This is nothing new. It came about decades ago. It isn’t natural or healthy.
However, hate raises its ugly head again and again when people throw words around like “Straw Man Fallacy”, and “Non-Sequitor”.
Lets look Non-Sequitor:
A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. That means that where a normal discussion would be A = B = C, then A must equal C.
Just because you missed B, or misunderstood B, or are missing the whole background for B, doesn’t mean that it was wrong or missing.
And lets look at Straw Man Fallacy:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The following is an outline of a discussion that just happened this week.
Person 1 asks about two different scriptures, and how they relate because they seem to contradict one another.
I answer person 1.
Person 2 asks more questions on the assumption that reading in context is wrong.\
I answer with more supporting scriptures, and add evidence that the context was completely misunderstood.
Person 2 starts using Straw Man, and Non-Sequitor.
Person 1 chimes in and clarifies that I was on the ball and person 2 missed the point of the question.
If I were to explain logic gate functions of a semiconductor to a person with no knowledge of basic electronics, then I guess they would see my statement as Non-Sequitor.
The bottom line is, if you are missing foundational information, or you are purposely distorting comments to your ends, then claim Non-Sequitor, you are being highly dishonest.
Another one that pisses me off is Circular reasoning
(Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”; also known as circular logic): a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
This happens a lot. Usually with people who watched the first part of Zeitgeist and ignore all of the factual errors of the documentary. I have a web page dedicated to this: https://brianbyexperience.wordpress.com/essential-linkschristianity/
Here are the top reasons that people challenge my beliefs with this claim.
- The bible was written about 300 AD in Nicaea.
- Sorry, that is when it was canonized, not written. Many of the biblical writings date back well into the BC years.
- You cannot use the same book to refute the claims against that book.
- Again there is the flaw. The “Book” known as the bible, isn’t a single book, but multiple books compiled together for easy reference as the bible. Also the link above has references to other materials that cover the historian facts of the bible.
- You cannot use the bible to defend the bible.
- So a suspect cannot take the stand to defend themselves? Next time you get into trouble with the law, feel free to not defend yourself.
The problem with most challenges to the validity of Christianity is that by the measure of proof needed Tomas Jefferson couldn’t be proven to be anything more than a fictional character.