WLC is the goto christian apologist as of late. One of the fun features of his “style” is that he does not argue coherently. And here is why:
He lost me when he got to the calculus bit, but the first counter-example was crystal clear. :)
Progressive Bloggers
Your opinions…
 | tildeb on Female Erasure – Boys in… |
 | The Arbourist on Shouldn’t We Be Deportin… |
 | SM on Shouldn’t We Be Deportin… |
| The Arbourist on Life Has to Be Fought For… |
| The Arbourist on University Encampments –… |
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- 'Heart-in-a-box' technology lets Canadian organ donor save a life
- Customers are fed up with anti-theft measures at stores. Retailers say organized crime is to blame
- B.C.'s early start to wildfire season produces record May carbon emissions
- Summer McIntosh breaks world record in women's 400m IM at Canadian swimming trials
- What are whales saying to each other? Scientists are a step closer to finding out
- University of Calgary tolerated protest camps in the past. What made this one different?
- Why Eurovision results are about more than just the best song
- Olive oil is how much now? Prices jump — again — amid worldwide shortage
- 'A wonderful voice for Canadian sport': Darren Dutchyshen, longtime TSN broadcaster, dead at 57
- Canada sanctions 'extremist' Israeli settlers
Blogs I Follow
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
7 comments
April 21, 2013 at 6:25 am
Mikel
Nice review of my college logic class. And pointing out the fallacy of WLC is always fun. :)
LikeLike
April 21, 2013 at 7:51 am
syrbal
On another blog recently, a commenter trolled the entire conversation, complaining that we weren’t loving Jesus. We didn’t need to love religion, just Jesus. And round and round it went….it finally felt like talking to someone who needed to be back on meds.
LikeLike
April 21, 2013 at 8:21 am
The Arbourist
@Syrbal
It often can be the case that when presented uncomfortable arguments people will obfuscate rather than deal with the consequences of accepting a better argument. Thus, as you said, the game begins of unravelling their tortured logic.
Often, it isn’t worth the the time of a deconstruction, because the person in question is running on belief rather than reason thus even the most well thought out argument won’t make a whit of difference.
LikeLike
April 21, 2013 at 8:24 am
syrbal
I think, even as I continue my own semi-tortured and conflicted path with theism of some sort, that is the worst thing….that there seems to be a sort of mental violence a believer does to oneself to continue in the face of public and logical questioning.
It makes me feel desperately sad when I see how MUCH violence some do to themselves to sustain an impossible level of “faith”….and then the light bulb goes on in my had and I realize that is why they are often capable of such violence to others!
LikeLike
April 21, 2013 at 8:38 am
The Arbourist
@Syrbal
Interesting perception of what goes on in the mind of the ‘true believer’, so to speak. One of the major problems I have with the organized religions is that often, their dogmatic views often block the basic empathy and altruistic impulses (in my opinion the qualities that make us good human beings) in people. People can then justify their hatred of the other with self-affirming dogma and feel justified (somehow) in causing pain in others.
More in light of what you said, when arguing against people that will not be swayed by the propaganda that took them in it must be doubly frustrating not only because you are having your cherished beliefs challenged, but being made to look like a dupe for believing the faulty assumption in the first place.
LikeLike
April 21, 2013 at 8:49 am
syrbal
Yes, I think that is a problem….in spite of most of the monotheistic faiths blasting Pride as an evil, pride in religion seems to get a free pass; in fact “defending” your attacked faith….or lack of logic therein is positively viewed as an act OF faith. And then, the logical dominoes really start to tumble. Any sort of thing is justified; it is a sort of hyped up peer pressure in a sense, if you ask me. The believer has to “represent” a basically powerless deity and aggressively so.
I knew very early in life that I was going to have trouble with that viewpoint. When Abraham took his kid up the mountain, when I read it at age 13 1/2, I thought, why doesn’t he tell his bully of a God to do it himself? So, yeah, it never appealed to me and no amount of ministered convinced me.
I often wonder why it DOES convince. It’s a bit like a religious Patriot Act for me —“But God would NEVER do those horrors to the faithful!” “Yeah? But how does one know they are faithful ENOUGH?” Because just reading the book….I gotta say, that Big Bastard is pretty damned capricious. If I am going to post any Being with post-human or more-than-human existence? Thanks, I’ll take the no-gloss bitchy honesty of the old pagan pantheons, lol! At least there, you KNEW a lightening bolt up the ass might be a mere matter of mood!
LikeLike
April 21, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Reneta Scian
It’s circular logic, and the very things you are discussing are why I call religion “A computer virus for your brain”. It literally appears like “malicious logic” designed to circumvent reasoning should a person not have the logical firewalls to prevent any of its routines from taking root in their psychological system. It’s a bunch of logical contradictions designed to blind you from the capacity to recognize it for what it is, and establish a loophole by which you are further invaded by other logical fallacies. At least, that is my conclusion. WLC is just an example of this “logical fallacy” at work with in the mind of a human being.
LikeLike