared in a post that in its entirety read:

"Being true to oneself is important. Yes, of course. But there are many ways of being true to self and not all of them are pretty. Dictators are true to themselves, serial killers are true to themselves and so on. When is being true to self a rationalisation for stomping all over other people?"

I responded:

"Did you just suggest that I am dictator-like and serialkiller-like? Inferred from the fact that you use an expression I am the only one using in this thread."

The person attempts to wriggle out of it by saying:

"Not at all, Dov, not at all. I am speaking in general, general principles. Please do not take it personally."

The problem is that by using a variation of my unique phrase: Be true to yourself, the person has de facto made it personal. There are no general principles in sight.

I replied:

"See, in my experience, people who keep telling others that they are assuming things, when they are simply sharing their perspective and their understanding, or feeling about something, which is just as valid as anyone else's, are also going to be dishonest about what they actually meant by what they said, to avoid ending up with egg on their face.

It's all very easy to claim 'general principles', when the innuendo one is making is really very clear. I believe it's called plausible deniability."

and they responded:

"Dov, you are confusing a number of things, but I really don't have time to get into this with you right now.

If you see yourself in the general principles I delineated, well, so be it, hopefully it could be a source of learning for you. I was looking beyond just you, though, as I do not think ad hominem is helpful, and if I used shocking examples of dictators and so on, it was simply an attempt to show the limitations of what I was describing, not calling you names."

I replied:

"Now, it's clear to me that you did intend the comment about dictators and serial killers to target me, along with the part about stomping, you made sure that it would be so by using an expression from one of my posts, the only one containing that expression - the very fact that you are now admitting that you see it as "a source of learning" for me and that not "looking beyond just you" would have been an "ad hominem", (personal attack) proves this. (Your use of Latin here, when you usually speak plain English is very telling, btw - why are you trying to dominate me and control me, ----, through the use of foreign terms?)

You may have been very clever in how you formulated that post,---- - after all you do it all the time, both here in Gaia and in your job. It's just a variation of the technique used to compose 'Company Audits', but that doesn't change the fact that to me it's clear that you targeted me.""

- Dov

3 part Christian videos about logical fallacies

Educating people about logical fallacies and debate techniques is a good thing, reminding people of that everyone can and will use them, at least a couple of times, in their lives, is a good thing, but... the examples are... hilarious :-D So, don't just take what is being said as the truth, because someone made a video of it and I posted it here :-D Take it as an exercise of learning more about logical fallacies

The problem here is that the person making the videos hasn't quite understood what the logical fallacies are and how they work, so his examples are in some cases not good. Nevertheless, they are a base for further discussion

Here are the examples "telemantros" gave in the videos:

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dtNPM-mrA

1. Ad hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument

X: "I believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the Bible, nature and archaeology" 

A: "You are an idiot for believing in myths"

2. Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.

X: "I believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the Bible, nature and archaeology" 

A: "If you don't stop talking about God, you'll be sorry"
B: "Convert or die!"

3. Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.

X: "I believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the Bible, nature and archaeology" 

A: "How could you honestly believe in God if there are starving children in Africa?"

(The correct "appeal to pity" argument here would be "How can you believe in an all-mighty God who allows innocent children suffer?")

4. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

X: "I believe the Bible to be the standard of truth about God's Character" 

A: "Science disproved God long ago, everybody knows that. Why don't you?"

5. Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed

X: "I believe the Bible to be the standard of truth about God's Character" 

A: "Our churches' tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true. This is the way we've always done it, so it is the right way"

6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

X: "I believe in God"
A: "Science disproved God a long time ago. Science is the only way to test claims. Therefore, we know that God does not exist".

7. Circular Argument - see Begging the Question Division - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.

A: "Christianity believes in free will. That means since you are a Christian, you believe in free will."

8. Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

A: "Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact inc ars, it is true in species."

9. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

A: "The Bible we have today is erred. So what had inspiration, the copies or the originals?"

10. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.

X: "I believe in Creation Theory"
A: "That means you are a Christian! Christians are delusional, so you are delusional and I can't talk to you."

11. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.

A: "Mormon Doctrine teaches an illogical chain of infinite past event." 

B: "Mormon Doctrine is not illogical, they don't practice polygamy anymore."

12. Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.

A: "That speaker over there is a Christian... Christians are delusional and illogical."

13. Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.

X: "Jesus fulfilled prophecy hundreds of years after they were foretold. That is evidence of Jesus being God." 

A: "I know there is prophecy in the Bible, but that doesn't answer the problem about all the starving children in the world".

14. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.

A: "That's a straw man argument"
B: "By claiming that I am using a straw man, you are using a straw man."

The problem is that B just made a claim of straw man, yet he feels that his argument is not a straw man. This is a different standard he is applying to A

15. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.

A: "Why would God allow torture of Job? God can't be loving"

This leaves out the end, and main point of the book of Job and does not accurately represent the situation.

16. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property.

A: "The Bible cannot be proven through science and therefore, the Bible is not true"

The problem is that the Bible is a historical document that contains scientific claims, it is not a scientific document.

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPwapBVTcYk 

 

1. appeal to ridicule

Fallacy where ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument"

A: "I believe that God exists"
B: "You can claim God exists all you want, the theistic position is still laughable"

2. hasty generalization

Fallacy where conclusions are reached by using not enough exemplification or when examples are used that are irrelevant and non-representative

A: "Christians can't argue their point because they all rely on blatant lies and fallacies"

3. middle ground

Fallacy in which a middle position is assumed to be correct because it is in-between two extreme positions

A: "Some say that God exists and some say that God does not exist. It seems reasonable to accept the middle position, so it's likely that God exists, but that He is not all powerful, all knowing and omnipresent. That seems fair to both sides."

4. spotlight

When an individual uncritically assumes that members or causes are like those that receive the most attention or coverage on the media.

A: "Hey, Bob, did you know I'm a Christian"
B: "You can't be. I've read about Christians in the Newspaper. They go around protesting funerals because people were killed via punishment from God and you don't do that."

5. factual error

6. argument from ignorance

Fallacy where it is argued that something is true because it has not been proven false, or something is false because it has not been proven true.

A: "God doesn't exist, because you can't prove He does!"
or "God exists, because you can't prove he doesn't"

7. plurium interrogationum

Fallacy where an individual asks for a simple answer to a complex question.

A: "Is the Christian Church unified, yes, or no?"

8. meaningless question

Fallacy in which a question that cannot be asked because it is incompatible with itself, has been asked. The question invalidates itself because one part makes another portion of the question impossible and vice-versa. Meaningless questions are questions that are illogical.

A: "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

9. the masked man fallacy
or Illicit Substitution of Identities

Fallacy where an assumption is made that because something is known under one perspective, it must also be known under a different perspective.

A: "Creationists agree that it is a known fact that changes occur within a species over time, therefore creationists agree that evolution occurs."

10. improper notion of probabilities

Fallacy in which a low probability is used as proof that something could not have happened

"There are hundreds of religions in the world that require faith and each one of them states that it's true. Since it is so unlikely that faith would bring you to the right religion, Christianity cannot be the right religion."

11. false analogy

A false analogy is present any time similarities between objects or events are assumed without proof, just because they are similar in some other way.

"Christianity shares characteristics with Mithran mythology and Mithran mythology is false, therefore Christianity is false."

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbniauQf45k 

 

1. ad hominem tu quoque

Fallacy in which an individual claim is concluded as false because it conflicts with past claims or actions of the one making the original claim.

The fact that a person makes inconsisten claims does not make any particular claim he makes false. Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite, but this does not prove his claims are false.

X: "God's heart is for all people, that's why I help the poor and needy" A: "God doesn't have a heart for anyone, I've never once seen you help anyone other than yourself!"

2. amphiboly

Fallacy in which a premise is used in an argument that is ambiguous because of ungrammatical phrasing and the meaning is not clear.

X: "I know Jesus is God."
A: "Christians shouldn't be allowed to believe in God, it's too dangerous."

This fallacy can be used to confuse or make subconscious implications, intentional or not.

3. anecdotal evidence

Fallacy in which an individual relies on anecdotes to prove their argument.

"I prayed for Jesus to appear to me and he didn't, therefore Jesus does not exist."

It is valid to use experience to illustrate a point, as experience is one of the three methodologies that naturalism uses to illustrate itself (experience, science and logic) but not valid to prove your point.

4. appeal to consequences of a belief

Fallacy in which the consequences of a position proves the position to be true. This line of reasoning is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.

"God is false because accepting that God's existence is false leads to deeper and more free thinking"

5. audiatur et altera pars (hear the other side)

Principle that states that all premises of an argument should be stated explicitly, arguing from assumptions not stated This is not always a strict fallacy per se, but illustrates a principle that is often broken during discussion and should be avoided when possible.

X: "I believe in God".
A: "There is no evidence of God's existence".

"A is guilty of "jumping to conclusions" in regards to what he considers evidence, for the criteria for evidence is an assumption and was not explained"

6. circumstantial ad hominem

Fallacy in which one attacks a claim by asserting that the claim is made out of self interest and is therefore false.

"... a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. while a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own."

A: "The universe began to exist, and therefore has a cause". 

B: "You only believe that because you are a Christian."

7. composition

Fallacy in which a conclusion is drawn about the whole, based on the individual constituents (or parts) within the whole

"Islam and Mormonism are proven false via science, therefore all religions are false."

8. division

Fallacy in which it is inferred that what is true about the whole must also be true about the parts that make up the whole.

"Religion is incoherent, therefore Islam, Christianity and Mormonism are incoherent".

9. genetic fallacy

Fallacy in which a perceived defect in the origin of the claim is taken as evidence that the claim is false.

A: "I believe in Jesus"
B: "People only believe in Jesus out of fear and weakness. Christianity is a crutch."

10. slippery slope

Fallacy in which an assertion is made that if some event occurs then so will another inevitable event without any clarification This sort of reasoning is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitable follow from another without an argument for such a claim.

"If we allow religion back in our schools, my children will be forced to start reading the Bible!"

Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars)

Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, hear the other side. It is most often used to refer to the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against him.

As a logical error, it refers to the fact that people will argue from assumptions which they don't bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It's not a fallacy to fail to state all of your assumptions; however, it's often viewed with suspicion.

The premises of an argument are often introduced with words such as "Assume...", "Since..." and "Because...." It's a good idea to get your opponent to agree with the premises of your argument before proceeding any further.

The word "obviously" should not be used, though. It occasionally gets used to persuade people to accept false statements, rather than admit that they don't understand why something is 'obvious'. So don't be afraid to question statements which people tell you are 'obvious' -- when you've heard the explanation you can always say something like "You're right, now that I think about it that way, it is obvious."

---------------------

Principle that states that all premises of an argument should be stated explicitly, arguing from assumptions not stated This is not always a strict fallacy per se, but illustrates a principle that is often broken during discussion and should be avoided when possible.

X: "I believe in God".
A: "There is no evidence of God's existence".

"A is guilty of "jumping to conclusions" in regards to what he considers evidence, for the criteria for evidence is an assumption and was not explained"

---------------------

Well... it is a generally accepted fact that there is no evidence of God's existence, that you cannot prove God exists nor that God doesn't exist. Accusing "A" of "jumping to conclusions" is like accusing X of "jumping to conclusions" because he doesn't state properly what he means with "God" or "believe".

No...

This is more like some people discussing about an issue, and then someone gets into the discussion, and after a while one of the people in the discussion tells the newcomer that he should be quiet, because he doesn't know what they are talking about, referring to another discussion, that was not in any way or manner mentioned in this discussion earlier.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Pity

Argumentum ad misericordiam - Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy The Galileo Argument

How you feel about someone or something effects your opinion about the someone or something. Nevertheless, it's totally irrelevant to the argument at hands.

"Power of Weak" is an effort to create sympathy to one of the arguers, thus causing the majority to side with the "weak one".

"Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?"

A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life... Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.

Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

"My client is an integral part of this community. If he is sent to prison not only will this city suffer but also he will be most missed by his family. You surely cannot find it in your hearts to reach any other verdict than "not guilty"."

"I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children. If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work. If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death. Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket."

"You guys are young men...are you unemployed? How can you spend so much time refuting an old lady with a bad hip. You both know that from having checked me out last year. I am who I say I am.

I have an excuse to be here. My life has shut down due to age and a disability."

"My life has never, ever been as busy as it is now, and I actually neglect things I need to get done for work and myself to spend as much time on --- as I do. I cannot afford to continue doing this."

This fallacy is also called "the pity card"

One variation of this is "the Galileo Argument"

"Scientists scoffed at Copernicus and Galileo; they laughed at Edison, Tesla and Marconi; they won't give my ideas a fair hearing either. But time will be the judge. I can wait; I am patient; sooner or later science will be forced to admit that all matter is built, not of atoms, but of tiny capsules of TIME."

This includes the idea that the opponent is "suffering for their beliefs". You know "laugh now, but I'll show you!"

"I must be doing something right, or I wouldn't be attracting all this attention from the Big Green Machine."
-- response from a person arguing that there is no global warming, when she is met with opposition

The Galileo Fallacy is often accompanied by the Gadfly Corollary. It goes something like this

"Great thinkers throughout history have make people upset, angry, irritated, or insulted. I make people upset, angry, irritated, or insulted. Therefore, I must be a great thinker."

Whenever someone says, "I'm really getting under people's skin -- I must be doing something right," or, "If people are this pissed off at what I say, then I must be doing my job" -- that's the Gadfly Corollary in action.

-- Greta Christina
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/09/the-galileo-fal.html

Variant of this is when the opposer refuses to answer the questions about their claims because "you're mean, you've hurt my feelings" or because the question is "personal".

Logical Fallacy: Demanding a simple answer to a complex question

This is more a debate trick than logical fallacy.

Q: "Do you think taxes are too high - yes or no?"

When you encounter such a question, you should refuse to try an offer a simplistic answer because you are only likely to run into trouble. Instead, you should insist that the discussion start out more simply.

A: "That depends upon which taxes we are talking about."

Logical Fallacy: Circular reasoning

The best known circular argument is "The Bible is God's Word/inerrant/The Truth, because The Bible says so".

"Free trade will be good for this country. The reason is patently clear. Isn't it obvious that unrestricted commercial relations will bestow on all sections of this nation the benefits which result when there is an unimpeded flow of goods between countries?"

"Paranormal phenomena exist because I have had experiences that can only be described as paranormal."

"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

"I like vanilla ice cream because it's my favorite kind."

"Ralph Nader was the best candidate for president, because he was totally better than any of the others."

"The Cubans wanted Kennedy dead, Oswald was in Cuba, therefore the Cubans hired Oswald."

Tautology is repeating things - "A is --- because A is ---"

"Sheena is a troll so everything she says is trolling"

"You have to follow the law, because it's the law."

Begging the question is related to this

Logical Fallacy: "What sounds good must be true"

Argument By Prestigious Jargon

Also "argument by gibberish" :-D

using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert.

"Fortifying the dextrose coherence leads to applicable inherence of explicable tolerance, therefore, we should not accept this proposal."

Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use"?

"Bad Subjects, both the publication and the electronic mailing list, are certainly not alone in decrying the over-use of jargon and problems associated with 'difficult' 'overly intellectual' or 'obscure' language. In these venues, when jargonistic language isn't exposed as a cover-up for stupidity, or vacuousness, it has been labelled elitist and self-defeating."

-- Bad subjects

Prestigious jargon is not in itself a logical fallacy. Some people really can't express themselves with simple and clear language and some people are so used to use certain words they use them everywhere. 

It is only a fallacy if the speaker chooses words she thinks the opponent doesn't understand, to confuse the opposition, or if difficult words are used to dazzle the opponent or/and the audience, and make the speaker look intelligent and as if she knows what she is talking about.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Because I can say it's stupid, it must be stupid or shortly, it's stupid because I say so.

Ridiculing, belittleing, mocking the argument or the opponent.

"1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"

"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!"

"If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your great great great grandfather was a gorilla!"

"Nobody believes in socialism after college! Grow up!"

"Children shouldn't be given regular hearing tests, because hearing tests are stupid!"

"I imagine that someone like yourself would have no idea about how difficult this actually is."

"Supporting that cause would take several surgical trusses!"

"Those other cars look ridiculous. This is the only man's car here."

"Those clothes would make you look like a overdressed donkey."

Logical fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. The lack of evidence of one argument is taken as evidence of the opposite.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
--Carl Sagan, Astronomer

The problem here is to define where the burden of proof actually rests. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation.

"One is innocent until proven guilty"

In debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team.

In most cases the burden of proof rests on those who initiate a claim or those with an affirmative, positive statement.

Examples of Burden of Proof

Molly: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system." 

Dolly: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury." 

Molly: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Scully: "Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's ridiculous!" 

Mulder: "Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have to accept it as true."

"This is one case where I like to throw my opponent's arguments back at them. If he claims, for example, that the KJV (King James' version of the Bible) is the perfect and inerrant Word of God and challenges me to prove him wrong, I will say something like: "I am God. Prove me wrong." I have been berated for this approach, accused of blasphemy, chided for being stupid, and lamented for having sunk to such depths to make a point, and so forth. But what no KJV-onlyist has yet done, is prove I am not God. So I must be."

-- Xenu

Logical Fallacy: "ad hominem"

The most common fallacy is "ad hominem" or "argumentum ad personam". Someone's opinion, arguments, statements are invalidated because it is that someone stating it.

"As long as you act this way, don't expect anyone to take you seriously."

"I know you are not sincere and are merely trolling."

"No, the only sham is your failed intellect concerning these matters."

"I suspect you simply are spouting things you know nothing about."

"So you are still in denial"

"You don't have a single argument in that post. Nothing but facile, unargued, and incorrect assertions."

"Is that all you can say? More lies and innuendo about my "emoting"?"

"...as always you resort to lying"

"...once again shows our inability to distinguish between..."

"S/he is a professional disrupter."

In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.

Personal attacks can be ad hominem fallacy:

"You can't believe Jack when he says there is a God because he doesn't even have a job."

"Charles Manson wrote this song, so it must be unlistenable".

"Candidate Jane Jones's proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

"What John said should not be believed because he has red hair"

But it doesn't need to be a personal attack. Circumstancial ad hominem fallacy, is when one's arguments are invalidated because the person claiming so is disposed to take that position.

"Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!"

"What do you know about politics? You're too young to vote!"

"Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?"

Ad hominem tu quoque: "you too..."

"So what if I used an ad hominem? You insulted me earlier."

"How can you tell me not to experiment with drugs when you did the same thing as a teenager?"

"Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."

"But you are wearing a leather jacket! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

"I find it amusing and completely predictable that the responses here would be so vitriolic, and really nothing more than personal attacks and more empty assertions."

A reductio ad Hitlerum argument is a special case of an ad hominem argument. If Hitler said it, did it or supported it, it must be wrong, because Hitler was a bad person.

(The same way: reductio ad Nazium)

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

This form of the argument is as follows:

Person A makes claim P.
Group B also make claim P.
Therefore, person A is a member of group B.

Example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist"

This fallacy can also take another form:

Person A makes claim P.
Group B make claims P and Q
Therefore, Person A makes claim Q.

Examples:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you believe in revolution."

A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. 

For example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? Communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you?"

Guilt by association may be combined with ad hominem abusive. For example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false."

-- Wikipedia; Ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Abusing the power of the weak

by Amos Ramati

In some situations 'weakness' is being used as 'Power'.

There are various reasons for it: attracting attention, being in control or any other benefits one can gain from having 'POWER' over others (like special needs). A person can "victimize" himself in order to be in possession of this 'POWER'. By giving in to this "weakness-power game" the good will of the supporting person is being used for other goals than 'support' for the "victim". The 'POWER' can be so great that "ethical behaviour" will be ignored in favour of the "victim". Usually every attempt to restore this "ethical behaviour" is seen as unmoral.

What is typical for this kind of "victims" is that they will never accept advice or support that will actually help them solve the 'real problem'. By solving the 'real problem' the "victims" will lose their "POWER" and that is not the intention.

Those "victims" are usually looking for 'potential victims' that are ready to join their "game".

Most of the time it is a 'subconscious' process and not a conscious one.

Originally posted in "Einstein's Universe"
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=645&pst=4480#4706

persuasive appeals, propaganda, and fallacies

"I can't seem to get my head around persuasive appeals, propaganda, and fallacies as they connect to one another. I understand and can teach each of them separately, but I don't know how to connect them... Do you see propaganda falling under Aristotle's appeals, mostly pathos? Aren't propaganda techniques fallacies? Is the connotation of propaganda negative, but the appeals are considered effective?"
-- Deborah Herman

This made me think of if I need to look at the convincing and persuasion techniques as well, and propaganda, and appeal... Basically, all this: Social Control

And then I need to look at the AMOGing too...

10 rules of engagement for Catholic apostolates adjusted for everyone

10 rules of engagement for Catholics

http://ericsammons.com/blog/2009/10/26/rules-of-engagement-for-catholics-on-the-internet/

1) Prioritise the real world over the virtual world.

If you are spending more time interacting with people over the Internet than you do in the real world, then you need to seriously curtail your online activity.

2) Your serenity is more important than your involvement on the Internet.

If frequenting a blog or forum disturbs your peace and makes you anxious, uncharitable and/or unkind to those around you, you should simply stop going to that blog or forum.

3) Don't ever say anything on the Internet that you wouldn't say in person.

4) Don't write anything in anger.

5) Don't stereotype people.

6) Take at least one day off a week from the Internet.

7) Always assume the good intentions of others.

If someone writes something that could possibly be interpreted multiple ways, assume the best interpretation.

8) Remember who the real Enemy is.

It is not any one person you meet on-line, but attitudes, misconceptions, prejudices, ignorance, fear...

9) "a spoonful or honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar"

Even "stupid" people believe to be right. Telling them they are wrong, proving them wrong, telling them they are stupid, is not constructive, functional or "helpful", on the contrary.

10) If you want your point of view, beliefs and opinions to be heard, and change the world, don't just go to sites presenting your point of view

How to Convince Someone to Believe in Anything

http://www.2knowmyself.com/Psychology_convincing_someone/Convincing_someone_to_Believe_in_anything

Convincing someone to believe what you say is no more than simply convincing this someone to either accept a new idea or update his knowledge or belief about an existing idea. Not all people will accept your ideas with the same degree, however there are still rules that every person is subject to and if used correctly, will increase your chance of convincing other people to believe what you say.

 

If the person you want to convince already has prior knowledge or experience of what you're trying to convince him with, then your primary goal is to shake his beliefs and proving him false and only then present him with your own idea. If the person does not have a previous idea about that thing, you can just start by presenting your own view right away.

Why Can't I Convince Other People?

Before learning how to convince someone to believe in something or to accept your idea, you should first know the reasons that generally make people oppose ideas:

* Belief Conflict:
If one of your friends told you that the earth does not in fact orbit the sun, what would be your There would be no way you could believe him since you already know that all eight planets orbit the sun, something which you have seen proven time and time again. You already have an opposing belief so the first obstacle facing your friend when trying to convince you is your own belief system.

* Knowledge:
The greater a person's knowledge about something, the harder will it be to convince him of something different. What do you think will happen if you tried to convince an astronomy professor that the sun is only 1000 km away from the earth? He'll never believe you because he already has deep knowledge of the subject and might have proven it scientifically himself. Thus the second obstacle to convincing people are their level of knowledge about what you're going to say. As you may have already noticed, the first two obstacles (prior belief and knowledge) can be grouped under one thing: having another belief that is contradicting with yours.

* Skeptics:
Skeptics are people who doubt almost everything and everyone. They just never accept anything unless they are truly sure of it. If you are dealing with a skeptic person then this will add further difficulties.

How to Convince Someone to Believe in Something

Based on the previous obstacles we can come up with counter techniques that can highly increase the probability of success when convincing someone.

Those techniques are:

* Shaking His Existing Belief:
The more assertive and confident you are while talking about your idea, the higher the possibility of shaking the other person's belief about that thing (given that he does not have much knowledge about it). Speak in a confident way, use confident body language and gestures and use a confident voice tone and you will find that the other person may start to doubt his own idea.

* Undermine His Knowledge Base:
Even if you were confident while talking, the other person's knowledge base could act as a barrier to your ideas. That's why convincing him that you know more than him is more important than trying to convince him of your idea itself because if you manage to convince him that you know more than he does, you will become a trusted source for his subconscious mind and it will become much easier to program him (see subconscious mind programming for more information on this). You don't need magic to do this, you just have to be ready with proper documentation and clues. The more clear your evidence is, the more you will be able to undermine his own knowledge base and so convince him to see your point of view.(See the power of knowledge in negotiations).

* Provide Proof for the Skeptic:
Contrary to common belief, skeptics can be made to believe in something new provided you have clear evidence to prove your idea. The more clues you can provide to strengthen your argument, the less skeptic the other person will be and so the easier he will be convinced.

* Program His Subconscious Mind:
The subconscious mind can be programmed by repetition: the more a command is repeated, the more it can shake an already existing belief provided that either the conscious mind is absent or that the source of the idea is trusted. For more information on programming someone's mind check out this guide. You can even program someone into falling in love with you, in my book, how to make someone fall in love with you I pointed out how can repeating certain words or phrases result in making someone fall in love with you. Its no magic, beliefs are formed by repetition and if you managed to repeat a certain belief enough times, the other person may actually start to believe in it too

* Believing in Your Idea:
Do you notice that when a person really believes in an idea he usually takes it to the light? The entrepreneur who always believed that his idea is worthy usually succeeds in building a very good business. The more you believe in your idea the more confident and, most importantly, convincing you will be when talking about it.

* Repetition and the Law of Attraction:
You can make the process of programming someone's mind distributed over time, that is each time you meet him you talk a little about your idea then leave him. The phrases you have said to him will not be removed by his subconscious mind, instead they will be stored until something enforces them. For example, if you kept telling your friend that he is a poor driver, he may not believe you until he happens to have an accident. When this happens, he will remember all of your comments about his driving skills and will be convinced that you are right.

--------------

I think this is immoral.

Programming, manipulating, controlling people, and for what?

"Criticism and the law of attraction"?

Why would you want to convince your friends of that they are bad at something? I would want to convince my friends of that they are good at something!

There're websites about how to change other people's minds! I'm horrified and appalled.

Yeah... Stupid me...

I remind me of Pratchett's Leonardo of Quirm. "But no-one would actually USE them!"

The Five Methods of Domination - Master suppression techniques

Instead of looking at who has posted and how it can be seen as an attack on you, read the text, relate to reality and see how it could be said of you, and make the conscious effort of stopping this kind of practice.

--------

The Five Methods of Domination:

Invisibility
Ridiculing
Withholding information
Dual punishment
Creating shame and guilt

The following text has been adapted for gender neutrality from the booklet "The Five Methods of Domination" by Berit Aas, (English translation by Lotta Larsson, Daphne Sandberg). Adaptation is © S. Jensen and H.C. Jensen, Södertälje 2005.

------

**Making people feel invisible**

There is a discussion going on in a long thread. People post their opinion and reactions to others' postings. Then someone joins the discussion. He/she posts what he/she wants to say and waits for the responses. Nothing happens.

People continue discussing the matter as if he/she never posted anything. Later someone might refer to the posting, but keeps talking about the person as if he/she was not part of the discussion. The poster feels awkward and starts contemplating what he/she posted. Did he/she say something inappropriate? Or stupid?

Soon he/she wishes he/she had not posted anything at all.

This takes place when people are ignored or passed by.

It is a reminder to people that their opinions are unimportant and do not count as much as other people's opinions.

**Ridiculing / belittling**

Someone posts something.

He/she happens to use words or say something that can be turned into a joke -- like "rotating testies". People start joking about the testies and LOL a lot.

He/she tries again, but is once more stopped by jokes and laughter. He/she becomes upset and complains, and people defend themselves by belittling the offended person.

"That time of the month, is it?"
"It was just a joke. Don't you have a sense of humour?"
"Loosen up, don't take yourself so seriously!"

Some ways of belittling people and making them feel stupid is to say "I don't have time with this", "I cannot be bothered with this", "This is irrelevant, uninteresting, childish, stupid…" or "I don't have patience with you".

Ridiculing/belittling takes place when people's efforts and accomplishments are mocked and laughed at. It also occurs when people are compared to animals, like chicken, dogs or pigs.

Other examples are when people are said to be too sensitive or when their feelings and actions are characterised as typical for their gender/group/political affiliation/sexual orientation.

**Withholding information**

The discussions touch the same issue in several groups at the same time. Some of the groups might be closed. Some of the discussions are held in private, via e-mails, messaging, or chats. Most internet debate forums are international sites, so people participating are from many different time zones. Some people have to go to work, take care of family, are too tired or sick to stay in the discussion. Next time the issue is discussed, people who were privileged to get the information the first time, will say things like "you weren't there, so you have no right to say anything".

Another form of using the lack of information to dominate others is to disqualify a person simply because he/she does not have certain experience. "You are too young to understand", "if men had periods", "I have an academic education, you don't" or "easy for you to say, you are not a parent".

Withholding information takes place when people do not receive the same opportunity to take part of information.

One can also argue that withholding information takes place when people's work and accomplishments are ignored and not validated.

**Dual punishment**

In a group, people agree that personal matters should be dealt with in private, and not in public. Later something happens and a person has something personal to say to another person. He/she then writes a private note, as agreed, and next thing that happens is that the other person goes public with it, accusing the first person of harassing him/her with the "offensive" note.

Another situation is that a person complains about why everyone makes assumptions, and never asks. Next time something happens, another person asks for an explanation. He/she gets the answer "If you don't understand, it's no idea to try to explain, you wouldn't understand anyway."

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

One example is when people are blamed for not taking care of something the society sees as their responsibility, and they are accused of the consequences of that, but at the same time they are accused of not taking part of the rest of the society as well.

**Creating shame and guilt**

Somebody suggests a different method of dealing with things. Someone misunderstands and reacts on the misunderstanding, accusing the person of trying to change the subject, taking attention from "important issues" -- or talking about how the person him/herself is not doing what is suggested. The person, who suggested the new method starts defending him/herself, trying to explain, but is interrupted with someone telling him/her that it doesn't matter, it isn't interesting, one couldn't be bothered with it or one doesn't have time with this kind of crap. The person feels foolish. It was probably a stupid suggestion.

Guilt and shame are induced through double punishment and belittling. People are told that their ideas and suggestions are not good enough. The reason the other people oppose people's ideas might be that:
- People think and do things differently
- People do not have access to information controlled by other people.

---------------

These are the Five Methods of Domination. Our hope is that this knowledge will be enough to eliminate them. The methods of domination have fewer ramifications when you understand and recognize them.

Wikipedia article about Master suppression techniques

Härskartekniker, motstrategier och främjartekniker (Master suppression techniques, counter strategies and master confirmation techniques)

The 12 Commandments of flaming

http://www.advicemeant.com/flame/12comand.shtml

1 Make things up about your opponent:

It's important to make your lies sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly."
"Clearly, Brian Hillis is a racist, and a dirtball to boot."

2 Be an armchair psychologist:

You're a smart person. You've heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent.
"Peach Pshawski, by using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case of ... "

3 Cross-post your flames:

Everyone on the net is just waiting for the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From OPINION to EZ-READER to PETS to CHIT-CHAT, they're all holding their breaths until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.

4 Conspiracies abound:

If everyone's against you, the reason can't possibly be that you're a ******. There's obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it.

5 Lawsuit threats:

This is the reverse of Commandment #4 (sort of like the Yin & Yang of flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in good form. "By saying that I've posted to the wrong group, Didley has libelled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Didley."

6 Force them to document their claims:

Even if Ralph Gagliano states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Ralph's pasta preferences, then Ralph's obviously lying.

7 Use foreign phrases:

French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca of flaming. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseum," "vini, vidi, vici," "fetuccini alfredo,"...

8 Tell 'em how smart you are:

Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word 'premeiotic.'"

9 Accuse your opponent of censorship.

It is your inalienable right to post whatever the hell you want to the net. Anyone who tries to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose is either a communist, a fascist, or both.

10 Doubt their existence:

You've never actually seen your opponent, have you? And since you're the center of the universe, you should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore, they do not exist! This is the beauty of flamers' logic.

11 Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up.

12 When in doubt, insult:

If you forget the other 11 rules, remember this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a flamer, you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there's only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!! 

"Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with ... "

Jante Law

The Jante Law refers to a pattern of group behaviour towards individuals within Scandinavian communities, which negatively portrays and criticizes success and achievement as unworthy and inappropriate.

It has been observed as a form of behaviour for centuries, but was identified as a series of rules, the Jante Law, by the Norwegian/Danish author Aksel Sandemose in his novel "A fugitive crosses his tracks", where he portrays the small Danish town Jante, where nobody is anonymous.

Generally used colloquially as a sociological term to negatively describe an attitude towards individuality and success claimed to be common in Scandinavia, it refers to a supposed snide, jealous and narrow small-town mentality which refuses to acknowledge individual effort and places all emphasis on the collective, while punishing those who stand out as achievers.

The term may be used by those individuals who feel they are not allowed to take credit for their achievements, or to point out their belief that another person is being overly critical.

There are ten different rules in the law as defined by Sandemose, but they are all variations on a single theme and are usually referred to as a homogeneous unit: Don't think you're anyone special or that you're better than us.

The ten rules are:

1. Don't think that you are special.
2. Don't think that you are of the same standing as us.
3. Don't think that you are smarter than us.
4. Don't fancy yourself as being better than us.
5. Don't think that you know more than us.
6. Don't think that you are more important than us.
7. Don't think that you are good at anything.
8. Don't laugh at us.
9. Don't think that anyone of us cares about you.
10. Don't think that you can teach us anything.

A further rule recognised in the novel is:
11. Don't think that there is anything we don't know about you.

In the book, those Janters who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town, which is to preserve social stability and uniformity.

- Wikipedia

Now, this is generally considered to be Scandinavian phenomenon, but it works everywhere. There will always be people who have problems with people who seem to be this and that, whom they assume to think this and that about themselves and others. "Full of himself" and "Goody-two-shoes"

"You can repeatedly say that you know nothing and that you question everything, including your own beliefs, but you can still act in a way that seems to indicate that you know you are right and others are wrong."

With other words
"*I assume* you think you are right and others are wrong because *I see* the way your act in a certain manner "

———————————————-

The Law of Jante according to Paulo Coelho
http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2010/01/22/the-law-of-jante-3/

the anti-Law of Jante:
"You are worth far more than you think. Your work and presence on this Earth are important, even though you may not think so. Of course, thinking in this way, you might have many problems because you are breaking the Law of Jante -- but don't feel intimidated by them, go on living without fear and in the end you will win." 

Here is Bearcy's explanation and anti-law
http://www.bearcy.com/janteloven.html

1. You are exceptional.
2. You are more worthy than anyone can measure.
3. You can do something special.
4. You have got something to give to others.
5. You have done something you can be proud of.
6. You've got a bundle of unused resources.
7. You are good at something.
8. You can accept others.
9. You've got the capability to understand and learn from others.
10. There are someone who love you.

What is Apologetics?

by Kyle Butt
Apologetics Press
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1625

You walk up to the man on the street and tell him that Jesus Christ loves him and died so he could receive forgiveness of his sins. You explain that everyone should obey Jesus because He is the Son of God. The man wants to know how you know this information. You inform him that the Bible, the inspired Word of God, declares it to be true. He wants to know two things: (1) How can you prove that there is a God?; and (2) How can you prove that the Bible is His Word? He is not being belligerent or cantankerous; he simply wants some good evidence that would warrant the total overhaul of his life you are asking him to make.

It is now your responsibility to present solid, rational arguments that prove the things you have affirmed. You must defend the propositions you have presented. You are appointed for the defense of the Gospel (Philippians 1:17, NKJV).

The term "apologetics" derives from the Greek word apologia, which means "to defend" or "to make a defense." Thus, apologetics is a discipline dedicated to the defense of something. There can be as many different types of apologetics as there are beliefs in the world: atheistic apologetics, Hindu apologetics, Buddhist apologetics, Christian apologetics, ad infinitum. However, generally when the discipline is discussed, most people associate it with Christian apologetics. Therefore, for the remainder of this discussion, when I use the term apologetics, I will be referring specifically to Christian apologetics.

What is apologetics?

Christian philosopher Dick Sztanyo has suggested: "Apologetics is the proclamation and defense of the gospel of Christ regardless of whenever, wherever, and by whomever it is challenged." The apostle Peter used apologetics when he appealed to the empty tomb on Pentecost.

Paul used apologetics when he quoted the stoic poets to draw attention to God's existence as he addressed the Athenians.

Christ used apologetics when He appealed to a Roman coin to prove that Jews should pay taxes.

We can see, then, that the word apologetics carries no hint of "apologizing"—in the sense of being sorry or ashamed. On the contrary, the word houses the exact opposite idea of intelligent vindication by vigorous argument. In fact, Paul stated in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5: "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." Apologetics vigorously defends the truth by refuting arguments that exalt themselves above God's Word.

What tools, then, can apologetics use to "cast down" faulty arguments?

Its toolbox is as endlessly deep as it is long. Any discipline—from astronomy to zoology—can be called upon to come to the aid of apologetics.

Just as Peter used the physical evidence of the empty tomb, just as Paul used contemporary literature, and jut as Jesus used an inscription on a coin, modern apologists can use archaeology, literature, science, morality, technology, and countless other facets of human life to defend Christianity.

A small child can watch ants hard at work and testify to the wisdom of the book of Proverbs.

An astrophysicist can contemplate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and maintain that the world will not last forever.

An archaeologist can find an ancient inscription about a people known as the Hittites and assert that the Bible has accurate information about this ancient group of people.

A professor of literature can read poetry from ages past and ascertain that mankind always has desired to worship a Creator Who is infinitely higher than humanity.

From the heights of the mountains to the depths of the oceans, facts surface that provide an ample array of ammunition that can be fired from the cannon of apologetics.

However, the machinery of apologetics can operate only on the fuel of reason, for without reason apologetics has no sure foundation.

The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines reason as "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking, especially in orderly, rational ways."

Paul contrasted reason with insanity in Acts 26:24-25: "Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, 'Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!' But he said, 'I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason.' "

God and His spokesmen always have spoken rational, reasonable truths.

God employed reason to convince Isaiah's listeners of their sin: " 'Come now, and let us reason together,' says the Lord, 'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow' " (Isaiah 1:18).

When Samuel spoke to the Israelites at the coronation of Saul, he said: "Now therefore, stand still, that I may reason with you before the Lord concerning all the righteous acts of the Lord which He did to you and your fathers" (1 Samuel 12:7).

From the dawn of time, God presented man with the facts, and then allowed man to use reason to reach correct conclusions. Thus, Romans 1:20 states: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…."

Reason provides for the removal of all contradictory and fallacious arguments, leaving only those facts that are consistent and correct.

The Christian religion, at its core, is based upon historically verifiable facts. The Bible is not a sourcebook of wise proverbs that somehow stand upon their own merit. Without an establishment of the facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Word of God as we know it—even with all of its sound wisdom and practical guidance—is nothing more than a devotional book full of helpful platitudes that deserves to be placed on the shelf next to the Chicken Soup for the Soul series. By using historical facts that are consistent and correct, apologetics makes its defense by appealing to man's capacity to reason.

God never has desired that His human creatures blindly accept unreasonable propositions postulated by perverse persons. He does not want us to be "children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive (Ephesians 4:14). On the contrary, He demands that we "test all things; hold fast what is good" (2 Thessalonians 5:21).

In the end, however, apologetics can soften only the hearts of those who agree to be honest with themselves and to deal honestly and reasonably with the available evidence. There is much truth in the old adage: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

What is counter-apologetics?

Counter-apologetics is the term used to describe the process of providing rational objections to arguments made by religious apologists. **While this process could also be called 'apologetics' (based on the strict definition), the terms 'apologetics' and 'apologist' have become virtually synonymous with Christian (or religious) apologetics.**

This redefinition carries implications about the burden of proof and additional concerns that seem to demand that a different, yet similar, term be used to describe objections to traditional religious apologetics.

- Iron Chariots Wiki
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Counter-apologetics

Iron Chariots is intended to provide information on apologetics and counter-apologetics. We'll be collecting common arguments and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as "evidence" for religious claims.

The complexity of issues surrounding religion ensures that any proper assessment requires us to delve into a number of philosophical, historical and sociological topics. Our ultimate goal is to provide a robust and definitive resource for:
* atheists seeking responses to common apologetic arguments
* theists who are questioning the efficacy of their beliefs
* apologists who feel that their "pet" argument is above reproach
* individuals of any philosophical ideal who have an interest in religious studies