Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bandwagon

2020-09-10T18:08:47Z

DavidE: made redirect

#REDIRECT [[Argumentum ad populum]]

Global warming

2020-09-10T18:08:05Z

DavidE: /* From cooling to warming */ internal link

:''See also [[Counterexamples to Global Warming|Counterexamples to global warming]]''
[[File:Global temp chart.jpg|thumb|right|Graph showing temperature connections between solar activity and volcanic eruptions, against a backdrop of historical events.]]
'''Anthropogenic global warming''' (AGW) is a [[liberal]] theory suggesting that human activity is causing the [[Earth]] to warm. The theory posits that [[greenhouse gas]]es, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, trap solar warmth on the planet. Computer models suggest that industrial and vehicular emissions could lead to catastrophic warming. [[Leftist]]s use this theory as a basis to propose cuts in energy production and consumption and to promote de-industrialization. (See: [[Atheism and climate change policies]]). This hoax is also used as way to sue energy companies for billions of dollars, which has hurt the value of those companies and their workers.

The rate of warming predicted by AGW is far higher than what has been observed so far. Based on an average of 102 climate models, the UN's Intergovernment Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that the lower troposphere should be warming at a rate of 3.1 degrees per century.<ref name="SpencerCSP2">"[https://www.newcriterion.com//cm/images/THE%20CLIMATE%20SURPRISE%20PAMPHLET.pdf The Climate Surprise Pamphlet]", ''The New Criterion'', 2016. Taken from chart "All 3 Global Temperature Dataset Types Disagree with the Climate Model During the Period of Greatest Greenhouse Concentration."</ref> Satellite data shows that the lower troposphere warmed at a rate of 1.3 degrees per century between 1978 and 2019.<ref name="SpencerCSP">"[https://www.newcriterion.com//cm/images/THE%20CLIMATE%20SURPRISE%20PAMPHLET.pdf The Climate Surprise Pamphlet]", ''The New Criterion'', 2016.</ref><ref name=SpencerUAH>Spencer, Roy, "[https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/GTR_201901Jan_1.pdf Global Temperature Report: January 2019]", 2019. This is data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.</ref> Weather balloon data shows a warming trend of 1.6 degrees per century between 1958 and 2018.<ref>"[https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/ RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt.zip]", NOAA, National Centers for Environmental Information. Based on data for 850-300 mb.</ref>

An analysis of weather station data by U.S. climate researcher [[Roy Spencer]] shows no significant warming since 1943. Unlike the official weather station record, Spencer's data includes only those stations that recorded temperature at a consistent time of day.<ref name="Spencer" /> The heating predicted by AGW but not detected in the temperature record is sometimes said to be accumulating in the oceans. But a study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography found that ocean temperature has risen by only 0.1 degree Celsius in the last fifty years.<ref>"[https://dailycaller.com/2018/01/05/new-study-shows-past-research-on-rising-ocean-temps-built-on-faulty-science/ New Study Shows Past Research On Rising Ocean Temps Built On Faulty Science]," ''The Daily Caller'', 01/05/2018.</ref>

The theory that "greenhouse gases" have a greater warming effect than other gases goes back to the 19th century. The idea that carbon dioxide emissions might lead to catastrophic warming was introduced by Carl Sagan in the 1960s. He was inspired by research on the atmosphere of Venus. Around 1978, the environmental movement decided to promote Sagan's theory. The movement was already advocating energy conservation and renewables as a response to the "energy crisis." That is to say, a desired political outcome was agreed upon and then a "scientific" justification was developed.

==Difficulties with the theory==
*'''Carbon dioxide is insignificant as a greenhouse gas.''' The level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is only 400 parts per million. Ninety to 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.<ref>Friedenreich and Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264</ref> The IPCC claims that water vapor acts as a "positive feedback," i.e. warming creates more humidity, which leads to additional warming. There are humidity measurements going back to 1948, and they show no upward trend.<ref>"[https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-climate/ global climate]," ''Watt's Up with That''</ref> More humidity could lead to more clouds and therefore to cooling and to negative feedback. So why assume positive feedback? AGW works only if water vapor is a positive feedback, so that is what the IPCC must claim. Although Obama has denounced elevated carbon dioxide levels as "carbon pollution," greenhouse operators commonly increase the level of CO2 to 1,000 ppm or more to enhance plant growth.<ref>"[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151210101819.htm Plant growth enhanced by increased carbon dioxide, but food webs give rise to significant variations]", ''Science News'', December 10, 2015. Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer, "[http://arizonaskywatch.com/article/articles/In%20defense%20of%20carbon%20dioxide.pdf In Defense of Carbon Dioxide]," ''Wall Street Journal'', May 8, 2013.</ref>
[[Image:NASA-1024x933.jpg|thumb|right|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the East (right) are almost cooling.<ref>Roberts, Greg (April 18, 2009). [http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191 "Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away."] News.com.au. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref>]]
*'''The Earth has warmed or cooled many times. Historically, warm periods are associated with favorable climate.''' The [[Roman Warm Period]] (250 BC to 180 AD) featured temperatures comparable to those of modern times. This was followed by the Dark Ages Cold Period (450-950 AD).<ref>"[http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/dacpeurope.php Dark Ages Cold Period (Europe) - Summary]", ''CO2 Science'', 1 June 2005.</ref> The Medieval Warm Period was even warmer than the Roman period and lasted from 950 to 1300.<ref>John P. Rafferty, "[https://global.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period Medieval warm period (MWP)]", ''Britannica''</ref> From the 14th century to the early 19th century, there was a Little Ice Age.<ref>John P. Rafferty, Stephen T. Jackson, "[https://global.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age Little Ice Age (LIA)]", ''Britannica''.</ref><ref>See the graphs at "[http://www.climate4you.com/ Global temperatures]," Climate4you.</ref><ref>Bastasch, Michael, "[https://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/ Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times]", ''The Daily Caller''. For a peer-reviewed paper, see Moberg, A., et al. 2005 "[ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction]", ''World Data Center for Paleoclimatology''. The Moberg data set is charted [https://i0.wp.com/i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Moberg-1.png here].</ref>
*'''For leftists, the attraction of the theory is that it supports their agenda.''' The environmentalist agenda of renewables, solar energy, conservation, and world government was put together in the 1970s in response to the energy crisis and to the overpopulation scare. At that time, most scientists thought the Earth was cooling.<ref>"[http://realclimatescience.com/the-corrupt-history-of-nasa-temperature-history/ The corrupt history of NASA temperature history]", ''Real Climate Science''.</ref><ref name="Time" /> When AGW came along, it was treated as an additional justification for this agenda. Steven Schneider, founding father of the AGW movement, was a global cooling believer in the early 1970s. "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have," he explained.<ref>This is from an article Schneider wrote for ''Discover'' magazine in 1989.[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=67]</ref> To Schneider, global cooling and global warming were just two "scary senarios." He could offer up whichever one was expedient.
*'''Carbon dioxide can be absorbed by promoting plant growth, an angle overlooked by the mainstream media.''' In fact, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has already resulted in an increase in plant growth. If that's not enough, iron filings can be dumped at sea to encourage the growth of marine plants.<ref>Carrington, Damian, "[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon Dumping iron at sea can bury carbon for centuries, study shows]" ''The Guardian'', 18 July 2012.</ref> Freeman Dyson, America's top physicist, has suggested genetically engineering trees to absorb more carbon.<ref>"[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015]." Dyson recommends ''Cool It'' (2007) by Bjorn Lomborg as the best summary of the AGW issue.</ref>
*'''If the science were in fact settled, we would see less outrage at "deniers" and greater concern for scientific integrity.''' One climate science scandal after another has been exposed. The Climategate emails show hoaxers scurrying to "hide the decline."<ref name=MISH>"[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html#quEdWPhB8b6cs07f.99 Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]", ''MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis''</ref> The "hockey stick" view of climate history, which holds that global temperature was constant for 2,000 years and then surged in the last century, has been repeatedly debunked.<ref>Muller, Richard A., "[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell]", ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.</ref> No one's reputation is tarnished by these bloopers, no one pays any price. The first response of AGW backers is name calling and attempts to shut down the discussion. Argument is a last resort.<ref>Phil Plait, columnist for ''Discover'', is a good example. Plait has only contempt for those who express concerns about scientific integrity in climate research: "yawn," "non-event," etc. With no sense of irony, he can write, "these denialist claims are largely ad hominems." If you fail to show "the scientists" enough respect, then you are a "global warming denier." This name-calling-as-argument strategy is typical of AGW hacks. (Phil Plait, "[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/#.WHMkC9J97cs The global warming emails non-event]," ''Discover'', November 30, 2009.)</ref> The logical explanation is that they already know AGW is a hoax, and they don't care.

==History==
The greenhouse effect was proposed by [[Joseph Fourier]] in 1827. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius is sometimes considered the father of global warming theory because of a paper he published in 1896 on the effect of carbon dioxide emissions. Arrhenius thought of global warming as a positive thing. The idea that carbon dioxide emissions might lead to catastrophe comes from research on the Venusian atmosphere in the 1960s by Karl Sagan and other NASA scientists. In the 1970s, global cooling theories were more prominent than global warming theories. Even Steven Schneider, later a promoter of global warming, published a paper on global cooling. As a result of the energy crisis of the 1970s, the environmentalist movement adopted an agenda of conservation and renewable energy. With global warming as its flagship theory, the movement could continue promoting its 1970s agenda long after the original justifications for it had disappeared. Schneider offered up "scary scenarios," as he called them, to promote the theory.

===Origin===
In 1827, French scientist Joseph Fourier suggested that although the atmosphere allowed sunlight to pass through to warm the Earth, it blocked "dark heat" (infrared radiation) from the Earth and thus prevented energy from being transferred back into space.<ref name=Fourier>Fourier, Jean Baptist Joseph, "On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere in Interplanetary Space", Translated in ''The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for Climate Change Forecast''. The relevant section is pp. 12-13.</ref> Fourier did make an unfortunate analogy between the Earth's atmosphere and a space enclosed by glass. All the same, it may not be fair to blame Fourier for the greenhouse effect meme. He also discussed convection as an alternative explanation and, as a good scientist, recommended an experiment to resolve the issue.

In 1861, Irish scientist John Tyndall measured the absorption of radiant energy by various gases in the atmosphere. He concluded that water vapor was the gas primarily responsible. It could therefore be considered the warming agent that Fourier hypothesized. Tyndall suggested that changes in humidity could bring about climate change.

The AGW theory was first presented in 1896 in an article by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. Arrhenius predicted that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning would lead to a temperature increase of 3 to 4 °C (about 5 to 7 °F) after 500 years. Arrhenius attributes his misunderstanding of the science to Fourier: "Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse."<ref>Arrhenius, Svante, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air on the Temperature on the Ground", ''London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science,'' April 1896. Reprinted in ''The Warming Papers'', pp. 56-77.</ref>

The use of the Swedish word ''drivbänk'' (hothouse) by Arrhenius and his colleagues is likely to be the origin of the phrase "greenhouse effect." This phrase is first recorded in English in 1907.<ref>"[http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2015/08/who-first-coined-the-term-greenhouse-effect/ Who first coined the term “Greenhouse Effect”?]," ''Serendipity,'' August 2015</ref>

===The skeptics strike back===
Arrhenius ignored water vapor in his calculations, leading him to overestimate the effect of CO2 by 96 percent, as Knut Ångström observed in 1901.<ref>"[https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/climate-scientists-celebrating-115-years-of-debunked-science/ Climate Scientists Celebrating 115 Years Of Debunked Junk Science]"</ref> More controversially, Ångström questioned whether CO2 could act as a greenhouse gas at all. He took a tube of carbon dioxide, shined black-body radiation on it, and varied the pressure on the gas. Increasing the pressure led to only a slight increase in absorption. He concluded that radiation absorption by CO2 is already nearly saturated, so the emission of additional gas into the atmosphere would have little effect. Ångström thus became "the first denier."

Nils Ekholm, an associate of Arrhenius, had an answer to Ångström's point about saturation.<ref>Ekholm, Nils, "On the Variations of the Geological and Historical Past their Causes, ''Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,'' January 1901. DOI: 10.1002/qj.49702711702.</ref> Ångström's tube was saturated because it was at ground level. High enough in the atmosphere, there must be an unsaturated layer of carbon dioxide capable of absorbing radiation. The greater the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the lower this layer would be. A lower layer would retransmit more radiation to the lower atmosphere and would therefore be responsible for greater warming. Ekholm's insight was lost on his fellow scientists. It was not rediscovered until the 1960s.<ref>"The Surface budget fallacy," ''The Warming Papers'', pp. 79-80.</ref>

As for Ångström's point concerning water vapor, Arrhenius insisted that CO2 rose higher in the atmosphere than water vapor could, so water vapor was not relevant. This argument never caught on. The idea that adding CO2 would change the climate, "was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor," the American Meteorological Society concluded in 1951.<ref>American Meteorological Society, ''[https://www.questia.com/read/97549786/compendium-of-meteorology 1951 Compendium of Meteorology]'', p. 1016.</ref> Despite Ångström's debunking of his theory, Arrhenius won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1903 for unrelated research. The Ångströms, meanwhile, are remembered for a miniscule unit of length named after Anders Ångström, Knut's dad.

===Disproving the greenhouse effect===
Finally performing the experiment Fourier had recommended a century earlier, Robert Wood showed in 1909 that energy is transferred from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere primarily through convection currents. In Wood's experiment, the temperature in a glass box was compared to that in a box with a top made of halite (rock salt). Halite allows sunlight to enter, but blocks infrared. Infrared re-radiation and the greenhouse effect play "a very small part," both in the atmosphere and in literal greenhouses, Wood concluded.<ref>Wood, Robert, "[http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse]", ''Philosphical Magazine'', January—June 1909. "[http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.jp/2010/06/greenhouse-theory-disproven-in-1909.html Greenhouse Theory disproven in 1909, 1963, 1966, 1973...but still refuses to die]," June 28, 2010. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, "[https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics]"</ref> A greenhouse is warmer than the air outside because the roof limits convection and the walls restrict wind. "The acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air," as Fourier himself explained.<ref name="Fourier" />

From 1909 until the 1960s, only a few additional papers on AGW were published. Research went forward as the lonely project of English scientist Guy Callendar. Callendar collected historical temperature readings and CO2 measurements and published the results in 1938.<ref>Callendar, G.S. (1938). "The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate." ''Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society'' 64: 223-40. Reprinted in ''The Warming Papers'', pp. 261-273.</ref>

===Sagan and Venus===
In 1932, Venus was shown to have an atmosphere of carbon dioxide.<ref>"Carbon Dioxide Discovered in Atmosphere of Venus", Astronautics, Vol. 2, No. 21 (1932), pp. 6-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.2514/8.11921</ref> This finding prompted astronomer Rupert Wildt to propose in 1940 that a greenhouse effect operated on the planet. Radio telescope observations in 1958 showed that the temperature of Venus was even higher than Wildt's theory could explain. Astronomer Carl Sagan proposed in 1960 that the planet had a “very efficient greenhouse effect,” or runaway greenhouse as it later came to be called.<ref>Weart, Spencer, "[http://history.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/venus.pdf Venus & Mars]", June 2011.</ref><ref>Sagan, Carl, "[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/133/3456/849 The Planet Venus]", ''Science'', 24 March 1961.</ref> The Mariner 2 mission in 1962 measured the temperature of Venus as 500 degrees Celsius. The planet that had been considered "Earth's twin" just a few years earlier was revealed as a sulfurous vision of hell.

Mariner's findings were sensational because they had been predicted by Immanuel Velikovsky in ''Worlds in Collision'' (1950), which argues that Venus was ejected from Jupiter in mythological times. The scientific community had denounced Velikovsky and his theory in the strongest terms, and Sagan emerged as its champion. Sagan and Velikovsky faced off at a dramatic conference in San Francisco in 1974.<ref>AAAS Symposium: "Velikovsky's Challenge to Science" held on February 25, 1974.</ref>

By portraying carbon dioxide as a doomsday chemical, Sagan put a radically new spin on the issue. Both Arrhenius and Callendar had assumed that greenhouse warming would be beneficial. With Rachel Carson's ''Silent Spring'' (1962), Paul R. Ehrlich's ''The Population Bomb'' (1968), and the Club of Rome's ''The Limits to Growth'' (1972), this was an era when the reading public had an enormous appetite for spurious theories concerning human-initiated global catastrophe.

While the Venus discoveries ignited a burst of interest in AGW, they did nothing to shore up its scientific merits. In 1971, Russian climatologist Mikhail Budyko gave a speech to a large international conference in Leningrad in which he presented an alarmist AGW scenario. Reaction was strongly negative. It was clear that AGW was very much a minority opinion among scientists at this time. A quick look at Venus reveals that the atmosphere is opaque due to globe-spanning sulfur dioxide clouds. These clouds are 30 to 40 km thick. No sunlight reaches the surface.<ref>NASA's "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html Venus Fact Sheet]" gives the planet's diurnal temperature range as zero, i.e. no difference between night and day on the surface.</ref> It follows that the planet has no greenhouse effect whatsoever.

In a runaway greenhouse, the greenhouse effect vaporizes additional water, which in turn increases the greenhouse effect. This leads to even more water vaporization and so on in a cycle of positive feedback. Venus has very little water of any kind, so Sagan's runaway greenhouse is not possible.<ref name=pierre>*Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, ''[https://books.google.ca/books?id=bO_U8f5pVR8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s Principles of Planetary Climate]'', pp. 14-15. *Anthony Watts explains why Sagan's theory is "beyond absurd" in "[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/ Hyperventilating on Venus]," May 6, 2010.</ref> Whatever the chemistry of the Venusian atmosphere, water vapor absorbs a wider spectrum of radiation than carbon dioxide does and remains the primary greenhouse gas in the terrestrial atmosphere, as Tyndall showed long ago.

Venus research proved to be an incubator for AGW showboaters. James “Boiling Oceans” Hansen, who emerged as the public face of AGW in the late 1980s, was a NASA Venus researcher in the 1960s. Overlooking Hansen's history of following one kook theory after another, the mainstream media treated his talk of "runaway greenhouse" and "Venus syndrome" as serious science.<ref>Sullivan, John, "[https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/top-scientists-vent-on-nasas-sub-prime-greenhouse-gas-hoaxere-optional/ Top Scientists Vent on NASA’s Sub Prime Greenhouse Gas Hoaxer]", May 20, 2012. "The oceans will begin to boil," Hansen announces in [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/quote-of-the-week-dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-unhinged/ this video]. In his book, ''Storms of my Grandchildren'', Hansen writes: "[I]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."</ref>

Hansen's claim that continued CO2 emissions will trigger a runaway greenhouse on Earth is unlikely in view of the Earth's recovery after the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a huge natural spike in CO2 that occurred 55.5 million years ago.<ref>Kunzig, Robert, "[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130729-runaway-greenhouse-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/ Will Earth's Ocean Boil Away?]", ''National Geographic'', July 30, 2013.</ref> During PETM, the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere increased by about 700 ppm over 20,000 years and the planet warmed by 5–8 degrees Celsius.<ref>McInherney, F.A..; Wing, S. (2011). "A perturbation of carbon cycle, climate, and biosphere with implications for the future". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 39: 489–516. Bibcode:2011AREPS..39..489M. doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133431</ref> Plant growth accelerated and there was a return to pre-PETM conditions after 200,000 years.<ref>Gabriel J. Bowen & James C. Zachos, "Rapid carbon sequestration at the termination of the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum", ''Nature'' Geoscience 3, 866–869 (2010) doi:10.1038/ngeo1014</ref> Although this event is sometimes presented as confirmation of the greenhouse concept, warming preceded the CO2 spike by about 3,000 years<ref>Sluijs, A.; Brinkhuis, H.; Schouten, S.; Bohaty, S.M.; John, C.M.; Zachos, J.C.; Reichart, G.J.; Sinninghe Damste, J.S.; Crouch, E.M.; Dickens, G.R. (2007). "Environmental precursors to rapid light carbon injection at the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary". Nature. 450 (7173): 1218–21. Bibcode:2007Natur.450.1218S. doi:10.1038/nature06400. PMID 18097406.</ref> and may have been initiated by a comet impact.<ref>[https://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/petm/ Study: Extraterrestrial impact preceded ancient global warming event]", October 13, 2016. Morgan F. Schaller, Megan K. Fung, James D. Wright, Miriam E. Katz, Dennis V. Kent, "[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/225.full Impact ejecta at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary]", ''Science'', 14 Oct 2016:
Vol. 354, Issue 6309, pp. 225-229 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5466.</ref>

===From cooling to warming===
Despite Venus-related attention, AGW was overshadowed by a cooling scare in the 1970s. Steven Schneider, who later emerged as a key player in AGW politics, confidently predicted more cooling in 1971:
{{cquote|[I]t is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 ''°K''. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is '''believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.''' However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Rasool SI, Schneider SH |title=Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: effects of large increases on global climate |journal=Science |volume=173 |issue=3992 |pages=138–41 |date=July 1971 |pmid=17739641 |doi=10.1126/science.173.3992.138 |url= }}</ref>}}

By the late 1970s, the cooling scare had tapered off and Schneider was actively promoting AGW. The energy crisis, which began in 1973, put energy policy in the center of the political debate. In response, the left adopted a platform of conservation, renewables, and solar energy. Schneider and others noticed that AGW provided an additional justification for this platform.

By the late 1980s, Schneider and his fellow activists had transformed global warming from a fringe concern to a central political issue. He explained how in a 1989 interview:
{{cquote|And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. '''That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,''' make simplified, dramatic statements, '''and make little mention of any doubts we might have'''. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.<ref>The quote is from ''Discover'', pp. 45–48, October 1989. See [https://www.weeklystandard.com/climategate-part-ii/article/610926 this link].</ref>}}

After Schneider abandoned his global cooling hobbyhorse and got on the global warming [[argumentum ad populum|bandwagon]], he never looked back. He was all about offering up "scary scenarios" in order to get "loads of media coverage." He had hoped to be honest, but, let's face it, nobody's perfect. Since he presents himself here as the high priest of climate science, it should be noted that Schneider's Ph.D. is in mechanical engineering.

===The IPCC===
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN agency that reports on climate science, was founded in 1988. IPCC reports are often cited as the gold standard of science in this field, proof that AGW is "settled science." But few journalists read the report itself. Instead, they rely on the "Executive Summary" or "Summary for Policymakers." This document is written, not by scientists, but by UN bureaucrats under the supervision of Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian railway economist who heads the IPCC. The Climategate II emails reveal that the summary is written first then material is added to the various chapters to support it.<ref>Hayward, Steven F., "[https://www.weeklystandard.com/climategate-part-ii/article/610926 Climategate (Part II)]," ''Weekly Standard'', Dec. 12, 2011</ref> This procedure makes a farce of the IPCC's stated mission, which is to review the published literature so as to determine the scientific consensus.

As for the main report, this is put together carelessly, according George Filippo: "I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)....IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results....I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes." Filippo was a vice chair of the group from 2002 to 2008 and has contributed to all five IPCC reports.<ref>"[http://tomnelson.blogspot.jp/2012/01/don-miss-this-devastating-criticism-of.html Don't miss this devastating criticism of the IPCC]," January 02, 2012</ref>

===Climategate===
The AGW industry was exposed as a hoax by the release of the "[[Climategate]]" emails in 2009. The Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University in Britain prepared 156 megaybytes of email by their researchers for release under the Freedom of Information Act. This database was somehow leaked, either prematurely or by a whistleblower after the institution had second thoughts.

In the most notorious message, Phil Jones, director of the unit, wrote, "I've just completed '''Mike's ''Nature'' trick''' of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''."<ref name=MISH /> This should not be understood to mean that real temperature was declining, but rather that the researchers were attempting to cover up flaws in their tree-ring based data set. The graph in question was a version of the famous "hockey stick" that shows global temperature constant for 2,000 years, followed by a dramatic warming in the last century. ''Nature'' is considered one of the most authoritative science journals. So this quote suggests that a chart prepared for the magazine was faked with the approval of Jones as supervisor. An email by CRU researcher Tim Osborn clarifies what the ''Nature'' trick was: "Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were."<ref>"[http://tomnelson.blogspot.jp/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-damning.html In case you missed it, damning ClimateGate emails from Tim Osborne]", Tom Nelson, Dec. 06, 2011.</ref>

What's wrong with using tree ring data to created a climate record? The CRU researchers assumed that a tree grows faster when it's warmer. But rainfall has a stronger influence on tree growth than temperature does. Temperature is correlated to tree growth only in the sense that it tends to rain more in warm eras. Critics call the CRU's approach the "tree-o-meter" theory.<ref>"[http://tomnelson.blogspot.jp/2012/02/email-3826-feb-2001-in-email-copied-to.html Email 3826, Feb 2001]," Tom Nelson, Feb. 04, 2012. "In one go, they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE [Medieval Warm Era] and LIA [Little Ice Age] as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings - a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above."</ref>

In another Climategate email, Jones enthusiastically demands that the IPCC review process be rigged: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Jones also admitted that the reason he claims the Earth is warming is political: "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant."<ref name=steyn14>Steyn, Mark, "[http://www.steynonline.com/2697/how-the-science-got-settled How the Science Got Settled]", December 6, 2014.</ref> Jones is ignoring the fact that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to an El Niño event. All the same, it's clear that he runs the CRU to produce made-to-order results rather than as a scientist.

==The temperature record==
Global temperatures are tracked by three methods: satellites, weather balloons, and weather stations. All three methods confirm a modest amount of warming in recent decades. Satellite data shows a warming trend of 0.11 K/decade for 1978 to 2015.<ref>Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy, and William D. Braswell, "[http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released]", 28 April 2015.</ref> Weather balloon data shows a warming trend of 0.18 K/decade for 1970 to 2015.<ref>The figure given is for RATPAC-A, surface to 700 mb. See "[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/14/gavins-admission-about-the-satellite-record-versus-the-surface-temperature-record/ Gavin’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record]," ''Watt's Up With That''. You can find a collection of global climate charts [https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-climate/ here].</ref>

A reanalysis of weather station data for 1943 to 2012 by Roy Spencer shows that after a cooler period in the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. temperatures returned to their earlier level. Unlike CRU, NASA, and NOAA, Spencer corrects for the fact that at most stations measurement time of day has changed over the years.<ref name=Spencer>Spencer, Roy, "[http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/a-new-analysis-of-u-s-temperature-trends-since-1943/ A New Analysis of U.S. Temperature Trends Since 1943]," August 6th, 2012.</ref> So Spencer's analysis implies that the warmest year on record was 1934, the warmest year of the 1930s, not 2016 as the climate establishment maintains. Spencer is a prominent skeptic and a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He maintains the UAH record, one of the two major satellite temperature records. As an active researcher at the center of the climate science community, Spencer is a standing rebuke to the claim that AGW represents the scientific consensus.<ref>Spencer, Roy, "[http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/ My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies]"</ref>

The temperature records preferred by the climate establishment were built up over many years and include numerous gaps, bugs, incompatible coding, and other errors. The problems of the CRU data set are memorably documented in the "Harry read me" file, part of the Climategate trove. According to this file, the premier global temperature record contains, "botch after botch after botch."<ref name=Brownlow>Brownlow, Andie, "[https://pjmedia.com/blog/climategates-harry_read_me-txt-we-all-really-should/?singlepage=true Climategate's Harry_Read_Me.txt: We All Really Should]", Dec. 11, 2009.</ref>

AGW is hardly the only explanation that has been proposed for recent warming. There are also explanations involving natural cycles such as the 11-year-sunspot cycle, the Pacific decadal oscillation,<ref>Bratcher and Giese, "Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming", ''Geophysical Research Letters''.</ref> and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).<ref>*72 percent of global temperature variation since 1958 reflects the influence of a Pacific Ocean weather cycle called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter--2009-07-23). "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature". ''Journal of Geophysical Research'' *Spencer, R.W. & Braswell, W.D., "[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model]", Asia-Pacific J Atmos Sci (2014) 50: 229. doi:10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z</ref>

==Summary of arguments against anthropogenic global warming==
Natural periods of global warming and global cooling are expected to occur regardless of human activity, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.<ref name="Time">"Science: Another Ice Age?" (June 24, 1974). ''Time'' magazine. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref> [[Global cooling]], a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout [[Earth|Earth's]] geological history.<ref name="dissidents">"After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical [[Milankovitch]] decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an [[ice age]] ensues." Cockburn, Alexander (June 9–11, 2007). [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html "Dissidents against dogma"]. Counterpunch. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref> The ease of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global warming hysteria.

Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer to [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "[[greenhouse gases]]" is causing an increase in temperature and is more significant than natural causes. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see [[IPCC]]). The reality is that there is no immediate global crisis, and even dire warnings by the UN's [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) admit that significant effects will not be manifested for at least 100 years. Predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass in recent years. Many scientists, such as Hal Lewis, have decried global warming as a conspiracy for the purpose of securing trillions of dollars in grant money.

In November 2009, emails were disclosed that implicated a wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to [[ClimateGate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".<ref>"Issues" (September 1, 2007). www.JohnMcCain.com [2008 senate campaign website] quoted in [http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm "John McCain on environment"] OnTheIssues.org. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref> In 2010, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing ''as scientists'', but remarked upon their omissions as data-presenters. Accordingly, the effects of the scandal still linger.<ref>Whiteman, Hilary (July 7, 2010). [https://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/?hpt=Sbin "'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty"]. CNN World. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref>

Former Vice President [[Al Gore]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. However, it has since been revealed that he convinced many people through inaccurate information in his "documentary," i.e., he only won the Nobel Prize by lying. [See [[#Al_Gore.27s_Claims|Al Gore's claims]] below.]

The following facts can help dissuade even the most illogical of liberals from believing in the flawed theory of anthropogenic global warming.

=== Temperature flat ===
The overall temperature has been flat for about 16 years.<ref name="Rose">Rose, David (October 13, 2012). [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html "Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...and here is the chart to prove it"]. MailOnline. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref>

=== Data manipulation ===
Climate data stating otherwise has been proven to be manipulated.<ref>Multiple references:
*KUSI-TV (January 14, 2010). [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000 "NASA caught in climate data manipulation; new revelations headlined on KUSI-TV climate special"]. SpaceRef. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jasZcNQqsw "Climategate 2-US Government involved in data manipulation"] (January 16, 2010). YouTube video, 10:00, posted by Bigone5555J. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref>

=== Alternate causation ===
Even if global warming did actually exist, the overall effect of human activities on global warming are minimal, if not nonexistent.<ref>Byrne, Dennis (August 30, 2011). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-30/news/ct-oped-0830-byrne-20110830_1_cosmic-rays-aerosols-magnetic-field "The real science trashers"]. ChicagoTribune. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref>

==Science of global warming==
===Presence of CO2===

One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide—which is a greenhouse gas—were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. Historically, Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.<ref>[http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm "CO2 lags temperature-what does it mean?"] (2007). SkepticalScience. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref>

The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the heating of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide.<ref>[http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html "Carbon dioxide in the ocean and atmosphere"] (2007). Water Encyclopedia. Retrieved on September 26, 2014</ref> As the temperature rises, the [[solubility]] of carbon dioxide in ocean water is reduced,<ref>[https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/ "Carbon cycle"] (2010). NASA Science. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref> causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise.

It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above-mentioned cyclic effect. According to the IPCC and others, the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is about 392 ppm, which is the highest it has been in at about 800,000 years.<ref>Tans, Pieter and Keeling, Ralph (2010). [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html "Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide"]. NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref>

But other scientists have disputed this claim of modern-day record-high carbon dioxide readings:<ref name="dissidents"/>
<blockquote>Take Warsaw-based Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, famous for his critiques of ice-core data. He’s devastating on the IPCC rallying cry that CO2 is higher now than it has ever been over the past 650,000 years. In his 1997 paper in the Spring ''21st Century Science and Technology'', he demolishes this proposition. In particular, he’s very good on pointing out the enormous inaccuracies in the ice-core data and the ease with which a CO2 reading from any given year is contaminated by the CO2 from entirely different eras. He also points out that from 1985 on there’s been some highly suspect editing of the CO2 data, presumably to reinforce the case for the "unprecedented levels" of modern CO2. In fact, in numerous papers prior to 1985, there were plenty of instances of CO2 levels much higher than current CO2 measurements, some even six times higher. He also points out that it is highly unscientific to merge ice-core temperature measurements with modern temperature measurements.</blockquote>

===The Modern Warm Period===
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere.

Recent studies of the Milankovitch Cycles, which predict Earth's climate by studying changes in its orbit and axial tilt, suggest that we are currently 18,000 years into a 150,000 year period between ice ages. This would imply that we should expect the temperature to be rising anyway. A 2002 study by Berger and Loutre suggests 50,000 years of warmer weather before Earth begins to cool again, but that model incorporated anthropogenic forces and concluded:
<blockquote>While combinations of natural forcings produce a gradual warming up to about 1960, none of them leads to a warming over the last 30 years (this period containing three major volcanic eruptions). In contrast, simulations incorporating only anthropogenic forcings reproduce the warming over the last three decades at a rate consistent with that observed, but underestimate the early 20th century warming. As a consequence, only the use of both natural and anthropogenic forcings allows to reproduce much of the observed decadal scale variations of the annual mean hemispheric temperature over the last 150 years.<ref>Bertrand, Cédric, Loutre, Marie-France et al. (May 2002). [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0870.2002.00287.x/full "Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study"]. ''Tellus'' [Stockholm], vol. 54, iss. 3, pp. 221-244. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library on September 26, 2014.</ref></blockquote>

It should be noted, however, that computer simulated climate models are often tweaked so they agree with the historical temperature record. There is no way to completely simulate all of the Earth's climate with a computer program.

After a major set of temperature readings was found to be an incompatible mix of older and recent data (in the Climategate II scandal) in 2010, Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university examined new data causing her to state (as quoted by MailOnline):<ref name="Rose"/>

<blockquote>'Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.'</blockquote>

The MailOnline article continued:

<blockquote>Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her.... Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’</blockquote>

==Polar bears==
It was announced on the news that polar bears risk going extinct by the end of the twenty-first century if current carbon emissions continue.

===Sunspots===
Sunspot activity is a factor in climate fluctuations, however, little details were known about how much of an impact these fluctuations had on the Earth's climate. During the deepest solar minimum ever recorded, from 2005 to 2010, NASA measured the Earth's energy balance, i.e. the amount of energy absorbed by the sun subtract the amount of energy lost to radiation into space. They concluded:
<blockquote>If the Sun were the only climate forcing or the dominant climate forcing, then the planet would gain energy during the solar maxima, but lose energy during solar minima. The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing.<ref>Hansen, James, Sato, Makiko et al. (January 2012). [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/ "Earth's energy imbalance"] nasa.gov/Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref></blockquote>
But heat energy is not the only force of the Sun affecting the Earth. The Sun also produces magnetic activity, the effect of which was not measured in this study, and which could affect the Earth's climate in little-understood ways. British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, speaking in May 2017, claimed that low sunspot activity heralds a mini ice age which could last for 20 years.<ref>https://abruptearthchanges.com/2017/06/14/mini-ice-age-is-here-to-stay-says-astrophysicist/</ref>

==Economics of global warming==
While the marriage of anti-capitalists and alleged climate science is nothing new, Rep. [[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]] has introduced legislation as part of her [[Green New Deal]], [[reparations]] for minorities, a basic income, and [[Medicare for All]] as part of her "[[climate justice]]" program.<ref>https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-radical-mandate-government-con</ref>

===Unnecessary expansion of government===
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist [[Charles Krauthammer]] to warn of an impending "environmental shakedown".<ref>Krauthammer, Charles (December 11, 2009). [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html "The environmental shakedown"]. Real Clear Politics. Retrieved on September 27, 2014.</ref>

==Public stances on global warming==
===Climate change as a cult===
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. Columnist Deon Feder warns,<ref>Feder, Don (July 31, 2007). [http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=27579 "The cult of global warming"]. GrassTopsUSA.com. Retrieved from archive at FrontPageMag.com on September 27, 2014.</ref> that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, ''[[Silent Spring]]'',
<blockquote>now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], [[Sierra Club]] and editorial board of ''The New York Times'').</blockquote>

<blockquote>Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional [[An Inconvenient Truth|“An Inconvenient Truth”]]), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.</blockquote>

Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's, Maurizio Morabito<ref>Morabito, Maurizio (December 5, 2009). [http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/5592803/the-cias-global-cooling-files/ "The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ file"]. ''The Spectator''. Retrieved from The Spectator website on September 27, 2014.</ref> asked, "Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?"

Mark Steyn writes in ''Macleans'',<ref name="hot">Steyn, Mark (December 24, 2009). [http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/ "Why climate change is hot hot hot"]. Macleans. Retrieved on September 27, 2014.</ref>
<blockquote>
Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”</blockquote>

And while, "When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable", among these devotees of [[Gaia]],
<blockquote>Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the ''National Post''’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series ''The Ascent of Man''. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.</blockquote>

===Politics of global warming and dissent===
{{main|Politics of global warming}}

Christine Stewart—Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits.... [C]limate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." <ref>Stewart, Christine (December 14, 1998). ''Calgary Herald''. Reprinted at "Match these quotes" (December 2004). ''Resource Roundup'', p. 8. Reprinted at [http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ "Use environmentalism to change the world"]. Accuracy in Media, "What liberals say" series. Retrieved on September 27, 2014.</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic' <ref>Sheppard, Noel (July 17, 2007). [http://newsbusters.org/node/14467 "Hysterical satire: 'Global warming now world's most boring topic'"]. MRC NewsBusters. Retrieved on September 27, 2014.</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience.<ref name="cato">Lindzen, Richard (Spring 1992). [http://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-1992 "Global warming: The origin and nature of the alleged scientific consensus"]. ''Regulation'', vol. 15, no. 2. Retrieved from Cato Institute website on September 29, 2014.</ref>

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power.<ref name="cato"/>

Mark Steyn writes in "Why climate change is hot hot hot",<ref name="hot"/>
<blockquote>
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.</blockquote>

The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century—the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period—it was the period between 931 and 1180.<ref>Birdnow, Timothy (June 24, 2008). [http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 "The trees of Finland; temperature readings and historical reconstruction"]. Birdnow's Aviary blog. Retrieved on September 29, 2014. With links to actual data sources.</ref>

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] — ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'') have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report.<ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those).<ref name="cato"/>

[[Christopher Monckton]] wrote an article entitled "Climate sensitivity reconsidered" which states that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed.<ref>Monckton, Christopher (July 2008). [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm "Climate sensitivity reconsidered"]. ''Physics & Society'' newsletter. Retrieved from American Physical Society/Forum on Physics and Society website on September 29, 2014.</ref>

:The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC's models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

::Radiative forcing ΔF;
::The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
::The feedback multiplier ƒ.

:Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimers: "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the article's conclusions". In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Ryan N. Maue:
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that global warming might be greatly overblown.<ref>Tribune-Review, The (March 21, 2009). [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# "Global warming? More doubts"]. TribLive [''Pittsburgh Tribune'' website]. Retrieved on September 29, 2014.</ref> Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide "has completely and utterly collapsed" during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.

Dr. Vincent Gray:
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, "There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere," and "there is no serious threat to the climate" <ref>Hendrickson, Mark W. (May 25, 2009). [https://townhall.com/columnists/markwhendrickson/2009/05/25/a_closer_look_at_climate_change "A closer look at climate change"]. Townhall.com. Retrieved on September 29, 2014. "The panic over global warming is totally unjustified" says Vice Chair, IPCC.</ref>

Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist:
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise," and "'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future." <ref>[https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557 "Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening"] (March 22, 2009). WND. Retrieved on September 29, 2014.</ref>

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>Blumer, Tom (January 28, 2009). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic "Former boss rebukes NASA global warming alarmist Hansen, is AGW skeptic"]. MRC NewsBusters. Retrieved on September 29, 2014.</ref>

Sammy Wilson—Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>Pogatchnik, Shawn (February 9, 2009). [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/belfast-environment-chief-bans-climate-change-ads "Belfast environment chief bans climate change ads"]. Associated Press. Retrieved from CNSNews.com on September 29, 2014.</ref>

After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>Goodenough, Patrick (July 22, 2008). [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/uk-broadcaster-scolded-film-global-warming-swindle "UK broadcaster scolded for film on global warming"]. CNSNews. Retrieved on September 29, 2014.</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made global warming grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid", and that "We're out of time", with Al Gore calling the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (December 14, 2008). [https://web.archive.org/web/20081215162025/https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1 "Obama left with little time to curb global warming"]. Associated Press. Reprinted at Breitbart.com. Retrieved from December 15, 2008 archive at Internet Archive on September 29, 2014.</ref> In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased", containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, "If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it", and accused Borenstein of "writing a polemic and reporting it as fact." Deming noted that "the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980." The AP responded to criticism by stating that, "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others."<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html "Scientists call AP Report on global warming 'hysteria'"] (December 16, 2008). Fox News website. Retrieved on September 29, 2014.</ref>

Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110725075133/http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html "2008 global temperature"] (January 21, 2009). EO [Earth Observation]. Retrieved from July 25, 2011 archive at Internet Archive on September 29, 2014.</ref> According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, the average June–August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average—the 34th coolest on record.<ref>[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html "NOAA: Summer temperature below average for U.S."] (September 10, 2009). NOAA. Retrieved on September 29, 2014.</ref>

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both."<ref>Brennan, Phil (December 16, 2008). [https://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global-warming-debunked/2009/12/12/id/341719/ "Global warming’s last gasp"]. NewsMax. Retrieved on September 29, 2014.</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple—just follow the money!"
==== Belief in global warming and political and religious views ====

The more religious an individual is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in global warming. In 2014, whereas 80% of American [[Atheism|atheists]] believed in climate change, only 56% of all very religious Americans did.<ref name="randalolson.com">[http://www.randalolson.com/2014/09/13/who-are-the-climate-change-deniers/ Statistics on belief in climate change], Randal S. Olson</ref>

In 2014, 86% of [[Democrats]] accepted climate change, whereas half of all [[Republican]]s disbelieve in global warming.<ref name="randalolson.com"/>

===== Evangelicals =====
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action", which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man-made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market-based CO2 reductions such as a cap-and-trade program.<ref>Evangelical Climate Initiative (2006). [https://web.archive.org/web/20140201232519/http://christiansandclimate.org/statement/ "ECI Statement"]. Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action. Retrieved from February 1, 2014 archive at Internet Archive on September 29, 2014.</ref> In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is misleading and/or exaggerated.<ref>Vu, Michelle A. (December 4, 2009). [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html "Evangelicals push back against global warming doom"] The Christian Post website. Retrieved on September 29, 2014.</ref>

===The Bill Nye challenge===

In April 2016 science popularizer "[[Bill Nye|Bill Nye the Science Guy]]" took the debate up to the "put your money where your mouth is" level. He issued two bets, of $10,000 each, with Joe Bastardi, a "climate change contrarian" and frequent critic of Nye. One bet was that "2016 will be in the top 10 of hottest years on record", and that "this current decade will be the warmest ever recorded".<ref>[http://time.com/4301258/bill-nye-sarah-palin-climate-change-bet/ The Bill Nye climate change bet].</ref> As of late May Mr. Bastardi has not taken up the offer.

==Inaccuracies of global warming evidence==
===Climate "science" fraud===
{{main|Climategate}}

The [[Climategate#Climategate scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20091212190817/http://www.junkscience.com/ JunkScience.com] (December 12, 2009). Retrieved from December 12, 2009 archive at Internet Archive on September 29, 2014.</ref> Dr. Willie Soon, a [[physicist]], [[astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, "[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science." Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.<ref>Koprowski, Gene J. (December 1, 2009). [https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html "Global warming scandal makes scientific progress more difficult, experts say"]. Fox News website. Retrieved on September 30, 2014. See [[Fox News]].</ref>

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]

===Liberal claims of "consensus"===
Reports of a scientific "consensus" among scientists are similar to their one-sided support of other [[liberal]] policies and beliefs. For example, nearly 100% of political donations from professors are to [[Democrats]] rather than Republicans. Similarly, according to NASA, 97% of climate scientists believe that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.<ref>NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory-California Institute of Technology Earth Science Communications Team (2013). [http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus "Consensus"]. NASA website/Global Climate Change. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.</ref> These liberal scientists believe, or say they believe, that the Earth is warming overall, and that this warming, as well as other changes in climate patterns, is largely caused by human activities.<ref>Multiple references:
*Anderegg, William R. L., Prall, James W. et al. (July 6, 2010). [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html "Expert credibility in climate change."] ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'', vol. 107, no. 27, pp. 12107-12109. Retrieved from PNAS.org on September 30, 2014.
*[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html "Working group I: The physical science basis/Summary for policy makers/Understanding and attributing climate change"] (2007). ''IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007.'' Retrieved from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website on September 30, 2014.</ref> These allegations do not necessarily make the consensus true, as discussed throughout the referenced citation. Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming. However, according to some researchers, scientists who do not support the anthropogenic global warming theory offer a general lack of comparative credentials; proponents of man-made global warming argue that this has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" supporting the theory for greater government control. Scientists skeptical of the theory question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.<ref>Chesser, Paul (October 25, 2007). [http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Be-wary-of-climate-policy-development-1253536.php "Be wary of climate policy development"]. Seattle Post-Intelligencer website. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.</ref> It has also been documented that on most college campuses criticism of the global warming theory is silenced or censored; evidence shows that scientists skeptical of AGW are being suppressed.<ref>Multiple references:
*O'Neill, Brendan (October 6, 2006). [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ "Global warming: The chilling effect on free speech"]. Sp!ked. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.
*Schilling, Chelsea (June 24, 2009). [https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031 "EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change"]. WND. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.</ref>

It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." <ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090331121618/http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/ "Climate change reality"] (March 2009). Cato Institute website. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.</ref> In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.

[[File:ad.jpg|center]]

According to 80 graphs published in 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers in the first five months of 2017 alone, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming does not exist.<ref>Delingpole, James (June 6, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/ DELINGPOLE: ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref> By October 2017, the number of peer-reviewed papers rejecting global warming had increased to 400.<ref>Delingpole, James (October 24, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/ Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved October 24, 2017.</ref>

===Past speculation===

Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented. In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, "Brace yourself for another ice age". In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, "if sustained over a period of several years—is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." <ref>George, Alison (June 28, 2001). [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2001/jun/28/physicalsciences.highereducation "Breaking the ice"]. The Guardian website. Retrieved on September 30, 2014. See [[Guardian (UK)]].</ref>

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992 on the doubtfulness of man-caused warming on Earth.
{{Cquote|Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far).<ref name="cato"/>}}

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.

By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming.<ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/ "Global warming petition project"] (2008). Global Warming Petition Project. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front-page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',<ref name="Time"/> while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, "The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the "world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent", and in the "Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland, below normal temperatures were recorded for 19 consecutive months", which was unique during the last 100 years. A "major climatic shift" was speculated, which would threaten the "the stability of most nations.” It further warned that "Scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada" to "major areas in northern China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow", within the next 2500 years—or sooner.<ref>Central Intelligence Agency (August 1974). [http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems''], pp. 1, 5, 7, 16. Retrieved from Climatemonitor [Italy] on September 30, 2014.</ref>

Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', "One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years."

In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.<ref>Gwynne, Peter (April 28, 1975). [http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf "The cooling world"]. ''Newsweek''. Retrieved from DenisDutton.com on September 30, 2014. Caution: Copyrighted material; for fair educational use only.</ref>

===Natural variability of the climate system===
It is virtually universally accepted amongst secular climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

===Natural climate change on other planets===

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>Multiple references:
*Than, Ker (April 4, 2007). [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html "Dust storms fuel global warming on Mars"]. Space.com. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.
*Taylor, James M. (November 1, 2005). [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977 "Mars is warming, NASA scientists report"]. Heartlander Magazine. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>Hammel, H. B. and Lockwood, G. W. (April 8, 2007). [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml "Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature"]. ''Geophysical Research Letters''. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library on September 30, 2014.</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>Britt, Robert Roy (October 9, 2002). [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html "Global warming on Pluto puzzles scientists"]. Space.com. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.</ref>

On the other hand, [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>Young, Leslie A., Bosh, Amanda S. et al. (October 2001). [http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf "Uranus after solstice: Results from the 1998 November 6 occultation"]. ''Icarus'', vol. 153, iss. 2, pp. 236-247. Retrieved from Southwest Research Institute [Boulder, CO] website on September 30, 2014.</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five-year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

===Al Gore's claims===
[[File:Gore GlobalWarming.jpg|right|200px]]
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore's sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was "broadly accurate", it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary's advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.<ref>Multiple references:
*Sheppard, Marc (July 14, 2009). [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html "Clearly it's Al Gore who's in denial"]. American Thinker. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.
*Smith, Lewis (October 11, 2007). [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article2210175.ece "Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment"]. The Times website. Retrieved on October 1, 2014. Fee required to see article.
*Smith, Lewis (October 11, 2007). [http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/MNSES9100/h11/undervisningsmateriale/literature/Al%20Gore%E2%80%99s%20inconvenient%20judgement%20times%202007.pdf "Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment"]. The Times website. Retrieved from University of Oslo/Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science website on October 1, 2014. Caution: Copyrighted; for fair educational use only.</ref>

Taken from the official transcript,<ref>Burton, Mr Justice Michael (October 10, 2007). [http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf "Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills"]. United Kingdom of Great Britain's High Court of Justice/Queen's Bench Division/Administrative Court. Retrieved from Not Evil Just Wrong on October 1, 2014.</ref> the nine errors the judge found were:

*1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

*2. Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

*3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

*7. Hurricane Katrina. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.

*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adapt or climatize, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes, argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such film to their pupils, then this would inevitably result "in the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, which is thus not only not being forbidden by the local education authority (and the DES), but being positively facilitated by them."

Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film—although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion—but that it is a political film.

Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7037671.stm "Gore climate film's nine 'errors'"] (October 11, 2007). BBC News website. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref>

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

*1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

*3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.<ref>[http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html "Inaccuracies in Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'"] (October 2007). The New Party [U.K.]. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref>

Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore's spokesman and environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.<ref>Monckton, Christopher (October 19, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20140915002809/http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html "35 inconvenient truths: The errors in Al Gore's movie"]. The Science and Public Policy Institute website. Retrieved from September 15, 2014 archive at Internet Archive on October 1, 2014.</ref>

Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of ''Nature'' magazine stated,

:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, in order to make a position seem more solid than it is.

===Scientists===

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

====Hal Lewis====
[[Liberal]] claims of global warming led to the resignation in October 2010 by Professor Hal Lewis from The American Physical Society because of "the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. '''It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist'''."<ref>Lewis, Hal (October 8, 2010). [https://web.archive.org/web/20140212001321/http://www.thegwpf.org/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/ "Hal Lewis: My resignation from the American Physical Society"]. The Global Warming Policy Foundation website. Retrieved from February 12, 2014 archive at Internet Archive on October 1, 2014.</ref>

===Critique of the "Hockey Stick" reconstruction===
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey Stick Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''

*Shabecoff, Philip, [https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend]", ''New York Times'', January 26, 1989
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, "[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series], ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69–100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

*Dalmia, Shikha (December 2, 2009). [https://www.forbes.com/2009/12/01/climategate-scandal-science-obama-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html "Cringing over Climategate"]. Forbes website. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.
*Taylor, James (November 23, 2011). [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ "Climategate 2.0: New e-mails rock the global warming debate"]. Forbes website. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.
*Bailey, Ronald (December 26, 2012). [http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/26/34-years-of-satellite-temperature-data-s "34 years of satellite temperature data show global warming is on a plateau"]. Hit & Run Blog/Reason.com. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.
*Cole, Steve and McCarthy, Leslie (January 12, 2011). [https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html "NASA research finds 2010 tied for warmest year on record"]. NASA website. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.
*Tisdale, Bob (August 10, 2012). [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/10/not-hot-ocean-sst-around-the-usa-not-anywhere-near-record-levels/ "Not so hot—ocean temperatures around the USA are not anywhere near record levels"]. Watts Up with That? Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref>


==Effects of global warming==
===Beneficial effects of global warming===
[[File:Autumn foliage.jpg|thumb|Canoing on a Colorful Day, (NY).]]
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature.<ref>Moore, Thomas Gale (May 30, 1996). [http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html "Health and amenity effects of global warming"]. Stanford University/Thomas Gale Moore webpage. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref>

Another source notes,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081223011000/http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/ "What are the benefits of global warming?"] (November 3, 2008). Bionomicfuel.com. Retrieved from December 21, 2008 archive at Internet Archive on October 1, 2014.</ref>

<blockquote>In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs, while areas that already have hot climates will see no increase. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy as cooling is much more energy efficient. With the changes brought about by global warming more land that is not lost to desert and/or rising sea levels would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.</blockquote>

===Reported effects of global warming===

Reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of man-made global warming include global cooling,<ref>72Jag (August 25, 2014). [https://web.archive.org/web/20090827143311/http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling "Is global warming causing global cooling?"] NowPublic. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref> decreased food production,<ref>Fred Pearce (April 26, 2005). [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7310-climate-change-warning-over-food-production.html "Climate change warning over food production"] Newscientist website. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref> increased food production,<ref>Booth, William (May 17, 1990). [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html "Global heating could benefit U.S. farmers; prices seen rising as production falls"]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved from HighBeam Research website on October 1, 2014.</ref> shrinking forest.,<ref>Adam, David (March 11, 2009). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change"]. Theguardian [U. K.]. Retrieved on October 1, 2014. See [[The Guardian]].</ref> increased tree foliage,<ref>[http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734 "Global warming causes greening"] (2008). Greenfingers.com. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref> increased productivity of high-elevation forests,<ref>Oregon State University (Oct. 20, 2009). [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019163020.htm "Global warming may spur increased growth in Pacific northwest forests"]. ScienceDaily. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref> melting glaciers.,<ref>Asian News International (June 6, 2007). [http://www.andhranews.net/Intl/2007/June/6/Global-warming-causing-3633.asp "Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt"]. AndhraNews.net. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref> growing glaciers,<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-warming-causing-california-glacier-to-grow-scientists-say-1.749761?ref=rss "Global warming causing California glacier to grow, scientists say"] (July 9, 2008). CBCnews. Retrieved on October 1, 2014. Located by Sub-Driver of [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51 Free Republic].</ref> increasing landmass in Antarctica,<ref>[http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/ "Antarctic ice: A global warming snow job?"] (May 27, 2005). World Climate Report. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> colder winters,<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-could-bring-colder-winters-1.363574 "Climate change could bring colder winters"] (March 13, 2003). CBCNews. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> a new ice age,<ref>McGuire, Bill (November 13, 2003). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research "Will global warming trigger a new ice age?"] The Guardian website. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> prevention of an ice age,<ref>Thompson, Andrea (September 10, 2007). [https://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html "Global warming may cancel next ice age"]. Fox News website. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> taller mountains.,<ref>Than, Ker (August 4, 2006). [http://www.livescience.com/938-taller-mountains-blamed-global-warming.html "Taller mountains blamed on global warming, too"]. LiveScience. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> a lop-sided planet,<ref>Britt, Robert Roy (June 29, 2005). [http://www.livescience.com/3884-global-warming-create-lopsided-planet.html "Global warming might create lopsided planet"]. LiveScience. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> stronger hurricanes,<ref>Florida State University (Sep. 4, 2008). [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134323.htm "Global warming: Warmer seas linked to strengthening hurricanes, according to new research"]. ScienceDaily. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> weaker hurricanes,<ref>Schmid, Randolph E., AP Science Writer (April 17, 2007). [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/research/2007-04-17-globalwarming-hurricanes_N.htm "Study: Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity"]. USA Today. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> shorter days,<ref>Atkins, William (April 11, 2007). [http://www.itwire.com/science-news/climate/11220-researchers-say-global-warming-should-cause-shorter-days "Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days"]. iTWire. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same,<ref>Fisher, Richard. (September 23, 2009). [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html "Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes" [preview]]. Newscientist website. Preview retrieved on October 2, 2014. Subscription required for full article.</ref> shrinking brains,<ref>[http://www.albany.edu/campusnews/releases_286.htm "Study: Global warming could be reversing a trend that led to bigger human brains"] (March 15, 2007). State University of New York at Albany. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> shrinking sheep,<ref>Connor, Steve (July 3, 2009). [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-global-warming-shrank-st-kildas-sheep-1729609.html "How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep"]. The Independent [U. K.] website. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> tiger attacks.,<ref>Dhar, Sujoy (October 20, 2008). [http://southasia.oneworld.net/news/tiger-attacks-linked-to-global-warming "Tiger attacks linked to global warming"]. Reuters. Retrieved from OneWorld South Asia on October 2, 2014.</ref> shark attacks,<ref>Johnston, Bruce (August 31, 1998). [http://junksciencearchive.com/news3/shark.html "Shark attack on boat 'result of global warming'"]. Electronic Telegraph (U.K.) Retrieved from JunkScienceArchive on October 3, 2014.</ref> walrus stampede deaths,<ref>Associated Press (December 17, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20141003042107/http://6abc.com/archive/5839622/ "Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths"]. 6abc Action News website. Retrieved from October 3, 2014 archive at Internet Archive on October 3, 2014. Located by digger48 of [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts Free Republic]</ref> imminent cannibalism,<ref>Baker, Brent (April 2, 2008). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-iraqi-insurgents-patriots-inaction-warming-cannibalism "Turner: Global warming will cause mass cannibalism, insurgents are patriots"]. MRC NewsBusters. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> the need for a drastic reduction of the earth's population,<ref>[http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth "One less child? Environmental extremists warn that overpopulation is causing climate change and will ultimately destroy the Earth"] (November 17, 2009). The End of the World. Retrieved on October 2, 2014.</ref> a strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]],<ref>McLean, Tamara (April 29, 2008). [https://web.archive.org/web/20110831093248/http://news.theage.com.au/national/global-warming-set-to-fan-the-hiv-fire-20080430-29eh.html "Global warming hoax set to fan the HIV fire"]. Theage.com.au. Retrieved from August 31, 2011 archive at Internet Archive on October 1, 2014. Located by
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110725075338/http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608 Skeptics Global Warning].</ref> increased risk of civil war in Africa,<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html "Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa"] (November 23, 2009). Stanford Report. Retrieved from Stanford News on October 1, 2014.</ref> child ''climate cops'',<ref>[https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70811 "Beware your children: They might be 'climate cops'"] (July 28, 2008). WND. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref> increase in depression,<ref>Sohn, Emily (December 10, 2009). [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Deadly+heat+waves%2C+home-wrecking+hurricanes%22&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=&gs_l= “Mental health to decline with climate change”]. Discovery.com News. Retrieved from Google Search on October 1, 2014.</ref> increase in psychiatric illness<ref>Press Trust of India (April 8, 2008). [http://www.sify.com/news/climate-change-leads-to-psychiatric-illness-news-national-jegnGhfjihasi.html "'Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'"]. Sify News. Retrieved on October 1, 2014.</ref> and increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.<ref>Jones, Alan (February 22, 2007). [http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/children-losing-sleep-over-global-warming-1-683217 "Children losing sleep over global warming"]. The Scotsman website. Retrieved on September 30, 2014.</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

== See also ==
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Liberal hysteria#Global Warming Derangement Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Winter of 2010]]
*[[Reducing carbon dioxide emissions]]
*[[Essay:Global Warming]]
*[[Essay:Parallels between evolution and global warming]]
*[[Exaggeration of global warming]]
*[[Global warming and polar bears]]
*[[Global climate disruption]]
*[[Global warming research]]
*[[Global annual average temperature]]
*[[Warm period]]
*[[Liberal lies]]
*[[War on Science]]

==External links==
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=67 Global Warming? Absolutely No Truth To It!]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[https://www.icr.org/creation-meteorology Clinate Change] by The Institute for Creation Research
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[https://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266930/i-dont-believe-science-daniel-greenfield]

{{liberalism}}
{{Climategate scandal}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Man-Made Disasters]]

Logical fallacy

2020-09-09T17:38:33Z

DavidE: /* Ad hominem tu quoque */ rewording and internal link to whataboutism

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[Deduction|deductive arguments]], and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[Principle of induction|inductive arguments]], and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]], although it is still an error if you commit one (and dishonest if you know you are committing one). A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore, P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." Another example: "Might makes right." Or, the threat of persecution, rebellion, revolt or war.

This appeal is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

See [[Trial by combat]].

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the conclusion ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the premise ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labor is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===Appeal to Consequences===
An ''appeal to consequences,'' or, more fully, ''appeal to adverse consequences'' or ''appeal to consequences of a belief,''<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences]</ref> is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are fallacious because the consequences of believing or disbelieving have no bearing on the truth or falsity of a belief. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected in academic circles, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

To use another example often encountered in the real world, adherents of belief systems such as [[Islam]] tout the benefits of converting to such belief systems. However, such benefits, even if real, do not prove that those belief systems are true; instead, they could arise from the conversion experience itself.

A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore, P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you too") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company. Still another example, often seen in international politics, is [[whataboutism]].

===="False Causality" ====
A false causality fallacy is when a person argues that A caused B when there is little evidence to support the claim. Specifically, a false causality is committed when the basis for A causing B is based on some superficial coincidence.

*"Our house was robbed the day after that family moved in, they must have done it!"

In this example, it is only a coincidence that a new family has moved in at the same time another house has been robbed, and this is not grounds for evidence.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, alternatively, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person to discredit in advance any argument that that person may make.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X.
*Person A is wrong about Y.
*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

The second variant follows this form:

*Person B, knowing that person A will make argument X, introduces unfavorable information about person A that is unrelated to X.
*Person A makes argument X.
*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

One example of the first variant was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

An example of the second variant is to introduce information (true or false) about a distateful or objectionable aspect of someone's personal life to persuade the listeners to reject out of hand whatever that person may say, when that aspect of the person's personal life may have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the positions that that person will take.

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked. There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive, although poisoning the well in the second sense is used to mean introducing the irrelevant information preemptively.

===Genetic fallacy===
{{main|Affirming the consequent}}
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*P is false
*Therefore, Q is false

Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
{{main|Argumentum ad populum}}
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the Roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

The converse argument holds that because a position is unpopular and controversial, even [[Guilt by Association#The Galileo gambit|ridiculed, denounced and persecuted by the majority]], and has been proven by the majority to be in error, that that position is ''[[ipso facto]]'' (by the fact) proven to be correct and true. For example: [[Elitism]], [[Racism]], [[Sect]]s, [[Cult]]s, [[International Flat Earth Society]], [[LGBTQIAPK]] supporters.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, [[distinction without a difference|unrelated to P or Q]]
*Therefore, Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

===Fallacies of relevance based on the age of an idea===
The '''appeal to antiquity''', also known as the '''appeal to tradition''', holds that an idea must be right just because it is old.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition]</ref> Its opposite is the '''appeal to novelty''', which holds that an idea must be right just because it is new.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-novelty/ Appeal to Novelty]</ref> Both are fallacies of relevance because the mere age of an idea does not tell us whether it is true. For example, an old idea could be a time-tested and sound concept, or it could be an ancient [[superstition]] like [[astrology]]. Similarly, a new idea could be the result of new [[information]] or an intellectual fad like [[postmodernism]].

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantiam'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore, Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence. Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed. For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true. In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

Another example from history. Assertions of evidence of corruption of Christian doctrine and [[Great Apostasy|apostasy]] from the faith is seen by Protestant and Fundamentalist [[Apologetics|apologists]] in the evident contrast of the 16th century doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which the Reformers assert was original Christianity, against the clearly "Catholic doctrines" in the [[Ante-Nicene Fathers]] which refute them. The utter historical silence about any fundamental [[paradigm shift]] in doctrine after the first century is due to a total lack of any supporting extant evidence of Protestant or Mormon theology in any of the writings of the first four centuries of Christianity by any of the known heretics and sects. This very fact is argued by Protestants and Mormons as sure and certain evidence that a monstrous apostasy must have occurred, because there is no evidence that it ever did, and no evidence of their unmistakable doctrines can be found, leading them to the conclusion that there was a massive [[cover up]]. (This is also a form of [[circular reasoning]]. Compare [[Memory hole]] and [[Revisionism]].)

More generally, assertion of a fact coupled with total absence of evidence does not prove there was a concerted effort involving total removal of the evidence supporting the assertion. The compelling weight of conclusive evidence supporting ''absence of any evidence of a removal of all evidence'' is strong evidence that no evidence was removed. Absence (silence) of evidence is not proof of evidence erased or made absent (silenced). Conclusive evidence of absence is absence of conclusive evidence. Compare [[Abductive reasoning]] and [[Confirmation bias]].

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]]. Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*''P'' is true.
*''Q'' is true.
*Therefore, ''P'' causes ''Q.''

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
{{main|Post hoc ergo propter hoc}}
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after this; therefore, because of this") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore, P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
: ''Main article: [[Sharpshooter fallacy]]''
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>

====Equating correlation with causation====
: ''Main article: [[Correlation is not causation]]''
Yet another form of false cause is '''equating correlation with causation'''. An often cited example is "As sales of ice cream rise, so do reports of shark attacks." Neither one causes the other, whether or not there is a correlation; instead, they are both associated with summer.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore, R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization, converse accident, or painting with too broad a brush) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allow. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is/does Q.
*P is a member of the set R.
*Therefore, everyone/everything in the set R is/does Q.

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented. Proving too much includes reaching a conclusion that contradicts either things known to be true or [[stolen concept|the premises used to reach that conclusion]]. The term comes from the medieval saying, "What proves too much proves nothing."

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore, Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore, R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Analogy===
{{main|Fallacy of analogy}}
The fallacy of analogy argues that because one thing resembles another in some aspects, they must resemble each other in another aspect. In its most extreme form, it argues that a superficial resemblance proves identity, that because they look like the same thing they are in fact the same. In general, an argument by analogy takes the following form:

*A is like B (they share properties X, Y, and Z).
*B also has property Q
*Therefore, A has property Q as well.

The strength of such an argument depends upon the strength of the analogy. If A and B have more differences than shared properties, the argument is weakened. It may also be true that A is like B in many ways, but still differs from B in terms of the specific property Q. If the analogy is too weak or irrelevant to the conclusion that is drawn, then a fallacy of weak analogy has been committed. An analogy itself is never true or false; it is only weak or strong.

For example: "The erecting of statues and images by [[Paganism|pagans]] was an act of [[idolatry]], therefore the erecting of statues is an act of idolatry."

===Contradiction===
{{Main|Contradiction}}

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given. Statements beginning with [[weasel words|expressions]] such as "It goes without saying that ..." or "Everyone knows ..." are commonly proofs by assertion.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
{{Main|Circular reasoning}}

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. In law, it is called assuming facts not in evidence. It should not be confused with formulating a prediction to test a hypothesis. [[Christian In Name Only|False Christians]] often engage in this fallacy by making baseless assertions as to what God wants that may have no basis in the [[Bible]] or even contradict it, but that conveniently support whatever those false Christians would have wanted to believe anyway.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Therefore, theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

A similar fallacy is [[No true Scotsman]], which in effect says, "Your facts do not work under my theory, so your facts must be wrong."

===Straw man===
{{Main|Straw man fallacy}}

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. Typically, the fallacy involves distorting what a person actually said to make it superficially similar but easier to disprove. A straw man argument follows the form:

*Person A says P.
*Person B says that person A says P', which is not the same as P.
*Not P'.
*Therefore, not P.

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
{{Main|tautology}}

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

'''Un'''equivocal means leaving no doubt about the exact meaning of what is said, being completely clear, allowing no misunderstanding.

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

== Atheism and logical fallacies ==

*[[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

*[[Atheism and logic]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==

* [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

* [[Liberal logic]]

* [[Specious reasoning]]

Debate:

* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201–218 (1996)

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]

User:DavidE

2020-09-08T07:07:05Z

DavidE: I apparently have a fan club.

{{userboxtop|DavidE}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Baptist}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User Law}}
{{User Vandalized|33}}
{{userboxbottom}}
KJV, YEC, GOP, and not at all PC! I believe in what the Bible says, not in what some liberal "pastor" feels that the Bible means. I also believe in the entire Bible; I am not the sort of Christian who believes just in those parts of the Bible that he likes, and only when they suit him. I do not believe that those parts of the Bible that inconvenience me are to be explained away, while those parts of the Bible that apply only to someone else are to be retained, and I am suspicious of any form of Bible interpretation that the homosexuals could turn around and use to justify their lifestyle choice.

One thing that I like about Conservapedia, and one reason why I think that it is so important, is that edits relying on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture aren't constantly reverted in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" or discounted as "vandalism," as they are on certain liberal sites that I could name.

Please don't lump all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians into a single "Protestant" mass. As an Independent Fundamental Baptist, I hold views very different from those of Episcopalians and other mainline Protestants. Before telling me what I do or do not believe, please take the time to find out.

April 11, 2020, was my 13th anniversary of editing Conservapedia.

Liberal vandals have repeatedly vandalized both my user page and my talk page. I wonder why they bother, since liberal trolls, vandals, and parodists are always found out so quickly here.

[[Category:Baptist Conservapedians]]

Zero sum fallacy

2020-09-03T11:58:03Z

DavidE: made redirect

#REDIRECT [[False zero-sum game]]

Homosexual Agenda

2020-08-20T19:26:44Z

DavidE: Undo revision 1676337 by BoseraDain (talk): Very funny.

{{Protection request}}

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''Homosexual Agenda''' is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and mandate approval of [[homosexuality]] and its ideology in society, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining [[special rights|special treatment]] for homosexuals, distorting [[Bible|Biblical]] teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for [[homosexuals]] and self-described "LGBTI people" that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see [[hate speech]], [[hate crime]]s). Such special rights will necessarily [[zero-sum game|come at the expense]] of the rights of broader society. '''''The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the rights of [[free speech]] and [[religious freedom]] today.'''''<ref>Daniels, Fletch (September 10, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-lgbt-endgame-is-to-destroy-christianity The LGBT endgame is to destroy Christianity]. ''LifeSiteNews'' (from the ''American Thinker''). Retrieved September 10, 2019.</ref><ref>Duke, Selwyn (September 11, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/33387-lgbt-activists-hate-christianity-and-want-to-destroy-it LGBT Activists Hate Christianity — and Want to Destroy It]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 11, 2019.</ref>

One of the top priorities of the Homosexual Agenda is to prohibit and outlaw [[conversion therapy]], particularly for teenagers. Several U.S. states have enacted such laws, and [[leftists]] are pushing similar bans in many other states, apparently unable to tolerate things they dislike. Another priority is to elect high-ranking officials who are openly homosexual, with the ultimate goal of electing a president who is in a [[same-sex "marriage"]].

In a speech on December 10, 2013, to a pro-family rally in Jamaica, a country that rejects same-sex marriage, Brian Camenker of [[MassResistance]] outlined the step-by-step approach of the homosexual agenda:<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13d/jamaica-speech-121013/index.html "MassResistance helps Jamaica confront ‘gay’ agenda"]. ''massresistance.org''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>

*Legalize homosexuality
*Hold gay pride parades
*Accept child sex trafficking
*Demand non-discrimination laws
*Insist on homosexuals' adoption of children
*Push the homosexual agenda in schools<ref>{{cite web |title=Criticism of Transgender Agenda Will Get Virginia Students Expelled |author=Austin Ruse |date=10 Jun 2016 |url=https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/10/transgender-northern-virginia-students-can-now-expelled-criticizing-transgenderism/ |publisher=BREITBART |quote=The transgender change in school regulations was imposed last night during a dramatic board meeting where only 12 pro-trans witnesses were invited to testify. ... No opposing voices were allowed to be heard, parents were relegated to shouting opposition from the seats and some were ejected from the meeting.... Last year, they were promised a lengthy investigation and a full hearing. Instead, it was foisted upon them with less than 24 hours-notice. ... an Oregon law recently allowed a jury to award $60,000 t0 a transgender teacher because other teachers declined to use the teacher’s preferred pronoun, which is “they” rather than “him” or “her.” Deputies for President Barack Obama have backed similar rules for all K-12 schools, and New York City has established similar forced-speech rules.|accessdate=12 Jun 2016}}</ref>
*Legalize various alternate forms of partnership and call them "marriage" (i.e. man and man, woman and woman, man and three women, woman and box turtle, man and sex toy)
*Demand public funding to deal with increased homosexual-related social problems
*Promote the transgender agenda
*Demand to be treated "equally"
*Impose a large-scale loss of free speech
*Ban counseling for kids confused by homosexual issues
*Ban scientifically and religiously proven methods of homosexual conversion, such as shock therapy
*Attack churches
*Encourage [[abortion]]

[[Russia]] is a leader in rejecting the homosexual agenda.<ref>{{cite web |title=Is the Homosexual Agenda 'Unstoppable'? - Comparing America with Russia |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msLH6f6vyC4 |accessdate=29 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=RUSSIA VS. THE LGBT GLOBALISTS: A Climate of Hate and Fear |url=http://www.scottlively.net/2015/02/25/russia-vs-the-lgbt-globalists-a-climate-of-hate-and-fear-part-two/ |quote=This dangerous LGBT strategy has now gone global and the target is the Russian Federation. ... Core American values to Obama are publicly celebrated sodomy and doctor-assisted transsexual self-mutilation. ... The Russian anti-propaganda law, passed June 11, 2013, was the first truly effective international counter-measure since the “gay” agenda went global around the turn of the millennium. Typically, the “gays” characterized the law as hateful and an incitement to violence, but in doing so they revealed that propagandizing children is part of their agenda, since the law simply classifies “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” as material that cannot be distributed among minors and commands the government to protect children from it. Just after the passage of this law Barack Obama did an about-face on the “reset” policy (in which Russia had been recognized as an equal partner in the world community) and instead began reviving cold-war rhetoric.|accessdate=29 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Pro-Russian Press Conference |date=22 February 2014 |url=http://www.scottlively.net/2014/02/22/pro-russian-press-conference/ |quote=We got lots of coverage from the event, and I believe we accomplished our objective which was to bring awareness to the world that the pro-family movement in the U.S., Canada, UK, and other “pro-gay” countries is happy to see the Russian Federation standing up for family values. We think this will encourage other nations to follow their example. |accessdate=29 May 2016}}</ref> For example, Russia banned adoption by Americans as the Obama Administration aggressively pushed the homosexual agenda, and in June 2013 a house in the [[Russian]] parliament passed legislation to ban foreign adoption by gay couples or single parents who live in any [[same-sex marriage|gay marriage]] nation.<ref>[https://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-russia-ban-adoption-gay-couples-20130618,0,4633280.story "Russian lawmakers pass ban on adoption tied to gay foreign couples"]. ''Los Angeles Times''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>

[[Barack Hussein Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], and essentially all [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] politicians now advocate the homosexual agenda, reflecting the growing financial power of the homosexual network. Obama's self-centered obsession with his own re-election, and fundraising for his campaign, has caused him to create a national political issue out of this, rather than deal with other issues like the economy. Many [[establishment]] Republicans and [[Cafeteria Christians]] also have bought into the homosexual agenda.

'''''Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish''''' – unlike the vast charity performed by thousands of churches in the U.S. alone, a homosexual charity can be considered an [[oxymoron]].

The late Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion). Justice Scalia also predicted that this was the first step to legalizing homosexual civil unions. He was proven right with the outcome of ''Obergefell v. Hodges''. The goal of the latter decision was the societal affirmation of homosexuality rather than simple equality.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (January 5, 2020). [https://www.breitbart.com/education/2020/01/05/usa-today-obergefell-was-never-about-freedom-to-marry/ USA Today: Obergefell Was Never About ‘Freedom to Marry’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved January 5, 2020.</ref>

Despite the fact that only 4.1% of the U.S. population identified as [[LGBT]], just over half a percentage point higher than four years prior,<ref>Gates, Gary J. (January 11, 2017). [https://www.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx In US, More Adults Identifying as LGBT]. ''Gallup''. Retrieved January 18, 2017.</ref> Americans '''''greatly overestimate the proportion of homosexuals''''' in the nation to be an average of 23%.<ref name="GreatlyOver">Newport, Frank (May 21, 2015). [https://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S.] ''Gallup''. Retrieved January 18, 2017. See also:
*Mainwaring, Doug (June 28, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/americans-vastly-overestimate-the-size-of-the-lgbt-population Americans vastly overestimate the size of the LGBT population]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved June 28, 2019.</ref> Interestingly, Republicans and conservatives gave estimates closest to the actual number.<ref name="GreatlyOver"/>

== The Homosexual Agenda ==

Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement,

:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this.

In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed,

:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives.<ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref>

In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:

:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref>

A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to normalize the lifestyle in [[public schools]]. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and — to the concern of the Parkers — a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref>

In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News & World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.

The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."

Leo commented,

:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref>

Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref>Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings.<ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref>

This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [[homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref>

[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref>

#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
#"Make gays look good."
#"Make the victimizers look bad."
#"Get funds from corporate America."

[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.

== Specific goals ==

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

#Ignoring Christian morals and discouraging religiously based laws.
#Attempting to convince the world that marriage should be defined secularly, instead of as one of the Lord's commandments.
#Ignore the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]] because their first amendment rights allow them to.
#Remind conservatives that there cannot be a gay ([[homosexual attraction]]) gene, just like like there cannot be a "black gene" because complex things like these are caused by complex interactions between genes.
#Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax. After all, it would have to be multiple genes interacting together.<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref>
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html "Marquette Warrior"]. ''mu-warrior.blogspot.com''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticize homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref>
#Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref>
#Lobbying for equal employment rights.<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>http://www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref>
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, which would be equally wrong for heterosexuals to do.<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref>
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref>
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref>
#Teach tolerance of homosexuals in schools.
#In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as preschool. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Children at that age also do not have the hormones to experience sexual attraction, so they cannot understand this yet.
#Demands protections from job discrimination.<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force]</ref>
#Suing an online dating website for discrimination. This was because sexual orientation is a federally protected group, as such, this company was breaking the law.<ref>Joshua Rhett Miller. [https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html "eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service After Lawsuit"]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality and choice#Choice and Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref>
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref>
#Indoctrination of public school children to support the homosexual agenda
#Allowing boys into girls' restrooms and vice versa, without restriction.

The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/ "New Hampshire law makes same-sex civil unions legal"]. ''boston.com''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>

Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to manifest, homosexual activists have recently been expressing a high level of dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has,

*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners.

*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress.

*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage.

*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

*appointed homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which educates kids in the public schools.

*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

*Demanded the State Department allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref>

In Europe, countries such as the [[United Kingdom]] and [[France]] have adopted policies promoting transgenderism.<ref>Friedman, Victoria (February 15, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/15/france-mother-father-parent-uk-govt-lawyer-mother-not-gender-specific/ Men Can Be Mothers in UK, While French Schools Erase Terms ‘Father,’ ‘Mother’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved February 15, 2019.</ref>

=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in [[homosexual logic|specious argumentation]], such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character",<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref> as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.html "The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media"]. ''massresistance.org''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref><ref>[https://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987 "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Plume): Marshall Kirk, Hunter Madsen: 9780452264984: Amazon.com: Books"]. ''amazon.com''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref><ref>[https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526 "‘Gays’ put ‘terrorist’ label on Christians"]. ''WND''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html "Homosexuals begin campaign of terror over Prop 8 loss"]. ''massresistance.org''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>[https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html "Lesbian Break-in and Riot During College Speech on “Born-Gay Hoax” Forces Cancellation"]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref><ref>[https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296 "‘How hate crimes laws forced me into exile’"]. ''WND''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html "Gay activists stop free speech at UMass Amherst"]. ''massresistance.org''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref> Another strategy used by supporters of the homosexual agenda is to publicly deny that such an agenda exists.<ref>[http://onug.us/content/christians-america-and-gay-agenda "Christians, America, And The Gay Agenda"]. ''onug.us''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>

While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, leading homosexual activists willfully employ them. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two homosexual Harvard-trained graduates, <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,152180,00.html "Is The Gay Revolution a Flop?"]. ''time.com''. 24 June 2001. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref> Marshall Kirk (1957–2005), a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen (pen name ''Erastes Pill''), who was schooled in social marketing, advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they used ''jamming,'' in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."<ref>[http://www.parentsofgaychildren.org/uploads/After_the_Ball_-_outline_by_Richard_Cohen.pdf After the Ball: How America Will Conquer It’s Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s Outline compiled by Richard Cohen, MA]</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Kirk|first1=Marshall|last2=Madsen|first2=Hunter|title=After the ball : how America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the 90s|date=1989|publisher=Plume|location=New York|isbn=978-0452264984|page=183|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oDwEAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=+victims+in+need++of+protection|accessdate=2 February 2018}}</ref> Leftists also label Christians who support biblical marriage as "anti-gay," equating them with non-western Muslims who support stoning homosexuals.<ref>Mainwaring, Doug (April 3, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/jack-phillips-is-not-the-sultan-of-brunei-the-indiscriminate-weaponization-of-the-term-anti-gay Jack Phillips is not the Sultan of Brunei: The indiscriminate weaponization of the term ‘anti-gay’]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved April 4, 2019.</ref>

"Jamming" [[homo-hatred]] (disagreement with [[homosexual behavior]]s) was to be done by linking it to [[Nazi]] horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110603050349/http://www.renewamerica.com:80/columns/mbarber/080213 "Unmasking the "gay" agenda"]. ''renewamerica.com''. Retrieved on 2 Feb. 2018.</ref> " It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary... our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof."<ref> http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.html The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media, </ref>

Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes,
<blockquote>
There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to "use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards." How can this be done? "This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings." [The latter of which attempts [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] examine and expose.]<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070927163416/http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=19 ''After the Ball--Why the Homosexual Movement Has Won,''] Thursday, June 3rd, 2004</ref>
</blockquote>

Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=oDwEAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=unabashed+propaganda%2C+firmly+grounded Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi]</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ "[Behavior, and Not a Person]"]. ''banap.net''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>

Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records: "It makes no difference that the ads are lies... because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."<ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref>

The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=oDwEAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=exhaustive+analytic+list Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363 ]</ref>

David Kupelian, author of ''[[The Marketing of Evil]],'' describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, stating,
<blockquote>
Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, work with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.<ref>[http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2009/01/sold-on-homosexuality-marketing-of-evil.html "Sold on Homosexuality – The Marketing of Evil"]. ''pearl-diving.blogspot.com''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>
</blockquote>

Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 47.<ref>http://www.americanancestors.org/PageDetail.aspx?recordId=134544248</ref> The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

Often cited as an early example of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref>

The charge of [[homophobia]] has been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in pushing the Homosexual Agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy, Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref>

In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref>

Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, ''The Gay Agenda stated'': "Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."

Erik Holland, author of ''The Nature of Homosexuality'', perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone [is] a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro-homosexual author Vernon A. Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>[http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage "Homosexinfo - Homophobia - Homophobia: Fear of homosexuals?"]. ''homosexinfo.org''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>

It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.

More recently, after 25 years of claiming she was not indoctrinating anyone with pro homosexual beliefs, one activist honestly admitted to this being a lie. Canadian gay activist S. Bear Bergman, a female who identifies as a transgender male, stated, "All that time I said I wasn't indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie.” Bergman recounted that she was instructed as a young gay activist to tell concerned parents that she was “just providing an alternate viewpoint” when accused of engaging in “indoctrination and recruiting,” and to use “soft” language when speaking about homosexuality. In her article on the notoriously liberal web site, the [[Huffington Post]], he went on to candidly confess that this indoctrination, "is absolutely my goal. I want to make your children like people like me and my family, even if that goes against the way you have interpreted the teachings of your religion." Bergman fantasized that in an ideal world he would have been "ushered into the world of queerness with care and tenderness by experienced homos" (akin to "camp counselors"), "and issued my leather jacket and my protest pins, my safer sex supplies..."

Bergman expressed that his goal was that of portraying to "impressionable young minds" the idea that "queers and transfolk are just as fine and lovely a kind of human as any other kind," and stated that he did not like the idea of sending her kid to schools where any kid could share with him their ideas about homosexuals. Thus Bergman, who believes that "books a kid hears at bedtime affect their sleep and also their dreams," is finalizing a series of children's books that all feature lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer kids or families, with the goal that the young readers come to believe that people like him and his family are "absolutely great," that "lesbian, gay, bi, queer, and trans people -- that we exist, that we're perfectly fine and often really excellent." Bergman then concludes, "If that makes me an indoctrinator, I accept it. Let me be honest -- I am not even a little bit sorry."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/s-bear-bergman/i-have-come-to-indoctrinate-your-children-lgtbq_b_6795152.html|title=I have come to indoctrinate your children into my LGBTQ agenda (and I'm not a bit sorry)|last1=Bergman|first1=S. Bear|website=Huffington Post|accessdate=22 March 2015}}</ref>

Commenting on this frank article, Pete Baklinski of LifeSiteNews.com, states that, <blockquote>While Bergman paints a “friendly and cheerful” picture of the gay lifestyle, she fails to mention the serious health risks tied to homosexual behaviors....Research done in 2002 by Dr. John R. Diggs found that same-sex sexual behaviors expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to “extreme risks of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.” Common sexual practices among gay men were found to lead to “numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population.” Gay and bisexual men were found to “lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.” The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have warned on numerous occasions that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have ‘sex’ with men. The CDC has stated that gay and bisexual men continue to remain at the epicenter of what they call a “HIV/AIDS epidemic.”</blockquote>

To which Baklinski adds the spiritual consequences, citing one of the texts in the Bible which condemn homosexual relations:
{{Cquote|“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error” (Letter to Romans 1:26).<ref>{{cite web|last1=Baklinski|first1=Pete|title=Gay activist: Of course our goal is to ‘indoctrinate children into LGBTQ agenda’|url=https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activist-our-goal-is-to-indoctrinate-children-into-lgbtq-agenda|website=LifeSiteNews.com|accessdate=22 March 2015}}</ref> }}

For Christians believe God created man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, and they alone are joined by God in marriage, with opposite genders being specified by both Genesis and personally by Jesus Christ. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4) The Bible only condemns homosexual relations - by design and decree, in principle and by precept - and never sanctions them wherever they are manifestly dealt with, and the injunctions against them are part of the transcendent and immutable moral law. (Lv. 18:22; Rm. 1:26,27)

However, Christians also understand that some of the first Christians were likely former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:9-11) and believe that there is room at the cross for all who want the Lord Jesus over sin, and believe upon Him to save them who died for them, and rose again. And who thus are baptized and follow Him, to the glory of God.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS and the BIBLE]</ref>

===Influence in the academic world===

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled ''First Things'' (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.
{{cquote|[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 "Homosexuality"]. ''google.com''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>}}

====In the public schools====
{{See also|Homosexuality in Schools}}
[[File:Prairie Ridge High School LGBT+ Flag.jpg|thumb|200px|School in Chicago area (Prairie Ridge High School) with LGBT+ [[Rainbow#Rainbow flag|rainbow flag]]. Students in the same school who display the [[Confederate flag]] will face discipline.<ref name="NWHerald2017"/>]]
[[File:Prairie Ridge High School LGBT.jpg|thumb|200px|This Chicago-area school has "safe spaces" for students with homosexual attraction (sponsored by [[GLSEN]]).]]
Many public schools throughout the United States welcome the Homosexual Agenda, oftentimes through publicly-funded school programs created by [[GLSEN]].<ref name="Heyer2015">Heyer, Walt (June 8, 2015). [http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15118/ Public School LGBT Programs Don't Just Trample Parental Rights. They Also Put Kids at Risk]. ''The Witherspoon Institute -- Public Discourse''. Retrieved March 24, 2017.</ref> Much of this was the work of the [[Obama Administration]].<ref name="Heyer2015"/> GLSEN celebrates the Homosexual Agenda through a "day of silence."<ref>Berry, Susan (April 11, 2015). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/11/day-of-silence-how-the-lgbt-agenda-is-hijacking-americas-youth/ Day of Silence: How the LGBT Agenda Is Hijacking America’s Youth]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 24, 2017.</ref> In 2016, [[California]] became the first state to legislate the teaching of the homosexual agenda in public schools to children as young as second grade.<ref>Berry, Susan (July 19, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/19/lgbt-history-california-first-to-teach/ California: 1st State To Teach LGBT Curriculum — to Second Graders]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 24, 2017.</ref> These California students are now banned from opting-out from this [[indoctrination]].<ref>Newman, Alex (January 4, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/27883-students-banned-from-opting-out-of-lgbt-education Students Banned From Opting Out of LGBT Education]. ''The New American''. Retrieved January 5, 2018.</ref> In February 2019, the Department of Education in the [[United Kingdom]] announced that public school children starting at the age of five would be required to learn about homosexual and transgender relationships, with parents being unable to withdraw their children from such classes.<ref>Tennant, Michael (February 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/31593-u-k-schools-to-indoctrinate-kids-as-young-as-five-in-lgbt-agenda U.K. Schools to Indoctrinate Kids as Young as Five in LGBT Agenda]. ''The New American''. Retrieved February 27, 2019. See also:
*McLean, Dorothy Cummings (March 25, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christian-mom-sues-uk-primary-school-for-forcing-lgbt-pride-celebrations-on-kids Christian mom sues UK primary school for forcing LGBT Pride celebrations on kids]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved March 25, 2019.</ref>

In schools where the homosexual agenda is welcomed, students who fly the [[Confederate flag]] may expect to face disciplinary actions.<ref name="NWHerald2017">Prokop, Hannah (November 11, 2016). [http://www.nwherald.com/2016/11/09/prairie-ridge-high-school-suspends-student-for-wearing-confederate-flag-to-school/aelbmro/ Prairie Ridge High School suspends student for wearing Confederate flag to school]. ''Northwest Herald''. Retrieved March 24, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/20/confederate-flags-not-rainbow-ones-banned-in-schoo/ Wyoming school district bans Confederate flags, allows gay-pride ones]. ''The Washington Times'' (from the ''Associated Press''). April 20, 2019. Retrieved April 20, 2019.</ref> In March 2019, an Ohio public school student was suspended for posting Bible verses next to homosexual flags.<ref>Gstalter, Morgan (March 13, 2019). [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/433823-ohio-student-suspended-for-targeting-gay-straight-alliance-by Ohio student suspended for 'targeting' Gay-Straight Alliance by posting Bible verses in response to LGBT flags]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved March 13, 2019.</ref><ref>Kaplan, Talia (March 12, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/ohio-student-suspended-after-posting-bible-verses-around-school-i-wanted-to-spread-the-word-of-god Ohio student suspended after posting Bible verses around school: 'I wanted to spread the word of God']. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 13, 2019.</ref>

===Immorality in society===

The “gay” activists welcome [[immorality]] in [[society]]. As no one wants to be called a [[hypocrite]], every act of sexual sin by society members serves the “gay” interest by lessening the public will to uphold public morality. That's why, wherever the acceptance of sexual sin is observed, it is likely there are “gay” activists involved.

==== The abortion industry ====
The best example of the Homosexual Agenda causing societal immorality is seen in their aggressive defense of the abortion industry. Obviously, homosexuals cannot have an “unwanted pregnancy,” yet in an extensive experience, the big part of “pro-choice” street activists at abortion clinics are homosexuals. This is so because they know that preserving the people's option to destroy unborn life is essential to maintaining so called “[[sexual freedom]]” as a social norm. If women lost their choice to legally kill their unborn offspring, the resulting inevitable shift of emphasis from self-gratification to family responsibility in such a large section of the population would change the entire culture. When a woman gives in to fear and selfishness to kill the child in her womb, she will not feel that she can criticize other sinners. The choice to kill their unborn children morally compromises both men and women (making them unwilling to criticize choices to engage in other forms of immoral behavior), and ensures that the outcome of an unwanted child will not be a lasting deterrent to those who have chosen sexual “freedom” over family. This explains why homosexuals, who by definition cannot conceive children together, are among the most militant advocates of abortion on demand.

==== The pornography industry ====
The existence of a thriving pornography industry where “gays” are also notoriously prevalent serves the “gay” cause by morally corrupting the men who use it, making them less likely to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and more likely to support public policies which legitimize sexual [[hedonism]]. “Gay” activists love sexual anarchy because they know that when a man falls in bondage to pornography he is less willing to oppose other sexual sins in society.

==== The entertainment industry ====
When young people enjoy music or films that glorify sexual lust, they feel more sympathy to the “gay” arguments.

The “gays” have it easy pushing sexual “freedom”, because every person, in their flesh, wants to indulge themselves in their own choices.
This is like children being offered only candy to eat. People want to eat only sweets until they get sick. Only with maturity do they know how to eat to stay healthy.

The “gay” movement has many allies in its campaign to aggrandize sexual immorality, but it is the only social movement in the history of the world whose primary purpose is to eliminate social restraints on [[sexual]] conduct. It is heavily funded, highly organized and strategically positioned to maximize its ability to change societies and cultures.<ref name="Lively2009">{{cite book |title=Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the "Gay" Agenda |author=[[Scott Lively]] |publisher=Veritas Aeterna Press |place=Springfield, MA |year=2009 |edition=1 (Version 1.1)|chapter=1: Pro-family answers to common questions about homosexuality and "gay" agenda |pages=8, 60, 176|url=http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow}}</ref>

==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].

===Peter LaBarbera===

As noted earlier, [[Peter LaBarbera]] is the founder of [[Americans For Truth]] (AFT) which is a national organization in the United States devoted solely to confronting the homosexual agenda.<ref name="americansfortruth.com">[http://www.americansfortruth.com/about/ "About Americans for Truth About Homosexuality and AFTAH Founder Peter LaBarbera » Americans for Truth"]. ''americansfortruth.com''. Retrieved on 2 May 2016.</ref>

Peter LaBarbera said the following regarding the need for the organization Americans for Truth:
{{cquote|Homosexual, [[bisexuality|bisexual]], and [[transsexual]] groups spend tens of millions of dollars every year to market and normalize their aberrant lifestyles, yet after all these years there is not a single, serious national group dedicated specifically to exposing and countering their agendas...

It’s time for Americans to unapologetically resist the demands of this lobby, and to counter the lies upon which it is built-the foremost being that certain people are inherently or ‘born’ homosexual and that this is a [[civil rights]] issue.<ref name="americansfortruth.com"/>}}

===Matt Barber===
[[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]] is one the more notable figures in regards to opposing the homosexual agenda. Matt Barber wrote the following regarding the homosexual agenda:
[[Image:Mbarber_b.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Matt Barber]]]]
{{cquote|Ironically, sexual [[relativism|relativists]] are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct — by force of law — through federal edicts such as “hate crimes” legislation, the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned “same-sex marriage.” All such government mandates grant special protected “minority” status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.

Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be “tolerated,” but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan “celebrate diversity” supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from [[God]], to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded “homophobic,” “hateful” or “discriminatory.” They are to be silenced by all means possible.<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=14696&department=CFI&categoryid=family</ref>}}

===Steffen Königer===
[[German]] politician Steffen Königer from the party [[Alternative for Germany]] (AfD) showed that it is possible to use [[irony]] when opposing the [[extremist]] gender agenda. In his address in the parliament of the [[Brandenburg]], the federated state of [[Germany]], he ridiculed homosexual lobbyists and gender ideologists by enlisting in his introduction, for about two minutes, all "gender and sexual varieties" he could find on the Internet. This way he brought to attention of general public the absurdity of the proposal put forward by the German [[Green Party]] that demanded to introduce multiple "gender identities" in state documents. When the Parliamentary Speaker tried to stop him, he just replied that he is not finished yet and further adamantly continued in naming all alleged gender declinations. When he was finally done with his introduction, his actual reaction to the proposal took less than three seconds: ''"The AfD party rejects your proposal."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Un político alemán ridiculiza los postulados del LGBTI |url=https://youtu.be/GzIwvHUvFR0 |accessdate=23 Jun 2016 |language=German (English subtitles)}}</ref>

==Further reading==
*https://www.amazon.com/dp/B012YKIQ2M Counterfeiting the Rainbow by Beverly Rachel
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.
*[http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ Documentation of the links between homosexuals and the Nazis] by the Government of Israel.
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]
*Shupe, Jamie (March 10, 2019). [https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/10/i-was-americas-first-non-binary-person-it-was-all-a-sham/ I Was America’s First ‘Nonbinary’ Person. It Was All a Sham.] ''The Daily Signal''. Retrieved April 15, 2019.

==See also==
*[[ACT-UP]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Anthropological Revolution]]
*[[Essay:Sodomism]]
*[[Homosexual belief system]]
*[[Gay affirmative]]
*[[Gay rights]]
*[[Homophobia]]
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]
*[[Homosexual logic]], used to justify and mandate the Homosexual Agenda
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Homosexualization]]
*[[Gleichschaltung#LGBTI Gleichschaltung|LGBTI Gleichschaltung]]
*[[San Francisco values]]
*[[Fashion industry values]]
*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Slogans and the Homosexual Agenda]]
*[[Stonewall UK]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Liberal Deceit]]
[[Category:Hollywood Values]]

User:DavidE

2020-08-20T19:12:35Z

DavidE: update

{{userboxtop|DavidE}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Baptist}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User Law}}
{{User Vandalized|32}}
{{userboxbottom}}
KJV, YEC, GOP, and not at all PC! I believe in what the Bible says, not in what some liberal "pastor" feels that the Bible means. I also believe in the entire Bible; I am not the sort of Christian who believes just in those parts of the Bible that he likes, and only when they suit him. I do not believe that those parts of the Bible that inconvenience me are to be explained away, while those parts of the Bible that apply only to someone else are to be retained, and I am suspicious of any form of Bible interpretation that the homosexuals could turn around and use to justify their lifestyle choice.

One thing that I like about Conservapedia, and one reason why I think that it is so important, is that edits relying on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture aren't constantly reverted in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" or discounted as "vandalism," as they are on certain liberal sites that I could name.

Please don't lump all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians into a single "Protestant" mass. As an Independent Fundamental Baptist, I hold views very different from those of Episcopalians and other mainline Protestants. Before telling me what I do or do not believe, please take the time to find out.

April 11, 2020, was my 13th anniversary of editing Conservapedia.

Liberal vandals have repeatedly vandalized both my user page and my talk page. I wonder why they bother, since liberal trolls, vandals, and parodists are always found out so quickly here.

[[Category:Baptist Conservapedians]]

Black-swan fallacy

2020-07-24T19:32:00Z

DavidE: /* Related fallacies */ relation to ad nauseam fallacy

The '''black-swan fallacy''' is an [[induction|inductive]] [[logical fallacy|fallacy]] that states that if something has not occurred within the speaker's experience, it cannot occur. In other words, the fallacy states that just because something has always been a certain way in the speaker's experience, it is always that way as a matter of universal principle. The example that gave its name to the fallacy is "Every swan that I have ever seen is white; therefore, there are no black swans."
==Related fallacies==
If the speaker suppresses evidence of black swans, the fallacy becomes the [[cherry picking|cherry-picking]] fallacy. If the speaker is shown evidence of a black swan and maintains the position, the fallacy becomes the [[fallacy of invincible ignorance]] if the speaker simply ignores that evidence or the [[no true Scotsman]] fallacy if the speaker attempts to explain away that evidence. If the speaker keeps giving examples of white swans, the fallacy becomes the ''[[ad nauseam]]'' fallacy.

== See also ==

*[[Black swan]]

==References==
*[http://transylvaniandutch.blogspot.com/2009/01/black-swan-fallacy.html Black Swan Fallacy]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Rectification

2020-07-24T19:21:56Z

DavidE: /* UC-Berkeley bigotry */ internal link to ad nauseam

[[File:Li660912-1-b.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Self-criticism and public shaming is the core of Progressive rectification.]]
'''Rectification''' (''pinyin'' '''Cheng Feng''') in [[communist]] thought is to "make right" imaginary [[crime]]s of [[Western]] [[capitalist]]s and beneficiaries of so-called "[[white privilege]]", or to purge communist [[revolution]]aries contaminated with [[individualism]]. Self-criticism and confession is forced either through [[torture]] of public shaming. While rectified [[Marxist]] revolutionaries may be ostracized and exiled as punishment, there may be hope for rehabilitation through re-education and [[brainwashing]]; [[counter-revolution]]aries and non co-conspirators in leftwing lawlessness are forced to confess, giving alleged legal justification for [[capital punishment]] or other extreme measures, including victimizing a non-communist or non-[[leftist]]'s family, friends, and co-workers with the same rectification measures up to, and including, [[murder]].

Rectification is aimed a purging society of dissenters of leftwing, communist, and atheist [[totalitarian]] rule, and purifying society for a future socialist order.

==The Great Awokening==
[[File:BLM rectification.PNG|right|300px|thumb|A white woman accosted on the street with a demand to kneel and apologize for her whiteness.<ref>https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1267734418241830912</ref>]]
:{{See also|2020 Antifa riots|Woke}}
A [[Maoist]] rectification campaign erupted out of the Antifa riots.<ref>https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/forced-apologies-and-public-shaming-doctrinal-deviation-sweep-american-culture</ref> Whites were asked, if not demanded, to kneel and publicly disavow their white privilege.<ref>https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/06/03/brain-washed-whites-convulsing-from-white-guilt-make-pledge-of-allegiance-to-black-people-929304</ref> Calling police to report crimes or threats to life and safety was deemed "racist".<ref>https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/06/08/minn-official-tells-cnns-camerota-wanting-to-protect-your-home-comes-from-a-place-of-privilege-931770</ref> The mayor of Minneapolis was shamed before a leftist mob of mostly white people for not agreeing to disband the Minneapolis police.<ref>https://youtu.be/eACIjK36mek</ref> A ''New York Times'' columnist urged white people to text “relatives and loved ones telling them you will not be visiting them or answering phone calls until they take significant action in supporting black lives either through protest or financial contributions.”<ref>https://summit.news/2020/06/09/new-york-times-columnist-demands-white-people-ditch-family-members-who-dont-support-black-lives-matter/</ref>

[[New Orleans Saints]] quarterback Drew Brees told an interviewer “I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the [[flag]] of the United States of America.” Brees and his family received death threats. Brees publicly asked for "forgiveness" for saying Americans should respect the flag.<ref>https://www.dailywire.com/news/drew-brees-caves-asks-for-forgiveness-for-saying-americans-should-respect-the-flag?itm_source=parsely-api</ref> Even Brees wife wrote an apology: “WE ARE THE PROBLEM. I write this with tears in my eyes and I hope you all hear our hearts.”<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/06/07/drew-brees-wife-brittany-issues-apology-we-are-the-problem/</ref>

Aleksandar Katai, a [[Serbia]]n soccer who played with the Los Angeles Galaxy, wife posted criticism of the Minneapolis rioters in Serbian. Someone noticed, translated the posting and criticized her. She deleted the posting. Katai's wife was in Chicago when she wrote the post, and Aleksandar may not have even been aware of the post. Riot protesters arrived at the Los Angeles stadium to call for Alexander's firing. The management of the L.A. Galaxy forced Alexander Katai to apologize for his wife, and then to denounce her. Then they made him endorse Black Lives Matter, which he did, and then they fired him anyway.<ref>https://skugal.org/racist-violent-la-galaxy-fire-aleksandar-katai-over-wifes-shocking-social-media-posts-about-us-police-brutality-protests/</ref> Then Katai was attacked on his way out for something he didn't do, may not have even been aware of, in a language most Americans don't understand.<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/06/06/la-galaxy-releases-aleksandar-katai-amid-wifes-racist-posts/</ref>

Editorial page director of the ''[[New York Times]]'' James Bennet apologized, and then resigned, after publishing an [[op-ed]] from [[Sen. Tom Cotton]]. The article suggested the U.S. military might be necessary to quell nationwide socialist insurrection if governors and mayors refused to defend the lives and property of American citizens and taxpayers.

[[Sacramento Kings]] play-by-play announcer Grant Napear resigned after the backlash from tweeting, “All lives matter.”

[[Roseanne Barr]], a mere mortal was fired from [[ABC]] after apologizing for making what was alleged to be a racist comment; prominent [[leftist]] spokesperson and alleged [[comedian]] [[Jimmy Kimmel]] was retained by ABC after apologizing for a blatantly racist alleged comedy skit.

===UC-Berkeley bigotry===
During the 2020 Leftist rectification campaign [[UCLA]] investigated a [[white]] professor who read [[Martin Luther King Jr.]]’s ''Letter from Birmingham Jail,'' which reportedly contains the N-word, to students in a [[political science]] class. UCLA also held a town hall shaming and urged students to come forward with complaints. The department head and other faculty charged,
{{quotebox|"The lecturer also showed a portion of a documentary which included graphic images and descriptions of lynching, with a narrator who quoted the n-word in explaining the history of lynching. Many students expressed distress and anger regarding the lecture and the lecturer's response to their concerns during the lecture. We share students' concerns that the lecturer did not simply pause and reassess their teaching pedagogy to meet the students' needs."<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/professor-under-investigation-for-reading-mlks-letter-from-birmingham-jail-containing-n-word</ref>}}
Investigative journalist Tracy Beanz published an anonymous letter from an [[African American]] collogue in the Department of History at Berkeley. [[Twitter]] initially censored the link which led Beanz to publish the letter on her website with the note, "It will be long....it is worth every moment of the read."
{{quotebox|Dear profs X, Y, Z,

I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my [[job]], and likely all future jobs in my field.

In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of [[opinion]] on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them. In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in [[academia]] or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by [[white]]s, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of [[white supremacy]] and white [[systemic racism]] into American brains, souls, and institutions.

Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as [[Thomas Sowell]] and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or ‘[[Uncle Tom]]s’. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.

The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white [[discrimination]] remains a problematic [[hypothesis]] that should be vigorously challenged by [[historian]]s. Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and our [[culture]], without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.

A counter-narrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email. Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by [[BLM]] and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same [[methodology]], we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-[[male]] than it is anti-black.

Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically [[misandry|misandrist]] [[conspiracy]] against innocent American [[men]]? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our [[rational]] faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in [[violent]] crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple [[jurisdiction]]s in multiple countries. And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department’s apparent desire to shoulder the ‘white man’s burden’ and to promote a narrative of white guilt.

If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that [[Asia]]n Americans, [[India]]n Americans, and [[Nigeria]]n Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even [[Jewish]] Americans are incarcerated less than [[gentile]] whites. I think it’s fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews.

None of this is addressed in your [[literature]]. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and [[ad hominem]]s. “Those are racist dogwhistles”. “The model minority myth is white supremacist”. “Only [[fascist]]s talk about black-on-black crime”, [[ad nauseam]]. These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing [[orthodox]]y [[tactic]]s they are, common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and [[religion]]s throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.

Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM’s problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position, which is no small number.

I personally don’t dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, [[corporate]] America, and the [[media]], the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread [[economic]] vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.

The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution.

Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously [[bigot]]ed this formulation truly is. No discussion is permitted for non-black victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of non-black violence. This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders. Home invaders like George Floyd.

For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald’s and [[Wal-Mart]]. For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.

The claim that black interracial violence is the product of [[redlining]], [[slavery]], and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why [[Japan]]ese internment or the massacre of [[Holocaust|European Jewry]] hasn’t led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. [[Arab]] Americans have been viciously demonized since [[9/11]], as have [[Chinese]] Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices – as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department. The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.

Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the [[Democratic National Convention]], and the [[Democratic Party]] more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to [[Black Lives Matter]], an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to [[ActBlue Charities]], an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for [[Democrat]] candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to [[Joe Biden]]’s 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. [[Minneapolis]] itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the ‘systemic racism’ there was built by successive Democrat administrations.

The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, [[poverty]], and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence. This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent in academic circles. I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.

The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the [[useful idiot]]s of the wealthiest classes, carrying water for [[Jeff Bezos]] and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. [[Starbucks]], an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. [[Sony]], an organisation using [[cobalt]] mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are [[children]], is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this [[obscenity]]. Fiat lux, indeed.

There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called ‘race hustlers’: hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship. Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth, we can regard ourselves as a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any [[hope]] at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically [[segregation]]ist.

[[MLK]] would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today. We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the [[PRC]], an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of ''jus solis'' increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?

As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple [[felon]] who once held a [[pregnant]] black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the [[women]] in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a [[human being]]. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors. And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department, corporate America, most [[mainstream media]] outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA, he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise.

Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species. I’m ashamed of my department. I would say that I’m ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid, as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It’s hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.

It shouldn’t affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color. My family have been personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the [[Democrat party]] against our race. The humiliating assumption that we are too [[stupid]] to do STEM, that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life, is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.

The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.

No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites. If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely be no different to the roughest parts of [[Baltimore]] and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.

I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda and the Party’s uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic.

I condemn the manner of [[George Floyd]]’s death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent [[misogynist]], a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end. I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she is free.<ref>https://uncoverdc.com/2020/06/12/uc-berkeley-history-professors-open-letter-against-blm-police-brutality-and-cultural-orthodoxy/</ref>}}

==Yan'an rectification movement==
[[Image:Ft296nb15t 00003.jpg|right|300px|thumb|American communists and [[New Deal]]ers [[Philip Jaffe]], [[Owen Lattimore]], Agnes Jaffe, and [[Thomas Bisson]] with [[PLA]] founder Zhu De (also Chu Teh, center), in Yan'an, China, June 1937.<ref>Jaffe, Bisson, and Lattimore were all founding board members of the communist controlled ''[[Amerasia]]'' magazine.</ref>]]
:{{See also|Chinese Communist Party}}
In northern Shaanxi Province, while sandwiched between the Japanese and the KMT, the CCP began the '''Yan’an Rectification Movement''' of mass cleansing, killing many people. More than 10,000 were killed in the "rectification" process,<ref name="UJPRS">US Joint Publication research service. (1979). ''China Report: Political, Sociological and Military Affairs.'' Foreign Broadcast information Service. No ISBN digitized text March 5, 2007</ref> as the Party made efforts to attack intellectuals and replace the culture of the [[May Fourth Movement]] with that of Communist culture.<ref>Twitchett, Denis and Fairbank, John K. ''The Cambridge history of China.'' {{ISBN|0-521-24336-X}}</ref><ref>Borthwick, Mark. (1998). ''Pacific Century: The Emergence of Modern Pacific Asia.'' Westview Press. {{ISBN|0-8133-3471-3}}</ref><ref name="Apter">Apter, David Ernest. (1994). Revolutionary Discourse in Mao's Republic. Harvard University Press. {{ISBN|0-674-76780-2}}</ref> This type of repetitive massacre on such a massive scale did not prevent the CCP from eventually expanding its power to rule all of China. The CCP expanded this pattern of internal rivalry and killing from the small Soviet areas to the whole nation. ''The Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party'' describes Yan'an rectification movement as,
{{quotebox|"the largest, darkest, and most ferocious power game ever played out in the human world. In the name of “cleansing petty bourgeoisie toxins,” the Party washed away morality, independence of thought, freedom of action, tolerance, and dignity....Humiliation became a fact of life in Yan’an—it was either humiliate other comrades or humiliate oneself. People were pushed to the brink of insanity, having been forced to abandon their dignity, sense of honor or shame, and love for one another to save their own lives and their own jobs. They ceased to express their own opinions and recited Party leaders’ articles instead."<ref>http://www.ninecommentaries.com/english-2</ref>}}
Mao developed the techniques of "thought reform" (literally "washing the brain" in Chinese). Mao's tactics often included isolating and attacking dissenting individuals in "study groups." These techniques of pressure, ostracism, and reintegration were particularly powerful in China, where the culture puts great value on "saving face", protecting one's innermost thinking, and above all, identifying with a group. Individuals put through thought reform later described it as excruciating. The resulting changes in views were not permanent, but the experience overall seriously affected the lives of those who went through it. The CCP has used these same types of techniques on millions of Chinese since 1949.

==Van Jones on rectification==
[[File:Van Jones and Barack Obama.JPG|thumb|400px|right|Van Jones and [[Barack Obama]] ]]
:{{See also|Revolutionary vanguard|Obamunism}}
[[CNN]] analyst [[Van Jones]] was a founding organizer and leader<ref>[http://machete408.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/revolutionaries-in-high-places-van-jones/ Revolutionaries in High Places- Van Jones], by adamfreedom March 23, 2009.</ref> of the communist revolutionary organization, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). The organization had its roots in a group protesting "U.S. Imperialism" during the [[Persian Gulf War]] of 1991. The leftist blog Machete 48 identifies STORM's influences as "[[third-world]]ist [[Marxism]] (and an often vulgar Maoism)."<ref>
[http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-file-72-obama-appoints-former.html Obama File 72 Obama Appoints "Former" Communist To White House "Green Job"], Trevor Louden, April 06, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:9UyDTPx6dGEJ:machete408.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/revolutionaries-in-high-places-van-jones/+van+jones+demos&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz Machete 48]</ref>

STORM's own literature describes its "Maoist orientation"<ref>[https://archive.org/details/ReclaimingRevolution ''Reclaiming Revolution]: history, summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)'', Spring 2004, p. 23 pdf.</ref> which conducted "a group reading of Mao's ''On Practice'' and ''On Contradiction.''"<ref>Ibid, p. 25 pdf.</ref> The group studied [[Lenin]]'s theories of the state, revolution, the party, and "the political ideas of [[Mao Tse-tung]]."<ref>Ibid, p.15 pdf.</ref> STORM's own history further states, "We also pushed at or went beyond the limits of the traditional Marxist canon, studying such topics as revolutionary feminism, the Palestinian [[National liberation movement|liberation struggle]], transgender liberation, methods of evaluation, self-care for cadre and revolutionary mass [community] organizing."<ref>Ibid, p. 25 pdf.</ref> STORM was extensively involved in the [[community organizing]] movement.<ref>Ibid, pp. 8, 10, 15 pdf.</ref>

In ''Reclaiming Revolution'', STORM editors discussed their self-critical evaluation of accusations other groups made <ref>''Reclaiming Revolution, p. 10.''</ref> that STORM considered itself the revolutionary vanguard of Marxism. They write,
{{quotebox|We did not understand clearly enough the distinction between cadre organization, revolutionary parties, revolutionary organization and vanguard organization.<ref>''Reclaiming Revolution, p. 40.</ref>}}
STORM repented of this grievous Marxist error as a "lesson learned,"
{{quotebox|We were a cadre organization that was working to build revolutionary mass organizations and to lay the groundwork for a future revolutionary party (or parties) by building a broad revolutionary internationalist trend.<ref>Ibid. Also p. 42.</ref>}}
STORM's error was not being clear to members that they were an "advance guard" organization, and not a "vanguard organization."<ref>Ibid, p. 33.</ref> Van Jones' comments give a rare insight into what Marxist organizers call "communist discipline" or "party discipline".

===Rectification study===
Jones wrote on his experience with Maoist rectification in ''Reclaiming Revolution'':
{{quotebox|We contrasted [[Alinsky]] organizing models, [[SNCC]]'s grassroots model and [[Marxist-Leninist]] methods of mass work. We worked to develop a basic understanding of Marxist and Leninist histories, theories and politics. Members also worked to identify the features of the current historical period and discussed what it would take to build towards a revolutionary period.

Outside of the organization, a group of movement veterans, intrigued by STORM's interest in Marxist politics, organized a series of study
groups. STORM members, along with other young [[leftist]]s, thus got a chance to study Marx's critique of capitalism and revolutionary strategy together with trained communists.

This rectification<ref>"Rectification" is a term used in the communist tradition to describe an organizational effort to get back on track, to rectify past errors.</ref> was an important period in STORM's political development and consolidation. All of STORM's members developed a basic
understanding of and commitment to revolutionary Marxist politics - with a particular emphasis on the historical experiences of Third World communist movements. Our understanding of these politics and histories, though still relatively crude, was extremely significant in the development of our work. For the first time, STORM had a shared ideological framework, giving us a common basis for developing our political analysis, our structure and our program.

During this time, we developed our analysis of and approach to the current historical period. We came to believe that the central role of revolutionaries today is to help build "resistance struggles" in oppressed communities around immediate reform issues and to use this resistance work to lay the groundwork for the development of a more clearly revolutionary struggle. We called this approach "Moving From Resistance to Revolution." See "STORM's Politics" for a more thorough discussion of these points.

'''Applying the Lessons of Rectification'''

We now believed that revolutionary Marxist politics would be central to the development of a successful liberation movement in this country. We also thought that we needed to build an organization that maintained its commitment to these politics.

But our new political commitment to Marxist-Leninist politics raised many questions about our structure and potential for relevance and growth. Most young activists around us - particularly women and people of color - were hostile to revolutionary Marxism. Would new members undermine our new political unity and commitment to red politics? Would there be political differences too large to resolve without divisive struggle and destructive arguments?

Looking around us, we didn't think it was possible to build an explicitly Marxist organization. And after the previous period of division and
power struggles, it seemed risky to bring new people into our but recently - and delicately - cohered group.

To deal with these issues, STORM adopted a two-tiered membership structure with a leadership "Core" and a "General Membership." All Core Members had to be explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics. General Members did not, although they could not be hostile to red politics either. Instead, General Members had only to support STORM's Points of Unity, which were not explicitly Marxist.

'''411: Political Education Committee'''

In 1998, STORM created 411. For the first time, STORM had a formal committee in charge of providing structured training for both the Core and the General Membership. 411 was also responsible for orienting new members. 411 was important in collectivizing STORM's commitment to Marxist politics.

411 facilitated political education trainings in every membership meeting. It also conducted bi-monthiy weekend "intensives." We began with Marxist "basics," laying a foundation on which to build an understanding of Third World communism. We studied philosophy, wage exploitation, capitalism, imperialism and globalization, Lenin's theories of the state, revolution and the party, and the political ideas of Mao Tse-tung and [[Antonio Gramsci]].

Later sessions covered more "contemporary" issues, including Marxist [[feminism]], [[transgender]] liberation, and the [[Palestinian]] liberation struggle. We continued to study the Marxist tradition, including [[dialectical materialism]] and member-initiated studies of Mao's "On Practice" and "On Contradiction". We also had skills trainings (e.g., revolutionary organizing, self-care for cadre, evaluation). Members were also expected to attend SOUL's Revolutionary Sunday Schools to study the history of Third World revolutions.

STORM's methodological approach to political education was distinct. To make the material more accessible to our members, 411 used interactive
methods rather than traditional left study methods like reading and lecture.

In general, members had a low level of discipline with regards to political education. They often failed to read. Attendance at in-depth training sessions, held outside of meetings, was inconsistent. Members were busy in their mass work, leaving little time to schedule adequate training sessions.

We devoted what time we had to learning basic concepts. We rarely got beyond interactive, but often shallow, pedagogical methods and tools. As a
result, members often developed only a crude understanding (sometimes not much deeper than a slogan) of complicated political ideas.

411 designed these trainings and workshops as introductions to the basics of different political theories. But these introductory sessions were the only spaces within STORM for political discussion. This left more advanced members with virtually no organizational time or space for deeper, more nuanced study or discussion. It also left members with little opportunity to discuss the material's applicability to their mass work. This lack of deeper discussion became a problem for STORM's political development.}}

==See also==
*[[Groupthink]]
*[[Deviationism]]

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{communism}}
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Communism]][[Category:Socialism]][[Category:Progressivism]][[Category:Liberalism]][[Category:Chinese History]][[Category:United States History]][[Category:Democrats]][[Category:Marxist Terminology]][[Category:1940s]][[Category:1990s]][[Category:2020s]]

PZ Myers and politics

2020-07-24T19:20:57Z

DavidE: /* PZ Myers on abortion */ internal link to ad nauseam

[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|201px|right|PZ Myers]]
Concerning politics, the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] has proposed: criminalizing gun manufacture; abolishing the U.S. Senate, or at least reduce it to a purely ceremonial function; and outlawing the [[Republican Party]] (see: [[Atheism and politics]]).<ref>[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/08/04/a-few-radical-proposals/ A few radical proposals] by PZ Myer</ref>

Concerning his first three political proposals given above, Myers states:
{{Cquote|I know it’s all unrealistic, and isn’t going to happen, unless there’s a revolution (which, at the rate we’re going, isn’t entirely unlikely). Basically, I’m suggesting that we correct the failings of the first [[American Revolution|American revolution]], which wasn’t revolutionary enough, change our mindset to make [[capitalism]] accountable, and shut down the most extreme propaganda organ. It’s not as radical as it could be — a real [[socialism|socialist]] would suggest that the people should seize total control of the production of weapons, for instance, but I’ve become less trusting of the will of the people nowadays.<ref>[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/08/04/a-few-radical-proposals/ A few radical proposals] by PZ Myer</ref>}}

== Reaction to Donald Trump being elected in 2016 ==

''See also:'' [[Donald Trump and American atheists]] and [[Secular leftists and psychogenic illness]] and [[Decline of the secular left]]

In January of 2017, the atheist and secular leftist [[PZ Myers]] said about Donald Trump's presidential victory:
{{Cquote|This span of time representing the agonizing death of American [[idealism]], decline of [[liberal]]ism, and collapse into corruption has played out as the background of my life.

That’s depressing. History is not going to remember me, but I managed to live through a terrible period that will be remembered, unpleasantly. It would be nice to go out on a note of optimism, but that’s probably not going to happen.<ref>[Stop tolerating the intolerable] by PZ Myers, January 2017</ref>}}

== PZ Myers on abortion ==

''See also:'' [[PZ Myers and abortion]]
[[File:PZ Myers at Skepticon 7.jpg|thumbnail|250px|left|[[PZ Myers]] ]]
PZ Myers is not only "pro-choice", but he said he is "even willing to say" that he is pro-[[abortion]].<ref name = "evon">http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html</ref>

The website Evolution News and Views wrote:
{{cquote|Myers again, on abortion:

'what's at stake is a mere embryo, so it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated, and I don't have any illusions about whether this is deciding the fate of a human life -- it's not. There's no person...'

Myers' ugly assertion -- 'it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated...[t]here's no person -- demonstrates the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] moral vacuum. [[Atheism and morality|New Atheists insist that there is no objective moral law]]; morality is nothing more than an evolved adaptation, or what each of us decides, [[ad nauseam]]. Yet if there is no objective moral law that transcends the individual will to power, then power, not justice nor mercy nor even love for one's own child, governs human conduct. Atheist morality boils down to this: '... because we can'. That has been the moral code of atheism in power for a century.<ref name="evon" />}}
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|250px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] was an early advocate of [[abortion]] in the [[Western World]].<ref name="bmj">https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>]]
In 2011, Myers wrote that when he sees dead baby pictures: "I look at them unflinchingly and see meat."<ref name ="meat">http://www.examiner.com/christian-apologetics-in-albuquerque/pz-myers-best-reason-for-rejecting-atheism-murdered-babies-are-just-meat</ref>

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Ken Ammi wrote in response to PZ Myers remarks concerning abortion:
{{cquote|What a tragic figure, what a deprivation of all that is human and humane, what a sad, sick and depraved [[soul]]: what a by product of atheism.

Beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies who were brutally murdered in unimaginably brutal and inhuman, inhumane, and subhuman manners are to be likened to rats, mice, dogs, and misc amputated body parts. In his reductionist eyes it is all merely temporarily animated meat.<ref name="meat" />}}

PZ Myers's views are not surprising given the [[History of Atheism|history of atheism]] in relation to the abortion issue. The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the atheist and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of [[population control]]. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.<ref name="bmj" />}}

Population control is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.<ref name="evon" />

== See also ==

*[[PZ Myers and social justice]]
*[[PZ Myers on the death of Robin Williams]]
*[[PZ Myers' loss of influence]]

==References ==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}
[[Category:PZ Myers]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category: PZ Myers]]

PZ Myers and abortion

2020-07-24T19:19:54Z

DavidE: internal link to ad nauseam

The [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution]]ist [[PZ Myers]] is not only "pro-choice", but he said he is "even willing to say" that he is pro-[[abortion]].<ref name = "evon">http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html</ref>

The website Evolution News and Views wrote:
{{cquote|Myers again, on abortion:

'what's at stake is a mere embryo, so it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated, and I don't have any illusions about whether this is deciding the fate of a human life -- it's not. There's no person...'

Myers' ugly assertion -- 'it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated...[t]here's no person -- demonstrates the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] moral vacuum. [[Atheism and morality|New Atheists insist that there is no objective moral law]]; morality is nothing more than an evolved adaptation, or what each of us decides, [[ad nauseam]]. Yet if there is no objective moral law that transcends the individual will to power, then power, not justice nor mercy nor even love for one's own child, governs human conduct. Atheist morality boils down to this: '... because we can'. That has been the moral code of atheism in power for a century.<ref name="evon" />}}
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|250px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] was an early advocate of [[abortion]] in the [[Western World]].<ref name="bmj">https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>]]
In 2011, Myers wrote that when he sees dead baby pictures: "I look at them unflinchingly and see meat."<ref name ="meat">http://www.examiner.com/christian-apologetics-in-albuquerque/pz-myers-best-reason-for-rejecting-atheism-murdered-babies-are-just-meat</ref>

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Ken Ammi wrote in response to PZ Myers remarks concerning abortion:
{{cquote|What a tragic figure, what a deprivation of all that is human and humane, what a sad, sick and depraved [[soul]]: what a by product of atheism.

Beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies who were brutally murdered in unimaginably brutal and inhuman, inhumane, and subhuman manners are to be likened to rats, mice, dogs, and misc amputated body parts. In his reductionist eyes it is all merely temporarily animated meat.<ref name="meat" />}}

PZ Myers's views are not surprising given the [[History of Atheism|history of atheism]] in relation to the abortion issue. The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the atheist and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of [[population control]]. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.<ref name="bmj" />}}

Population control is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.<ref name="evon" />

==See also ==

*[[Abortion and atheism]]
*[[Atheism and mass murder]]
*[[Atheism and morality]]
*[[PZ Myers on the death of Robin Williams]]
{{atheism}}

==References ==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}
[[Category:PZ Myers]]
[[Category:Abortion]]

Abortion and atheism

2020-07-24T19:18:43Z

DavidE: /* Atheist PZ Myers on abortion */ internal link to ad nauseam

[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|200px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] advocated induced abortion.<ref name="jme.bmj.com"/>]]
The father of [[medicine]], [[Hippocrates]], expressly prohibited [[abortion]] in his ethical [[Oath]] long before [[Christianity]].

The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the [[atheism|atheist]] and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.<ref>[https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract The Marquis de Sade and induced abortion]</ref>}}

Not possessing a [[Religion|religious]] basis for [[morality]], [[atheist]]s are fundamentally [[Moral relativism|incapable]] of having a coherent system of morality which is based on the worldview of [[atheism]] (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). The [[Barna Group]] found that [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostics]] in America were more likely, than [[theist]]s in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: [[Atheism and drug addiction|illegal drug use]]; excessive drinking; [[fornication|sexual relationships outside of marriage]]; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; [[Atheism and profanity|Profanity]]; gambling; [[pornography]] and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard</ref>

== Richard Dawkins' comment about aborting Down syndrome babies ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism in medicine]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and [[Eugenics]]

In August 2014, [[Richard Dawkins]] caused a firestorm by claiming an unborn baby with [[Down's Syndrome|Down's syndrome]] should be aborted and that it would be “immoral to bring it into the world.”<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/20/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-Abort-Down-s-Syndrome-Baby-Immoral-To-Bring-It-Into-The-World Atheist Richard Dawkins: 'Abort' Down's Syndrome Baby, 'Immoral To Bring It Into The World'] by by Dr. Susan Berry, Breitbart News 20 Aug 2014</ref> Dr. Michael Brown wrote in the ''Christian Post'' about this matter: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins is something of an embarrassment, even to other atheists (although he is still revered by many). The only question that remains is this: Are his irrational and immoral positions unique to him, or are they the logical outcome of his Darwinian evolutionism?"<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-exposes-the-immorality-of-his-atheism-125159/ Richard Dawkins Exposes the Immorality of His Atheism By Michael Brown, ''Christian Post'', August 21, 2014|10:15 am]</ref> See also: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]

A British father whose Down's syndrome daughter passed six General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests called Richard Dawkins an "ignorant idiot".<ref>[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41</ref>
== Atheist PZ Myers on abortion ==

[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|251px|right|PZ Myers]]
''See also:'' [[PZ Myers and abortion]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

Atheist [[PZ Myers]] is not only "pro-choice", but he said he is "even willing to say" that he is pro-[[abortion]].<ref name="abortion">http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html</ref>

The website Evolution News and Views wrote:
{{cquote|Myers again, on abortion:

'what's at stake is a mere embryo, so it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated, and I don't have any illusions about whether this is deciding the fate of a human life -- it's not. There's no person...'

Myers' ugly assertion -- 'it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated...[t]here's no person -- demonstrates the New Atheist moral vacuum. [[Atheism and morality|New Atheists insist that there is no objective moral law]]; morality is nothing more than an evolved adaptation, or what each of us decides, [[ad nauseam]]. Yet if there is no objective moral law that transcends the individual will to power, then power, not justice nor mercy nor even love for one's own child, governs human conduct. Atheist morality boils down to this: '... because we can'. That has been the moral code of atheism in power for a century.<ref name="abortion" />}}

In 2011, Myers wrote that when he sees dead baby pictures: "I look at them unflinchingly and see meat."<ref name="meat">http://www.examiner.com/christian-apologetics-in-albuquerque/pz-myers-best-reason-for-rejecting-atheism-murdered-babies-are-just-meat</ref>

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Ken Ammi wrote in response to PZ Myers remarks concerning abortion:
{{cquote|What a tragic figure, what a deprivation of all that is human and humane, what a sad, sick and depraved [[soul]]: what a by product of atheism.

Beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies who were brutally murdered in unimaginably brutal and inhuman, inhumane, and subhuman manners are to be likened to rats, mice, dogs, and misc amputated body parts. In his reductionist eyes it is all merely temporarily animated meat.<ref name="meat" />}}

PZ Myers's views are not surprising given the [[History of Atheism|history of atheism]] in relation to the abortion issue. The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the atheist and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of [[population control]]. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.<ref name="jme.bmj.com">https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>}}

[[Population control]] is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.<ref name="abortion" />

== China, atheism and the consumption of aborted, baby flesh powder pills ==

*[[Communist China and baby eating]]
*[[Atheists eat babies meme]]

=== News articles on Chinese eating of aborted baby flesh powder pills ===

*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/chinese-cannibalism-infant-flesh-outrages-world/ Chinese cannibalism of infant flesh outrages the world], ''Washington Times'', 2014

*[https://abcnews.go.com/Health/chinese-made-infant-flesh-capsules-seized-korea/story?id=16296176 Chinese-Made Infant Flesh Capsules Seized in S. Korea], ''ABC News''

*[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140702/South-Korea-customs-officials-thousands-pills-filled-powdered-human-baby-flesh.html Thousands of pills filled with powdered human baby flesh discovered by customs officials in South Korea], ''The Daily Mail''

*[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/horrifyingly-ground-baby-pills-are-real-thing/328490/ Horrifyingly, Ground Baby Pills Are a Real Thing] by Alexander Abad-Santos, ''The Atlantic''
=== Atheist controlled communist China and doctors eating aborted baby flesh ===

See: [[Atheism, Chinese doctors and baby eating]]

== See also ==

*[[Atheism and infanticide]]
*[[Atheism and children]]
*[[Atheism and sexuality]]
*[[Atheism and lust]]
*[[Atheism and illegitimate births]]
*[[Atheism and mass murder]]
*[[History of abortion]]
*[[Atheism and morality]]

== External links ==

*[https://strangenotions.com/can-atheists-defend-abortion-without-defending-infanticide/ Can Atheists Defend Abortion Without Defending Infanticide?]

*[https://strangenotions.com/abortion-souls-and-the-atheist-conundrum/ Abortion, Souls, and the Atheist Conundrum]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Abortion]]

PZ Myers

2020-07-24T19:17:41Z

DavidE: /* PZ Myers on abortion */ internal link to ad nauseam

[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|201px|right|PZ Myers]]
'''Paul Zachary Myers''', better known as '''PZ Myers''', is a [[liberal]], [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution]]ist activist in the [[creation-evolution controversy]], contributing to [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] and [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] blogs. Myers is also an associate professor of [[biology]] at the [[University of Minnesota]] Morris (UMM)<ref name="citypages">[http://citypages.com/databank/26/1303/article13908.asp?page=1 ''The Mad Scientist''] City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story</ref> Myers is also a co-founder of [[Freethought Blogs]].

PZ Myers commented, while listening to [[Michael Behe]] lecture on [[Intelligent design]], that "In science, we scream a lot."<ref name="citypages"/> Myers' emotionalism and combative nature may have helped earn him the label of being an "online provocateur" having an "[[eccentric]] voice" by the newspaper ''[[USA Today]]''.<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/06/atheist-national-geographic-pz-myers/1</ref> In a 2014 lecture, Myers said he is known for being a "weird," "loud," "radicalized" and "firebrand" type of "[[New Atheism|New Atheist]]."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/which_is_the_re086531.html Which Is the Real PZ Myers?],'' Evolution News and Views'', Casey Luskin June 9, 2014 12:07 PM</ref>

Subsequent to the [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|decline of the New Atheism movement]], Myers wrote, "History will not remember me..." (see: [[PZ Myers' loss of influence]]).<ref>[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/01/apparently-pz-myers-recognizes-that-new.html Apparently, the atheist PZ Myers recognizes that the New Atheism movement failed and that the 21st century is going to be a century of desecularization], ''Examining Atheism''</ref> In July 2017, Myers renounced the New Atheism movement.<ref>[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/07/31/the-new-atheism-is-dead-long-live-atheism/ The New Atheism is dead. Long live atheism.]</ref> Concerning formerly being a new atheist, Myers said in 2019: "...I was naive and stupid".<ref>[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/01/25/the-train-wreck-that-was-the-new-atheism/ The train wreck that was the New Atheism] by PZ Myers, [[Freethought Blogs|Freethoughtblogs.com]], January 25, 2019</ref>

In August 2017 PZ Myers renounced the [[atheist movement]] at large and wrote:
{{Cquote|Atheism has squandered its momentum on a defensive old guard and apologists for neglect of events happening in our world. I’m going to have to suggest that we all abandon it. Let’s find an organization that openly states that they want to dismantle the structures of [[white supremacy]] and [[sexism|sexist]] oppression.<ref name="freethoughtblogs.com">[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/26/get-out-a-message-for-the-atheist-movement/ Get Out! A message for the atheist movement] by PZ Myers</ref>}}

Atheist [[Michael Nugent]] said of Myers:
{{Cquote|PZ Myers says that “we (now) have an atheism where it is acceptable to rail against [[feminism]], because feminists should be raped and killed.”

Even by PZ’s own standards, this is his most delusional smear yet...

It is incredible to think that reasonable people once took him seriously.<ref>[http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/01/24/delusional-smears-of-pz-myers/ The increasingly delusional smears of PZ Myers] by Michael Nugent</ref>}}

In August 2017, Myers indicated that he considers [[humanism]] to have a more promising future than the atheist movement ([[Secular humanism]] is an atheistic form of humanism. Myers is referring to secular humanism when he declared humanism has a more promising future).<ref name="freethoughtblogs.com">[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/26/get-out-a-message-for-the-atheist-movement/ Get Out! A message for the atheist movement] by PZ Myers</ref>

However, in October 2017, Myers wrote to his fellow [[progressivism|progressive]] atheists: "We need to just reclaim the title of Atheism as our own."<ref>[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/10/31/another-attempt-to-divorce-atheism-from-the-asswaffles/ "Another attempt to divorce atheism from the asswaffles"]</ref> Myers, like [[David Silverman]] (a former president the [[American Atheists]]), likely recognizes that many people don't know what the word humanism means (Research indicates that 90% of Americans don't know what the word humanism means).<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5y7lRhTpHo Why Call Yourself An Atheist?]</ref>

In 2012, PZ Myers wrote that he didn't object to [[bestiality]] in "a very limited set of specific conditions."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/22/the-objective-morality-gotcha/ The “objective morality” gotcha]</ref><ref name="achilles">[http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life]</ref> See also: [[PZ Myers on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

== Frethoughtblogs ==

''See also:'' [[Freethought Blogs]] and [[Internet atheism]]

[[Freethought Blogs]] is a spinoff of ScienceBlogs launched by PZ Myers and [[Ed Brayton]].

=== Web traffic of Freethought Blogs dramatically declines from June 2019 to September 2019 ===

[[File:Freethoughtblogs.com alexa ranking 9-23-2019.png|thumbnail|center|300px|The web traffic of Freethought Blogs saw a dramatic decline from June 2019 to September 2019 according to the web traffic tracking company [[Alexa]].
 
 
On June 23, 2019, Freethought Blogs was the 90,953th most popular website in the world according to Alexa, but by September 23, 2019 Freethought Blogs was merely the 170,112th most popular website in the world according to Alexa.]]

=== Web traffic of Freethought Blogs: July 2015 to March 2019 ===
[[File:Freethoughtblogs alexa 2016.png|thumbnail|center|400px|Freethought Blogs is a spinoff of ScienceBlogs launched by PZ Myers and [[Ed Brayton]].
 
 
[[Alexa]] is a web traffic tracking company. In 2015 and 2016, Freethought Blogs saw a large decrease in its Alexa ranking.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Freethoughtblogs.com Alexa December 2016.png|400px|center|thumbnail|Freethought Blogs fell sharply in its Alexa ranking for much of the latter part of 2016]].
{{Clear}}
[[File:Freethoughtbllogs alexa May 2017.png|400px|center|thumbnail|In May 2017, according to Alexa, Frrethoughtblogs continued to lose global market share.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Freethoughtblogs.com alexa 3-12-2019.png|thumbnail|center|400px|According to Alexa, on March 12, 2019, Freethoughtblogs was the 90,419th most popular website in the world.]]
{{Clear}}

=== Banning of Thunderf00t from Freethought Blogs ===

''See also:'' [[Atheist factions]]

On July 13, 2012 produced a video criticizing PZ Myers involvement in his banning from [[Freethought Blogs]]. The video accuses PZ Myers of a lack of integrity and engaging in censorship.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96FtpDLi_Vw FreeThoughtBlogs and PZ Myers]</ref>

Vox Day wrote that [[Thunderf00t]]'s removal from Freethought Blogs exemplified PZ Myers's unwillingness to intellectually engage his opponents and his lack of integrity.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/free-fascistthoughtblogs.html Vox Day on Freethought Blogs]</ref>

The issue which appeared to spark the contention was how to properly deal with the significant amount of [[misogny]] within the atheist community (see also: Atheism and women).<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/01/thunderf00t-check-your-email/ Thunderf00t, check your email - PZ Myers]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuKH3trPpgY&list=UUmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A&index=1&feature=plcp Thunderf00t on how to handle misogny in the atheist community]</ref>

=== Thunderf00t on the impact of Freethought Blogs on social justice ===

In October 2014, the popular YouTube atheist [[Thunderf00t]] indicated that the bloggers at Freethought Blogs accidentally put him on their email list and that they spend a considerable amount of time emailing each other engaging in petty matters. In fact, he indicated that they spent more time emailing each other than engaged in actual blogging. He also questioned the impact of the bloggers of Freethought Blogs on social justice.<ref name="youtube.com">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inqcLXNlEes Atheism+ Stream: How SJWs pushed their way into Atheism]</ref> Furthermore, he indicated that their attempt to make him a pariah within the atheist community had virtually no impact.<ref name="youtube.com"/>

In addition, Thunderf00t commented on how [[Jen McCreight]], the founder of the atheist feminist movement [[Atheism plus]] abandoned her movement within two weeks. And how [[Richard Carrier]] "the intellectual artillery" of the movement, quit promoting the movement within a month.<ref name="youtube.com"/>

=== Richard Carrier's defamation lawsuit against Freethought Blogs ===

See: [[Richard Carrier's lawsuits]]

== Atheist Ireland publicly dissociating itself from PZ Myers ==
[[File:Michael Nugent.jpg|thumbnail|right|175px|[[Michael Nugent]] ]]

''See also:'' [[PZ Myers and social justice]] and [[Atheism and social justice]] and [[PZ Myers and politics]]

The Irish atheist [[Michael Nugent]] wrote to PZ Myers in September 2014:
{{cquote|Some of the content of your blog is hurtful and unjust in itself, it also undermines the effectiveness of attempts to promote compassion and empathy and social justice, and it is additionally harmful because of your prominence as a perceived spokesperson for organised atheism...

PZ, is this really how you want to be remembered? Having defended you against unjust attacks from others, I am now asking you to take a long hard look at what you are doing, consider apologising to people who you have unjustly hurt and defamed, and start focusing on actually promoting compassion and empathy and social justice if those ideas are important to you.<ref>[http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/09/19/the-lbj-legend-and-my-email-to-pz-myers/ The LBJ legend and my email to PZ Myers] by Michael Nugent on September 19, 2014</ref>}}

In April 2015, Atheist Ireland announced, "Atheist Ireland is publicly dissociating itself from the hurtful and dehumanising, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of the atheist blogger PZ Myers."<ref>[http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/07/atheist-ireland-dissociates-from-pz-myers/ Atheist Ireland publicly dissociates itself from the harmful and hateful rhetoric of PZ Myers] by Michael Nugent, April 7, 2015</ref> The atheist biologist Massimo Pigliucci said of Myers, "one cannot conclude this parade without mentioning P.Z. Myers, who has risen to fame because of a blog where the level of nastiness (both by the host and by his readers) is rarely matched anywhere else on the Internet...".<ref>[http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/piggliucci20150513 Reflections on the skeptic and atheist movements] By Massimo Pigliucci ''Scientia Salon'', Posted: May 13, 2015</ref>

Due to its notability requirements, the website [[Wikipedia®]] (which was founded by an atheist and agnostic), does not make mention of any specific accomplishments PZ Myers may have achieved in the area of social justice. Wikipedia does mention the social justice accomplishments of Christians such as [[William Wilberforce]], [[Harriet Beecher Stowe]] and others.

== Inappropriate commentary on the suicide of comedian Robin Williams ==

''See also:'' [[PZ Myers on the death of Robin Williams]]

[[File:371px-Robin Williams 2011a.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Robin Williams]] ]]
In August 2014, very shortly after the [[suicide]] of the popular, American comedian/actor [[Robin Williams]], PZ Myers made a callous and socially/emotionally tone-deaf blog post on the matter compounded by him subsequently indicating in the blog post comment section that he should have been "more rude".<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/08/12/robin-williams-brings-joy-to-the-hearts-of-journalists-and-politicians-once-again/ Robin Williams brings joy to the hearts of journalists and politicians once again]</ref>

Fellow atheist and evolutionist [[Jerry Coyne]] wrote in response to Myers' commentary on the suicide of Robin Williams:
{{cquote|This is one of the most contemptible and inhumane things I've ever seen posted by a well-known atheist. It reeks of arrogance, of condescension, and especially of a lack of empathy for those who loved and admired Williams not because they knew him, but because he brought them happiness and made them think.<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/on_robin_willia088801.html On Robin Williams's Death, a Revealing Dispute Between Atheist-Evolutionist Spokesmen]</ref>}}

Myers was angry because he felt that the news of Robins Williams death was crowding out the news story of the African-American Michael Brown who was shot by a police officer (a race riot subsequently ensued).<ref name="patheos.com">[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/08/13/p-z-myers-is-surprise-unmoved-by-suicide-of-wealthy-white-robin-williams/ P.Z. Myers is (Surprise!) Unmoved By Suicide of “Wealthy White” Robin Williams]</ref> Myers was criticized by one of the bloggers at [[Hemant Mehta]]'s blog ''The Friendly Atheist'' due to his "his heartless, classless body blow to the still-warm corpse of Robin Williams."<ref name="patheos.com"/> In addition, Myers' hypocrisy was pointed out as he had made no blog posts previously about the Michael Brown matter and additionally Myers a day earlier, made "a substance-free 15-word post whose main attraction was a photo of a cute bulldog puppy."<ref name="patheos.com"/>

In 2011, fellow [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was also criticized for his social ineptitude due to the events surrounding [[Elevatorgate]] incident (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).

== PZ Myers turns off the social aspect of his blog ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]] and [[Atheism and narcissism]]

Michael Nugent reported in 2015:
{{cquote|PZ Myers has now closed down the social interaction aspect of his blog, after blaming his commenters for attacking an insider in the way that he has always encouraged them to attack outsiders. He also complains that FreeThought Blogs itself is ‘less a unified group than a disparate collection of loosely affiliated blogs that have found a convenient hosting service.’

PZ’s new view on community-building is that ‘we are all objects in space, drifting, occasionally bouncing off each other or tugging gently at each other’s masses. And that’s about it.’ PZ now says that he ‘will be a cold dark ember of a star, following my own whims, drifting alone, not trying to create a hospitable atmosphere.’

This shows that PZ Myers has learned nothing useful from the Little Shop of Hatred that he created and nourished until he lost control of it. Yesterday I wrote that, while I welcomed PZ’s diminishing influence in the international [[atheist movement]], I would also welcome a genuine conversion by him to civility and empathy and fairness and justice. This has not happened. So be it.<ref>[http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/07/28/pz-myers-little-shop-of-hatred/ PZ Myers and the Little Shop of Hatred] by Michael Nugent, 2015</ref>}}

In 2012, Myers wrote concerning his blog:
{{Cquote|I AM THE BOSS, and don’t you forget it. I have sole and absolute power here; I can ban you, I can destroy your comments, I can shut down whole threads. I am a being of caprice; I don’t have to justify anything I do. So when I tell you to stop doing something, stop. Don’t argue with me. You don’t like that I banned your friend? Tough. Don’t complain to me. I will do as I will to make this place the kind of party I want to attend, and that’s all that matters.

This law supercedes all other rules.<ref>[https://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/12/16/hurtful-harmful-smears-pz-myers-happy-atheist/ The hurtful and harmful smears of PZ Myers, “The Happy Atheist”] by Michael Nugent</ref><ref>[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/06/the-new-rules/ The New Rules] by PZ Myers</ref>}}

== PZ Myers rejoicing at the accidental death of a Brazilian priest and then fantasizing about killing priests ==

In 2008, Myers rejoiced at the death of a Brazilian Roman Catholic priest who died a premature accidental death and then Myers fantasized about personally killing other priests.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/08/13/p-z-myers-is-surprise-unmoved-by-suicide-of-wealthy-white-robin-williams/ P.Z. Myers is (Surprise!) Unmoved By Suicide of “Wealthy White” Robin Williams], Friendly Atheist blog</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/it-must-have-been-an-act-of-go/ It must have been an act of god], Posted by PZ Myers on April 21, 2008</ref>

== PZ Myers' prediction that the atheism movement will stagnate or shrink unless atheists change ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Decline of the atheist movement]]

On September 27, 2014 in a blog post entitled ''The Atheist Disillusionment'', PZ Myers declared:
{{cquote|I will make a prediction, right here and now.... The number of people identifying as [[atheism|atheists]] will stagnate or even shrink, because organized atheism is happily in the process of destroying itself with regressive social attitudes, scandals, and their bizarre focus on irrelevant metaphysical differences that don’t help people...

Unless we change.

I don’t know that we can.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/27/the-atheist-disillusionment/ ''The Atheist Disillusionment''] - PZ Myers, September 27, 2014</ref>}}

In 2017, an article entitled ''Apparently, the atheist PZ Myers recognizes that the New Atheism movement failed and that the 21st century is going to be a century of [[desecularization]]'' indicated:
{{Cquote|PZ Myers [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/01/21/stop-tolerating-the-intolerable/#more-33373 just admitted]: "History is not going to remember me...".

Although he was mocked for it, PZ Myer [http://thehumanist.com/magazine/november-december-2009/features/comes-a-horseman dubbed himself] the 5th horseman of the New Atheism movement...

Remember, history is written by the victors. And PZ Myers just admitted that history will not remember him.

Surely, if atheism was going to triumphant the history books would note the 5th horsemen of the New Atheism movement! Myers would deserve at least a footnote. But PZ Myers recognizes that he will not receive even a footnote.<ref>[https://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/01/apparently-pz-myers-recognizes-that-new.html Apparently, the atheist PZ Myers recognizes that the New Atheism movement failed and that the 21st century is going to be a century of desecularization], Examinning Atheism</ref>}}

See also: [[Decline of the atheist movement]]
=== PZ Myers on the sexual harassment allegations against Michael Shermer ===

See: [[Michael Shermer and sexual harassment allegations#Atheist PZ Myers on the sexual harassment allegations against Michael Shermer|PZ Myers on the sexual harassment allegations against Michael Shermer]]

== PZ Myers on Islam ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Islam]]

PZ Myers declared that [[Islam]] is a "religion of ignorance and hate."<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/23/mohammeds-dead-hand-still-ruin/ "Mohammed’s dead hand still ruins lives from the grave"]</ref> Myers contends that those who believe that any criticism of Islam is unacceptable are being unreasonable.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/01/ex-muslims-of-north-america/ Ex-Muslims of North America]</ref> However, Myers is against stereotyping all Muslims as being [[Muslim terrorism|Muslim terrorists]].<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/08/08/if-you-see-something-say-something/ If you see something, say something], PZ Myers</ref>

== PZ Myers on YouTube atheism ==

''See also:'' [[YouTube atheism]] and [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

PZ Myers wrote about YouTube atheism which is dominated by anti-[[social justice warrior]] atheism:
{{Cquote|I haven’t been on YouTube for quite a while...

I stopped bothering because I didn’t want to be associated with these goons, and it didn’t matter what I said…any video would be swarmed with abuse. Every once in a while I tell myself I shouldn’t surrender the medium so easily and that I should at least make a little effort now and then, but meh…I’d have to come up with a vainglorious name, figure out how to animate a goofy avatar, and learn how to overlook a lot of gross logical fallacies.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/07/27/youtube-where-atheism-goes-to-rot/ YouTube, where atheism goes to rot]</ref>}}

== PZ Myers says atheists are largely a population of internet nerds and geeks ==
[[File:PZ Myers.jpg|thumbnail|220px|left|PZ Myers]]
''See also:'' [[Atheist nerds]] and [[Atheism and social outcasts]] and [[Internet atheism]] and [[Atheism and marriage]] and [[Atheism and women]]

In 2013, the PZ Myers declared:
{{cquote|If we're going to expand our base and we're going to draw in more people to recognize the virtues of living in a secular world, we need to appeal to more than just that geek and [[nerd]] subset of the population. We need to have a wider base. ...I seriously believe that we're on the cusp of a crisis. We're not there yet but it's looming in front of us. Will we adapt and thrive and change the world? Or will we remain an avocation for a prosperous and largely irrelevant subset of the population? Will we become something more than a scattered society of internet nerds? That's what we have to do.<ref name="evolutionnews.org">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/in_seattle_pz_m070861.html in Seattle, PZ Myers Reflects Candidly on His Constituency]</ref>}}

In response, ''Evolution News and Views'' wrote:
{{cquote|A crisis looms, in Myers's view, because he looks around himself and sees a not very promising basis for a mass movement. He's right. There is indeed a quality of geeky isolation from reality, common sense, and the fullness of life that I see as a motif in atheist and Darwin activism alike.<ref name="evolutionnews.org">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/in_seattle_pz_m070861.html in Seattle, PZ Myers Reflects Candidly on His Constituency]</ref>}}

PZ Myers wrote about himself: "I’m a nerd. A colossal, boring, asocial nerd, and a homely one at that, and I always have been. You might also be surprised to learn that I totally lack all confidence in myself and my appearance, and it only takes a little bit to impress me."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/08/21/1-800-flowers-for-when-you-absolutely-dont-care-about-getting-a-terrific-experience/#more-31776 1-800-FLOWERS, for when you absolutely don’t care about getting a terrific experience] by PZ Myers</ref>

== PZ Myers and Creation Museum buffoonery ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and mockery]]
[[File:800px-AiG museum.jpg|thumb|300px|Front of the [[Creation Museum]].]]
In August 2009, Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]].<ref>[https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8280168 "Creation Museum: Is This How World Began?" (ABC News)]</ref> During the visit, Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO] In addition, the purpose of the dinosaur model is clearly for children to sit on for photographs.<ref>http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/16/children-and-the-creation-museum/</ref><ref>[http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/53237252.html "A firebrand visits Creation Museum" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune)]</ref> Myers donned a borrowed cowboy hat and was egged on by the cheers and laughter of the students.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM</ref>

See also:

*[[Atheism and obesity#PZ Myers|PZ Myers and obesity]]

*[[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]

== PZ Myers self-appointing himself the fifth horseman of the New Atheism movement ==

''See also:'' [[New Atheism]]
[[File:Richard Dawkins - March 2005.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|left|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Victor J. Stenger]] and [[Christopher Hitchens]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett and they have commonly been called "the four horsemen" of New Atheism.

PZ Myers was mocked by atheist [[Michael Nugent]] for self-appointing himself the "fifth horseman" of the New Atheism movement.<ref>[http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/11/04/chronology-of-misrepresentations-and-smears-in-the-atheist-movement-by-pz-myers-and-others/ Chronology of misrepresentations and smears in the atheist movement by PZ Myers and others] by Michael Nugent on November 4, 2014</ref>

Myers wrote in 2009:
{{cquote|Another problem with the Four Horsemen analogy is the number. As we all know, there are quite a few more vocal people who have been active in atheism and humanism and secularism in general than just the four. What about Victor Stenger or Pascal Boyer? [[Richard Carrier]], Julia Sweeney, [[Dan Barker]]? Don’t they get horses? And what about me? You know, I’m as atheist as those others and I’m probably “atheier” than some of them. (Although I do have to admit I haven’t written a book yet. I’m on sabbatical this year to finish my book, so maybe I’ll get a horse after all.)

So I’m going to very prematurely declare myself a fifth horseman. I picture myself, though, as a little guy on a very small pony trotting after the other four. However, I’m waving a great big banner that has the words, “The Internet” on it. That’s me.<ref name="Comes a Horseman">[http://thehumanist.com/magazine/november-december-2009/features/comes-a-horseman Comes a Horseman] by PZ Myers • 13 October 2009</ref>}}

The atheist Michael Nugent specifically said about PZ Myers dubbing himself the first horseman of the New Atheism movement:
{{Cquote|“After that he just got worse and worse, and there seemed to come a point where he decided that the low-level infamy he could glean by slamming and slurring fellow atheists was his best shot at getting attention, since it was becoming really clear that he wasn’t going to make it as any sort of “fifth horseman”. His poor old nag fell at the first fence.”<ref>[http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/11/04/chronology-of-misrepresentations-and-smears-in-the-atheist-movement-by-pz-myers-and-others/ Chronology of misrepresentations and smears in the atheist movement by PZ Myers and others] by Michael Nugent on November 4, 2014</ref>}}

In 2019, after being mocked for aspiring to be the fifth horseman of the New Atheism movement, Myers wrote:
{{Cquote|"...we never had an atheist tetrarchy, and it’s silly to think I aspired to become part of a non-existent, imaginary leadership. It’s flattering that some people think I was close enough to want to join that club, but honestly, I was also close enough to see how empty the title was, and to have a realistic view of its meaning. Which was nonexistent, except in the minds of people who desire some kind of intellectual domination.<ref>[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/04/10/dont-you-just-love-reading-myths-about-yourself/ Don’t you just love reading myths about yourself?] by PZ Myers</ref>}}

== PZ Myers' blog audience ==
[[File:PZ Myers at Skepticon 7.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|PZ Myers]]
''See also:'' and [[Internet atheism]] and [[Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists]]

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|Scienceblogger Chad Orzel described the commentators on PZ Myers ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as "screechy monkeys."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys</ref>}}

A somewhat similar report was made concerning the audience of [[Richard Dawkins]]'s web community. In February 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that the [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution]]ist Richard Dawkins was embroiled "in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

Myers is one of the more prominent bloggers at [[Freethought Blogs]] and the blogging website has been losing a significant amount of web traffic since 2012 according to [[Quantcast]] which directly measures its web traffic.<ref>[https://www.quantcast.com/freethoughtblogs.com?qcLocale=en_US#/trafficCard Freethoughtblogs - Quantcast]</ref> See also: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]

=== PZ Myers' blog audience and their reported Asperger's quotient test results ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and autism]] and [[Atheism and brain function]]
[[File:Powell2004Fig1A.jpeg|thumbnail|160px|left|Individuals with autism have a tendency to use different portions of the brain (yellow) for a movement task compared to a control group (blue). See: [[Atheism and autism]] ]]
[[Asperger's syndrome]] (sometimes referred to as "High-Functioning Autism" or "HFA") is an umbrella term used to classify problematic behaviours similar to, but less severe than, those within the lower reaches of the [[Autism|autistic spectrum]].

[[Vox Day]] has written about atheists being "socially autistic".<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html The socially autistic atheist] by [[Vox Day]], August 02, 2007</ref><ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-lesson-in-atheist-social-autism.html A lesson in atheist social autism] by [[Vox Day]], August 13, 2014</ref><ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheists-and-daddy-issues.html Atheists and Daddy issues] by Vox Day, August 23, 2012</ref>

Vox Day wrote concerning PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula:
{{cquote|It's by no means a scientific test, but it is interesting to note the coincidence that 59 of the virulent atheists over at Dr. PZ Myers place [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/01/im-mostly-normal/#comments report an average score] on the [http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/asperger-test-aq-test Asperger's Quotient test] of 27.8. And this does not include the two individuals who actually have Asperger's but did not report any test results."

As PZ himself said: "I took the test and scored a 24, an “average math contest winner.” You need a 32 to suggest Asperger’s, and a 15 is the average. So there. I don’t have Asperger’s, I’m just cruel and insensitive."<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/pz-admits-hes-wrong.html PZ admits he's wrong] by Theodore Beale, Friday, August 29, 2014</ref>}}

Below is some information that Aspergerstest.com gives concerning interpreting their Asperger's quiz results:
{{cquote|Basically the range for possible answers is 0 to 50. The information below shows you the different ranges as recorded from others sitting this same AQ quiz over the years.

0-11 low result – indicating no tendency at all towards autistic traits.

11-21 is the average result that people get (many women average around 15 and men around 17)

22-25 shows autistic tendencies slightly above the population average

26-31 gives a borderline indication of an autism spectrum disorder. It is also possible to have aspergers or mild autism within this range.

32-50 indicates a strong likelihood of Asperger syndrome or autism.

In fact, scores of 32 or above are one of strong indicators of having as ASD.<ref>[http://aspergerstest.net/interpreting-aq-test-results/ Interpreting Asperger's Test Results]</ref>}}

However, there is evidence which suggests that a large portion of PZ Myers' blog audience are narcissists rather than individuals who have Asperger's Syndrome (see: [[Atheism and autism#PZ Myers' antitheist blog audience and the issue of narcissism vs. Asperger's Syndrome|PZ Myers' antitheist blog audience and the issue of narcissism vs. Asperger's Syndrome]]).

== PZ Myers and militant atheism ==

PZ Myers is a [[militant atheism|militant atheist]] who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.<ref>http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/pz-myers-on-eliminating-religion.html</ref>
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said: "I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots."<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/</ref>

PZ Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/13/left-or-right-religion-and-pol/ Left or right, religion and politics don’t mix]</ref> religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/11/im-surrounded/ I’m surrounded! Posted by PZ Myers on July 11, 2007]</ref> and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/18/how-do-you-save-small-town-cha/ How do you save small town charm?], Posted by PZ Myers on July 18, 2007</ref>

Myers has yet to offer scholarly work on the subject of atheism<ref name="mute">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-emotively-vociferous-intellectually-mute</ref> In addition, given Myers' diatribes that religious people are allegedly ignorant and deluded, it is quite ironic that Myers has yet to offer any compelling atheist apologetic material rebutting the studies that indicate the [[Irreligion and superstition|irreligious are generally more superstitious than evangelical Christians]].

=== Militant atheism and PZ Myers' lack of intellectual rigor ===

''See also:'' [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]] and [[Atheism and logic]]

The [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] declares concerning the intellectual [[Sloth (sin)|slothfulness]] of PZ Myers:
{{cquote|That PZ Myers is emotively vociferous is evident to anyone who reads, well, virtually anything that he has ever written on any subject at all.

It is likewise evident that he is intellectually mute. How so? Where are his scholarly works on the truth of atheism? He has produced none.

He merely presupposes God’s non-existence without evidence...

Where then are his proofs of atheism and disproof of theism?
None exist but merely emotive besmirchments of straw-men and straw-gods.

His lack of scholarship and intellectual rigor in these areas, as well as the truth of my statements above, may be demonstrated in the following examples (which are a mere few of many).

PZ Myers dismisses Vox Day’s book ''The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens'' while admitting to only having read a few chapters.
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]]
Yet, he refuses to debate Vox Day on the existence of God, or evolution for that matter (Myers being a professor of biology) based on dismissing a book he barely read (yes, it is merely a lame excuse which he peppered with a barrage of emotive ad hominems) — see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate Speaking of Assiduous Absconders…Yet Again, Vox Day Challenges PZ Myers to Debate].

PZ Myers also dismissed [[Stephen Meyer]]’s book ''Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for [[Intelligent Design]]'' referring to it as a “stinker,” “drivel” and “[[Discovery Institute]] Bulldung” whilst stating that, “Stephen Meyer lies.” Yet, he stated all of this, and more, whilst stating, “I suppose I’ll have to read that 600 page pile of slop sometime…”....This fact alone shows that he needs to read it, as Intelligent Design proponents are constantly begging their opponents to stop mischaracterizing Intelligent Design theory as holding to something to the likes of it’s so complex, it must have been . . . designed!

PZ Myers also refused to debate anyone from [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) even while he was in Australia for the preaching-to-the-choir-back-patting Global Atheist Convention - The Rise of Atheism – the “biggest ever atheist event in Australia’s history”...

Clearly, PZ Myers is popular because he scratches where many atheists itch: atheism is an [[Causes of atheism|emotional rejection of God]] very, very thinly veneered in a facade of scientific and intellectual respectability. Thus, PZ Myers plays upon and stokes the fires of emotion yet, he has not, is not and who knows if he ever will engage the intellect.<ref name="mute" />}}

=== Refusal to debate at atheist global conference and brief radio debate ===

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]]

In 2010, the worldwide atheist community was challenged to a debate by [[Creation Ministries International]] as prominent atheists were speaking at a 2010 global atheist convention in [[Australia]].<ref name="clown">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and other prominent atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International.<ref name="clown" /> Generally speaking, creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).

The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at [[Creation Ministries International]]:
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).
[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|300px|Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12–14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref name="clown" />}}

In January 2008, Myers participated in a brief radio debate with [[Discovery Institute]] fellow Geoffrey Simmons on [[Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul]] radio station KKMS.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5Y3VoBeVQ</ref>
== PZ Myers refusal to debate Vox Day ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate|Atheism and debate]]
[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|left|150px|[[Vox Day]] ]]
On September 4, 2011, [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning PZ Myers:
{{cquote|I have heard from numerous atheists who find his intellectual cowardice to be more than a little troubling given his usual tendency to create conflict rather than to avoid it. And he has handed an out to every single individual he ever hopes to challenge in the future. Why should they debate a nobody like him, a clown who isn't even a bigshot in his own field?

As for the PZ Myers Memorial Debate, we are still in search of an atheist to champion the argument that the logic and evidence for the nonexistence of gods is stronger than the logic and evidence for the existence of gods. It is certainly informative to see how many atheists do not appear to believe they are able to effectively make this case; in light of this, many Christians may find this to be a useful tactical approach when confronted by aggressive atheists in the future. This tends to confirm my previous observations that while atheists like to challenge the beliefs of others, they are very ill-prepared, and in many cases downright unwilling, to defend their own. So, if you want to shut them up, simply go on the attack. They'll run away with alacrity.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/he-still-runs-like-girl.html Running, running by Vox Day]</ref>}}

On August 28, 2011, Vox Day declared concerning Myers:
{{cquote|What you clearly do not understand is that, by his own admission, PZ relies heavily upon emotional arguments rather than logical ones when he cannot simply appeal to an established scientific consensus. "I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive." His tendency to rely upon emotional rhetoric and passion rather than reason is precisely why he is afraid to debate people who rely primarily upon logic, because his ability to present reason-based arguments is relatively low. His ability to utilize reason is simply not equal to the skill of others who make use of it more effectively. PZ is without question an effective preacher to the godless choir of science fetishists, but he is remarkably unskilled at presenting convincing arguments, let alone conclusive ones, to those who do not already agree with him. Unlike you, he knows he is not an effective evangelist.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-one-dodge-dodger.html Can one dodge a dodger?]</ref>}}

== PZ Myers' commentary concerning atheist meetings ==

PZ Myers recently commented that atheist meetings tend to be significantly more attended by males.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/29/the-woman-problem/ The Woman Problem]</ref> Mr. Myers commentary concerning atheist meetings is not surprising given that survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]].

== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==

''See also:'' [[Irreligion and superstition]]

Myers appeared in the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHiZjOH1NmQ</ref> Up to and after the release of the film, PZ Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the Mall of America<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html</ref> and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by ''Expelled'''s producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAblaZmogA</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/28/i-always-aim-to-misbehave/ I always aim to misbehave]</ref> Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.

== PZ Myers on abortion ==
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|250px| The perverse and cruel atheist [[Marquis de Sade]] was an early advocate of [[abortion]] in the [[Western World]].<ref name="jme.bmj.com">https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>]]
See also: [[Abortion and atheism]] and [[PZ Myers and abortion]] and [[Atheism in medicine]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

PZ Myers is not only "pro-choice", but he said he is "even willing to say" that he is pro-[[abortion]].<ref name="abortion">http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html</ref>

The website Evolution News and Views wrote:
{{cquote|Myers again, on abortion:

'what's at stake is a mere embryo, so it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated, and I don't have any illusions about whether this is deciding the fate of a human life -- it's not. There's no person...'

Myers' ugly assertion -- 'it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated...[t]here's no person -- demonstrates the New Atheist moral vacuum. [[Atheism and morality|New Atheists insist that there is no objective moral law]]; morality is nothing more than an evolved adaptation, or what each of us decides, [[ad nauseam]]. Yet if there is no objective moral law that transcends the individual will to power, then power, not justice nor mercy nor even love for one's own child, governs human conduct. Atheist morality boils down to this: '... because we can'. That has been the moral code of atheism in power for a century.<ref name="abortion" />}}

In 2011, Myers wrote that when he sees dead baby pictures: "I look at them unflinchingly and see meat."<ref name="meat">http://www.examiner.com/christian-apologetics-in-albuquerque/pz-myers-best-reason-for-rejecting-atheism-murdered-babies-are-just-meat</ref>

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Ken Ammi wrote in response to PZ Myers remarks concerning abortion:
{{cquote|What a tragic figure, what a deprivation of all that is human and humane, what a sad, sick and depraved [[soul]]: what a by product of atheism.

Beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies who were brutally murdered in unimaginably brutal and inhuman, inhumane, and subhuman manners are to be likened to rats, mice, dogs, and misc amputated body parts. In his reductionist eyes it is all merely temporarily animated meat.<ref name="meat" />}}

PZ Myers's views are not surprising given the [[History of Atheism|history of atheism]] in relation to the abortion issue. The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the atheist and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of [[population control]]. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.<ref name="jme.bmj.com">https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>}}

[[Population control]] is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.<ref name="abortion" />

== Atheist PZ Myers comment about Dawkins' attitude towards women ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]]

In 2014, PZ Myers said of New Atheist Richard Dawkins' attitude towards women: "At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name] by Adam Lee, ''The Guardian'', September 18, 2014</ref>

== Communion host incident ==
On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008 [http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008 [http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression;<ref>[http://www.catholicleague.org/pz-myers-hatemail/ PZ MYERS HATEMAIL]</ref> Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page. PZ Myers followed through with his threat, desecrating a eucharist and tearing out pages of a copy of the [[Koran]] and a copy of Richard Dawkins' ''The God Delusion''.<ref>http://discoverthefaith.com/2008/07/26/update-on-professor-myers-desecration-of-eucharist/</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses had been spoofed One was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers, though the husband of the user of the address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail.<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html</ref> The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message."<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref> Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/14/stop-it-now-please/ Stop it now. please]</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/13/mail-dump/ Mail dump]</ref>

== PZ Myers' blog posts often lack substance ==

''See also:'' [[Internet atheism]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website True Free Thinker declared:
{{cquote|Just a few years ago PZ Myers fellow Sciencebloggers were complaining about his general lack of substance and about his cult of personality amen chorus of adherents whom were dubbed the [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys screechy monkeys]. PZ Myers should be thankful that Scienceblogs is not about science blogs and does not demand science on its Scienceblogs or else 99.9% of all posts on [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-pseudoscienceblogscom his pseudo-science blog] would have to be deleted or, would have never been posted in the first place.

Now it is PZ Myers who is complaining about his fellow Sciencebloggers as he states that Scienceblogs has been facing a steady erosion of talent. The key question is What sort of talent? Talented at doing what?

If he references the talent to elucidate matters scientific then he is quite lacking himself.

If he refers to peppering virtually every post with ad hominems, mythunderstandings, promulgating of prejudice and positively affirming Gods non-existence without evidence then he is the pseudo-science blogger par excellence.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-contra-scienceblogs</ref>}}

== PZ Myers on bestiality ==
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|PZ Myers said, "I don’t object to [[Atheism and bestiality|bestiality]] in a very limited set of specific conditions...".<ref name="achilles">[http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life]</ref> When asked what conditions were acceptable for bestially to be morally acceptable, Myers was silent.<ref name="achilles">[http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life]</ref> See also: [[PZ Myers on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
See also: [[PZ Myers on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Academia and bestiality|Atheism, academia and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]]

PZ Myers wrote about bestiality:
{{cquote|So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to [[Atheism and bestiality|bestiality]] in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way.<ref name="achilles">[http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life]</ref><ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/22/the-objective-morality-gotcha/ The “objective morality” gotcha]</ref>}}

A Christian commented on Myers's statement:
{{cquote|If you are sensing that there is something amiss with a person stating he neither supports nor opposes bestiality, then you are more perceptive with regard to moral reasoning than PZ Myers is. Myers once stated his morality is based on feelings of empathy. In an interview he stated, "If I punched you in the face, you would feel bad and I would feel bad ..and that's where morality comes from." Ironically, Myers offers a cartoon that mocks plaintive logic, that is, logic based on feelings, which is exactly the same basis of morality Myers appealed to in his interview.

When I sent Myers an email asking him to clarify what "specific conditions" would make bestiality morally acceptable in his opinion, he declined to address my email and my second article on the subject. There is really only one likely scenario in which it seems Myers would accept bestiality, also known as zoophilia, and that is if it is apparent that the animal is not being harmed and if it is demonstrating some kind of approval, enjoyment or "consent" in the act. The problem for Myers here is quite simple. If nothing must be held sacred, then why should bestiality be considered acceptable only under certain conditions and not always? Why should animal rights be an issue if animal rights are not sacred? These are logical contradictions he needs to address. What is happening here is that Myers is revealing in his quote that he does in fact believe that some boundaries must be held sacred.<ref name="achilles" />}}

Myers also wrote, "...over the years I’ve become something of a connoisseur of [[cephalopod]] porn…and I’m sorry to say that 99% of it is crap, expressing a total lack of comprehension of why cephalopods have sensual appeal."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/05/cephaloporn-a-critique/ Cephaloporn, a critique], PZ. Myers, Freethoughtblogs</ref>

=== Atheist animal trainer objects to PZ Myers' comments about bestiality ===

On May 22, 2012, PZ Myers specifies under what conditions he thinks the practice of bestiality would be acceptable.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/22/the-objective-morality-gotcha/ The “objective morality” gotcha], PZ Myers, May 22, 2012</ref>

On November 14, 2014, an atheist animal trainer wrote in response:
{{cquote|We now have the PZ Myers [[Humanism|Humanist]] Guide to Bestiality:
*1. IF you are interested in having sex with an animal, AND;
*2. That animal is willing to have sex with you, AND;
*3. No real harm comes to the animal, AND;
*4. You can avoid social stigma by hiding your act;
>> THEN sex with an animal is ethical...

PZ Myers possesses numerous character flaws that make him ill-suited as an A/S/humanism spokesperson and representative: his explosive temper; his violence-tinged threats; his foul language; his preference for personal insults over reasoned debate; his propensity to smear and slander any & all who oppose him;..his willingness to abandon skepticism and science to serve the pomo constructs of radical feminism and social justice warriordom.

Of all these, nothing is more odious, repulsive, or damaging to the reputation of A/S & humanist activism, than Myers’ condoning of bestiality.<ref>[http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/2014/11/14/pz-myers-animal-lover/ PZ Myers, Animal Lover]</ref>}}

=== Michael Nugent's commentary on PZ Myers' material about human/octopus sexual relations ===

On November 17, 2014, atheist [[Michael Nugent]] wrote:
{{cquote|PZ has several times written about and linked to [[pornography]] involving women and octopuses described as ‘hentai tentacle rape’. In one post, PZ wrote: “I know some people will be aghast at the exposed mammalian flesh and weird exploitation of women… but it’s got tentacles everywhere, and molluscs…” In another post, he wrote: “Although nothing beats a sea slug for that vulval feel, I’m afraid. Mmmm, Aplysia, if you weren’t so cold, I’d… ahem.”<ref>[http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/11/17/belly-dance-pz-myers-judge-others-sexism/ “Do your belly dance.” “Get off my stage. I’ve got work to do.” What if PZ Myers judged others’ sexism as he judges himself?] by Michael Nugent on November 17, 2014</ref>}}

=== PZ Myers' daughter Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

Skeptic Skatje Myers, the daughter of evolutionist and atheist PZ Myers describes herself as "atheist, [[agnosticism|agnostic]], rationalist, complicated vegetarian (sans dairy and eggs mostly, avec dumpster diving, by-products, and ethical sources), [[Existentialism|existential]] and moral [[nihilism|nihilist]], social democrat”.<ref>[http://www.civitatedei.com/2011/07/skatje-myers-on-the-separation-of-church-and-state/ Skatje Myers on The Separation of Church and State]</ref>

On January 2, 2008 Christian apologist Vox Day wrote in an article entitled ''Atheist Dad of the Year'':
{{cquote|If I were ever to have attacked atheism by arguing that on the rare occasions when atheists manage to successfully reproduce, their children would likely grow up possessing beliefs that are utterly immoral by Western moral norms and abhorrent to the average individual, many people would howl that I was unfairly engaging in baseless conjecture, regardless of the logic presented.

So, it's more than a little amusing to see PZ Myers angrily defending his daughter's public argument against anti-bestiality laws. Now, it's certainly the girl's right to advocate on behalf of whatever legal cause she feels is important to her, but this particular choice of subject really doesn't provide the most convincing evidence against the oft-repeated charge that atheists are hopelessly immoral. And if there's nothing rationally objectionable about the practice, then from whence comes this defensive paternal outrage?

The ironic truth is that Miss Myers is absolutely correct; once the basic concept of [[Natural Law]] is abandoned, there is no rational basis for banning anything from necrophilia to cannibalism other than a vague sense of "ickiness" inherited from preceding generations possessed of a more conventional morality.<ref name="Atheist Dad of the Year">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/01/atheist-dad-of-year.html Atheist Dad of the Year]</ref>}}

Skatje Myers, the daughter of atheist PZ Myers, wrote:
{{cquote|Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets...

That said, I remind you that my position isn’t based on my own personal wants. I just don’t see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like [[homosexuality]] and sodomy were banned: it’s icky. I think it’s bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/02/just-when-you-think-slimy-sal/ Just when you think Slimy Sal couldn’t sink any lower - Skatje Myers, Daughter of atheist PZ Myers - in blog comments section of PZ Myers' blog post]</ref><ref>Skatje Myers' Website is currently under construction, RSS feed - Lacrimae Rerum,blog of Skatje Myers, blog article - Zoophilia Oct 2, 2007</ref>}}

See also:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Atheistic Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Germany]]

*[[Denmark and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|Netherlands, atheism, evolution and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality|Pro-evolution website Wikipedia on bestiality]]

=== Skatje Myers on morality ===

On August 18, 2011, Skatje Myers wrote:
{{cquote|I’m a moral nihilist. I have no reason to believe that morality is anything other than preferences.

I have those preferences, of course — essentially it’s just intuitional leanings. Any need or desire to follow those leanings is purely for my own enjoyment. I decide what is right and wrong based on what I feel is right and wrong, and I follow them only because of a self-created obligation to myself. I demand that others follow the same “rules” I have for myself, because I want them to. It makes the world the way I want it to be.

The way I see it, every other system of morality is based on unjustifiable claims too, so why follow someone else’s invented ideas of right and wrong?<ref>Skatje Myers' website is currently under construction, Morality by Skaje Myers</ref>}}

==External links==
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers - Christian rebuttals] by True Free Thinker
*[http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/12/27/pz-myers-publicly-hates-and-despises-people/ PZ Myers publicly hates and despises people, not merely their ideas or behaviour] by atheist Michael Nugent
*[http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/04/24/the_very_strange_world_of_pz_myers_106516.html The Very Strange World of PZ Myers], ''Real Clear Science''
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/pz_myers_replies_with_incendia048251.html PZ Myers Replies with Incendiary Rhetoric Instead of Scientific Arguments] by Casey Luskin
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rSvwn7v4DU John Warwick Montgomery on PZ Myers]
*[https://www.algemeiner.com/2011/05/29/seriously-arent-atheists-embarrassed-by-p-z-myers/ Seriously, Aren’t Atheists Embarrassed by P.Z. Myers?] by Moshe Averick
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/09/pz-myers-is-dumping-atheism-he-is-now.html PZ Myers has dumped atheism? He is now a secular humanist? Can a leopard change his spots?]
*[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/another-atheist-activist-advocates-for-violence/ Another Atheist Activist Advocates for Violence]
*[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ Pharyngula] <big>'''Non-family-friendly content warning '''</big>

Essays (Humor):

*[[Essay: PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum|PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum]]
*[[Essay: Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course|Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course]]
*[[Essay: Battle of the Bulge: Jesus vs. PZ Myers|Battle of the Bulge: Jesus vs. PZ Myers]]
*[[Essay: PZ Myers finally looks more like Ken Ham|PZ Myers finally looks more like Ken Ham!]]
*[[Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome|Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]]
*[[Essay: Religious beauty vs. atheist beast|Religious beauty vs. atheist beast]]
*[[Essay: I AM THE BOSS! Liberals and leftists are crazy!|PZ Myers and AOC are the boss]]
{{nb_Atheism}}

==References ==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}
[[Category:PZ Myers]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:New Atheism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]

Nausea

2020-07-24T19:15:47Z

DavidE: needed rewrite

'''Nausea''' is a sensation of the urge to [[vomit]]. The word derives through [[Latin]] from the [[Greek]] word ''naus,'' "ship," showing that the word derives from seasickness. The word in the accusative [[grammatical case|case]] appears in English in phrases such as "He talked about life insurance ''[[ad nauseam]],''" implying the speaker has said more than the listener wants to hear.

It is also the name of a novel by [[Jean Paul Sartre]].

[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Liberal Fiction]]

Ad nauseam

2020-07-24T19:12:24Z

DavidE: internal link

'''''Ad nauseam''''' ([[Latin]]: "to the point of [[nausea]]") is an [[adjective]] [[phrase]] or [[adverb]] phrase meaning that a point has been discussed or repeated until everyone is sick of hearing about it. It can also refer to the informal [[logical fallacy]] of repeating an assertion until the repetition has that effect, at which point the person making the assertion can declare "victory."
==See also==
*[[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]]

[[Category:Latin Phrases]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Ad nauseam

2020-07-24T19:11:56Z

DavidE: new article

'''''Ad nauseam''''' ([[Latin]]: "to the point of nausea") is an [[adjective]] [[phrase]] or [[adverb]] phrase meaning that a point has been discussed or repeated until everyone is sick of hearing about it. It can also refer to the informal [[logical fallacy]] of repeating an assertion until the repetition has that effect, at which point the person making the assertion can declare "victory."
==See also==
*[[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]]

[[Category:Latin Phrases]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Fallacy of invincible ignorance

2020-07-24T19:00:10Z

DavidE: /* See also */ added entry for upcoming article

The '''fallacy of invincible ignorance,''' not to be confused with the [[invincible ignorance|theological concept]] of the same name, is probably the simplest [[logical fallacy]]. It consists of simply maintaining one's position after it has been disproved.<ref>[http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#invincible%20ignorance%20--%20the%20fallacy%20of%20insisting%20on%20the%20legitimacy%20of%20one%27s%20position%20in%20the%20face%20of%20contradictory%20facts.%20Statements%20like%20%22I%20really%20don%27t%20care%20what%20the%20experts%20say;%20no%20one%20is%20going%20to%20convince%20me%20that%20I%27m%20wrong%22;%20%22nothing%20you%20say%20is%20going%20to%20change%20my%20mind%22;%20%22yeah,%20okay,%20whatever!%22%20are%20examples%20of%20this%20fallacy. Logical fallacies]</ref> As an example, [[homosexual]] activists maintain their position on [[same-sex "marriage"]] even after having been shown the harms that it inflicts on [[society]]. On the Internet, the fallacy is commonly known as "La la la, I can't hear you."

==See also==
*[[Ad nauseam]]
*[[Confirmation bias]]
*[[Deliberate ignorance]]
*[[Mathematician of the University of Pisa syndrome]]
*[[Specious reasoning]]
*[[Willful ignorance]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Willful ignorance

2020-07-24T18:34:48Z

DavidE: difference from rational ignorance

'''Willful ignorance''' is the practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with [[fact]]s, [[empirical]] [[evidence]] and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs; deliberately restricting one's knowledge due to an aversion to particular facts. In [[law]], when [[knowledge]] of a certain [[fact]] is an [[element (law)|element]] of a [[crime]], the [[jury]] may find that someone who is willfully ignorant of that fact has the requisite knowledge of it. Willful ignorance is to be distinguished from [[rational ignorance]], which is simply a decision not to acquire certain knowledge because the cost of acquiring such knowledge is believed to outweigh the benefit of such knowledge

==See also==
* [[Deliberate ignorance]]
* [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]]
[[Category:Criminal Law]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Rational ignorance

2020-07-24T18:31:53Z

DavidE: more generally

'''Rational ignorance''' is a voter's conscious decision to remain uninformed about a political issue. This ignorance is considered to be "rational" when the [[marginal cost]] of learning about the issue exceeds the [[marginal benefit]] of voting because one vote is unlikely to change the outcome.

This overlooks intangible benefits to voting beyond influencing the outcome, such as a feeling of participation and investment in the community and connecting with other people who voted. Also, information is efficiently gained by voting, including reading referendums that may be on the ballot.

More generally, in [[economics]], rational ignorance is a decision not to acquire certain knowledge because the cost of acquiring such knowledge is believed to outweigh the benefit of such knowledge.

[[Category:Economics terms]]
[[Category:Political Terms]]

Verb

2020-07-20T18:28:01Z

DavidE: defective verbs

A '''verb''' is a word or words that express actions, events, or states of being. The verb or compound verb is often a critical element of the [[Subject and predicate|predicate]] of a sentence. In each of the following sentences, the verb or compound verb is italicized:

"Jesus ''died'' on the cross for your sins."

The verb "died" describes the action of Jesus.

"God ''gave'' us memories that we might have roses in
December."

Forms of "to be", such as "is", "are", etc. are also verbs of a particular type, called copulas, which define states of being (Jesus is the perfect teacher. Mary is Jesus' mother.) Some languages, such as Russian, do not use copulas in the present tense.

Many languages inflect verbs to indicate such categories as [[person (grammar)|person]], [[number (grammar)|number]], [[tense]], [[aspect (grammar)|aspect]], [[mood (grammar)|mood]], and [[voice (grammar)|voice]]. Languages differ in the extent to which such categories are separately encoded into a verb or the extent to which they are encoded into the verb at all. The set of all forms of a verb is called its ''conjugation''. English inflects for tense and to a limited extent for person and number. God ''loves'' us; but we ''love'' God. God ''created'' the Heavens and the Earth; but He creates things daily. English also inflects for mood; compare ''If I were a rich man'' (subjunctive) with ''I was a rich man'' (indicative). Other ways in which various languages express such things are [[particle (grammar)|particles]], [[periphrasis]], and context.

A verb with an incomplete conjugation is called a defective verb. An example is "must."

Verbs can also be divided into [[regular verb]]s, where the tense is conjugated by adding "-d", "-ed" or occasionally "-t" to the [[base form]], and [[irregular verb]]s where the base form's spelling is altered during conjugation.

For example, a regular verb would be "listen" (past tense = "listen'''ed''') and an irregular verb would be "sit" (past tense = "s'''a'''t").
==Intransitive and transitive verbs==
Intransitive verbs have no object: ''I ran.'' Transitive verbs have an object: ''I saw you.'' Some transitive verbs are doubly transitive, meaning that they have both direct and indirect objects: ''I gave her the book.'' Some languages inflect verbs to agree with their objects as well as their subjects.

==Compound verbs==
The most simple compound verb are verbs with the "[[auxiliary verb|helper]]" verb of "has" and "to be," combined with a non-finite verb form such as an [[infinitive]] or a [[participle]].
I ''am going''. He ''had been going''.
In English, compound verbs generally mark aspect, that is, space in time, telling us what actions in a sentence happen in relation to other actions. "I had been reading the Bible, when I decided to change my life". "had been" tells us what the subject (I) was doing, when I acted "decided" to change.

==External links==
*[http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerb.asp Finding Subjects and Verbs] and [http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar_quiz/finding_subjects_verbs_1.asp Finding Subjects and Verbs Quiz]
*[http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp Subject and Verb Agreement] and [http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar_quiz/subject_verb_agreement_1.asp Subject and Verb Agreement Quiz]

[[Category:Grammar]]
[[Category:Parts of Speech]]

Verb

2020-07-20T18:22:33Z

DavidE: /* Compound verbs */ clarified as to how the helper verb is used

A '''verb''' is a word or words that express actions, events, or states of being. The verb or compound verb is often a critical element of the [[Subject and predicate|predicate]] of a sentence. In each of the following sentences, the verb or compound verb is italicized:

"Jesus ''died'' on the cross for your sins."

The verb "died" describes the action of Jesus.

"God ''gave'' us memories that we might have roses in
December."

Forms of "to be", such as "is", "are", etc. are also verbs of a particular type, called copulas, which define states of being (Jesus is the perfect teacher. Mary is Jesus' mother.) Some languages, such as Russian, do not use copulas in the present tense.

Many languages inflect verbs to indicate such categories as [[person (grammar)|person]], [[number (grammar)|number]], [[tense]], [[aspect (grammar)|aspect]], [[mood (grammar)|mood]], and [[voice (grammar)|voice]]. Languages differ in the extent to which such categories are separately encoded into a verb or the extent to which they are encoded into the verb at all. The set of all forms of a verb is called its ''conjugation''. English inflects for tense and to a limited extent for person and number. God ''loves'' us; but we ''love'' God. God ''created'' the Heavens and the Earth; but He creates things daily. English also inflects for mood; compare ''If I were a rich man'' (subjunctive) with ''I was a rich man'' (indicative). Other ways in which various languages express such things are [[particle (grammar)|particles]], [[periphrasis]], and context.

Verbs can also be divided into [[regular verb]]s, where the tense is conjugated by adding "-d", "-ed" or occasionally "-t" to the [[base form]], and [[irregular verb]]s where the base form's spelling is altered during conjugation.

For example, a regular verb would be "listen" (past tense = "listen'''ed''') and an irregular verb would be "sit" (past tense = "s'''a'''t").
==Intransitive and transitive verbs==
Intransitive verbs have no object: ''I ran.'' Transitive verbs have an object: ''I saw you.'' Some transitive verbs are doubly transitive, meaning that they have both direct and indirect objects: ''I gave her the book.'' Some languages inflect verbs to agree with their objects as well as their subjects.

==Compound verbs==
The most simple compound verb are verbs with the "[[auxiliary verb|helper]]" verb of "has" and "to be," combined with a non-finite verb form such as an [[infinitive]] or a [[participle]].
I ''am going''. He ''had been going''.
In English, compound verbs generally mark aspect, that is, space in time, telling us what actions in a sentence happen in relation to other actions. "I had been reading the Bible, when I decided to change my life". "had been" tells us what the subject (I) was doing, when I acted "decided" to change.

==External links==
*[http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerb.asp Finding Subjects and Verbs] and [http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar_quiz/finding_subjects_verbs_1.asp Finding Subjects and Verbs Quiz]
*[http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp Subject and Verb Agreement] and [http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar_quiz/subject_verb_agreement_1.asp Subject and Verb Agreement Quiz]

[[Category:Grammar]]
[[Category:Parts of Speech]]

Logical fallacy

2020-06-30T22:53:32Z

DavidE: /* Proof by numbers */ internal link; capitalization

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[Deduction|deductive arguments]], and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[Principle of induction|inductive arguments]], and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]], although it is still an error if you commit one (and dishonest if you know you are committing one). A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore, P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." Another example: "Might makes right." Or, the threat of persecution, rebellion, revolt or war.

This appeal is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

See [[Trial by combat]].

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the conclusion ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the premise ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labor is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===Appeal to Consequences===
An ''appeal to consequences,'' or, more fully, ''appeal to adverse consequences'' or ''appeal to consequences of a belief,''<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences]</ref> is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are fallacious because the consequences of believing or disbelieving have no bearing on the truth or falsity of a belief. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected in academic circles, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

To use another example often encountered in the real world, adherents of belief systems such as [[Islam]] tout the benefits of converting to such belief systems. However, such benefits, even if real, do not prove that those belief systems are true; instead, they could arise from the conversion experience itself.

A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore, P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

===="False Causality" ====
A false causality fallacy is when a person argues that A caused B when there is little evidence to support the claim. Specifically, a false causality is committed when the basis for A causing B is based on some superficial coincidence.

*"Our house was robbed the day after that family moved in, they must have done it!"

In this example, it is only a coincidence that a new family has moved in at the same time another house has been robbed, and this is not grounds for evidence.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, alternatively, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person to discredit in advance any argument that that person may make.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X.
*Person A is wrong about Y.
*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

The second variant follows this form:

*Person B, knowing that person A will make argument X, introduces unfavorable information about person A that is unrelated to X.
*Person A makes argument X.
*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

One example of the first variant was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

An example of the second variant is to introduce information (true or false) about a distateful or objectionable aspect of someone's personal life to persuade the listeners to reject out of hand whatever that person may say, when that aspect of the person's personal life may have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the positions that that person will take.

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked. There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive, although poisoning the well in the second sense is used to mean introducing the irrelevant information preemptively.

===Genetic fallacy===
{{main|Affirming the consequent}}
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*P is false
*Therefore, Q is false

Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
{{main|Argumentum ad populum}}
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the Roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

The converse argument holds that because a position is unpopular and controversial, even [[Guilt by Association#The Galileo gambit|ridiculed, denounced and persecuted by the majority]], and has been proven by the majority to be in error, that that position is ''[[ipso facto]]'' (by the fact) proven to be correct and true. For example: [[Elitism]], [[Racism]], [[Sect]]s, [[Cult]]s, [[International Flat Earth Society]], [[LGBTQIAPK]] supporters.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, [[distinction without a difference|unrelated to P or Q]]
*Therefore, Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

===Fallacies of relevance based on the age of an idea===
The '''appeal to antiquity''', also known as the '''appeal to tradition''', holds that an idea must be right just because it is old.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition]</ref> Its opposite is the '''appeal to novelty''', which holds that an idea must be right just because it is new.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-novelty/ Appeal to Novelty]</ref> Both are fallacies of relevance because the mere age of an idea does not tell us whether it is true. For example, an old idea could be a time-tested and sound concept, or it could be an ancient [[superstition]] like [[astrology]]. Similarly, a new idea could be the result of new [[information]] or an intellectual fad like [[postmodernism]].

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantiam'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore, Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence. Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed. For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true. In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

Another example from history. Assertions of evidence of corruption of Christian doctrine and [[Great Apostasy|apostasy]] from the faith is seen by Protestant and Fundamentalist [[Apologetics|apologists]] in the evident contrast of the 16th century doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which the Reformers assert was original Christianity, against the clearly "Catholic doctrines" in the [[Ante-Nicene Fathers]] which refute them. The utter historical silence about any fundamental [[paradigm shift]] in doctrine after the first century is due to a total lack of any supporting extant evidence of Protestant or Mormon theology in any of the writings of the first four centuries of Christianity by any of the known heretics and sects. This very fact is argued by Protestants and Mormons as sure and certain evidence that a monstrous apostasy must have occurred, because there is no evidence that it ever did, and no evidence of their unmistakable doctrines can be found, leading them to the conclusion that there was a massive [[cover up]]. (This is also a form of [[circular reasoning]]. Compare [[Memory hole]] and [[Revisionism]].)

More generally, assertion of a fact coupled with total absence of evidence does not prove there was a concerted effort involving total removal of the evidence supporting the assertion. The compelling weight of conclusive evidence supporting ''absence of any evidence of a removal of all evidence'' is strong evidence that no evidence was removed. Absence (silence) of evidence is not proof of evidence erased or made absent (silenced). Conclusive evidence of absence is absence of conclusive evidence. Compare [[Abductive reasoning]] and [[Confirmation bias]].

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]]. Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*''P'' is true.
*''Q'' is true.
*Therefore, ''P'' causes ''Q.''

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
{{main|Post hoc ergo propter hoc}}
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after this; therefore, because of this") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore, P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
: ''Main article: [[Sharpshooter fallacy]]''
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>

====Equating correlation with causation====
: ''Main article: [[Correlation is not causation]]''
Yet another form of false cause is '''equating correlation with causation'''. An often cited example is "As sales of ice cream rise, so do reports of shark attacks." Neither one causes the other, whether or not there is a correlation; instead, they are both associated with summer.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore, R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization, converse accident, or painting with too broad a brush) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allow. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is/does Q.
*P is a member of the set R.
*Therefore, everyone/everything in the set R is/does Q.

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented. Proving too much includes reaching a conclusion that contradicts either things known to be true or [[stolen concept|the premises used to reach that conclusion]]. The term comes from the medieval saying, "What proves too much proves nothing."

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore, Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore, R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Analogy===
{{main|Fallacy of analogy}}
The fallacy of analogy argues that because one thing resembles another in some aspects, they must resemble each other in another aspect. In its most extreme form, it argues that a superficial resemblance proves identity, that because they look like the same thing they are in fact the same. In general, an argument by analogy takes the following form:

*A is like B (they share properties X, Y, and Z).
*B also has property Q
*Therefore, A has property Q as well.

The strength of such an argument depends upon the strength of the analogy. If A and B have more differences than shared properties, the argument is weakened. It may also be true that A is like B in many ways, but still differs from B in terms of the specific property Q. If the analogy is too weak or irrelevant to the conclusion that is drawn, then a fallacy of weak analogy has been committed. An analogy itself is never true or false; it is only weak or strong.

For example: "The erecting of statues and images by [[Paganism|pagans]] was an act of [[idolatry]], therefore the erecting of statues is an act of idolatry."

===Contradiction===
{{Main|Contradiction}}

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given. Statements beginning with [[weasel words|expressions]] such as "It goes without saying that ..." or "Everyone knows ..." are commonly proofs by assertion.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
{{Main|Circular reasoning}}

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. In law, it is called assuming facts not in evidence. It should not be confused with formulating a prediction to test a hypothesis. [[Christian In Name Only|False Christians]] often engage in this fallacy by making baseless assertions as to what God wants that may have no basis in the [[Bible]] or even contradict it, but that conveniently support whatever those false Christians would have wanted to believe anyway.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Therefore, theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

A similar fallacy is [[No true Scotsman]], which in effect says, "Your facts do not work under my theory, so your facts must be wrong."

===Straw man===
{{Main|Straw man fallacy}}

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. Typically, the fallacy involves distorting what a person actually said to make it superficially similar but easier to disprove. A straw man argument follows the form:

*Person A says P.
*Person B says that person A says P', which is not the same as P.
*Not P'.
*Therefore, not P.

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
{{Main|tautology}}

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

'''Un'''equivocal means leaving no doubt about the exact meaning of what is said, being completely clear, allowing no misunderstanding.

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

== Atheism and logical fallacies ==

*[[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

*[[Atheism and logic]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==

* [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

* [[Liberal logic]]

* [[Specious reasoning]]

Debate:

* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201–218 (1996)

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]

Cafeteria Christianity

2020-06-29T17:37:03Z

DavidE: what that Bible verse actually means when read in context, with source

'''Cafeteria Christianity''' refers to the practice of deciding for oneself which parts of the [[Bible]] to accept, as one might select certain foods in a cafeteria while rejecting others.<ref>[http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/cafeteria.html "Cafeteria Christianity," from the Church of God - DFW]</ref> This implies that the person is a [[Christian In Name Only|Christian in name only]] and, while believing in a deity, does not adhere to any particular creed of Christianity, preferring to decide for themself how to express their faith. Other terms include "salad-bar Christianity" and "[[cherry picking|cherry-picking]] Christianity." Cafeteria Christianity is an example of self-generated Christianity, i.e., "Christianity" developed to meet one's own demand profile.<ref>{{cite book| first1=Robert |last1=Ekelund |authorlink1= Robert Ekelund |first2= Robert |last2= Hébert |first3= Robert |last3=Tollison |authorlink3= Robert Tollison |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=FP08EXnwP3YC&lpg=PA334&dq=cafeteria%20Christianity&pg=PA258#v=onepage&q=cafeteria%20Christianity&f=false |title=The Marketplace of Christianity |publisher= MIT Press |year= 2006 |page = 258 |isbn=9780262050821 }}</ref> It is a form of [[confirmation bias]].

This practice is particularly common among [[Liberal Christianity|liberal]] denominations, which cite only those passages which show Christ's forgiveness and mercy, but not His justice, in order to deny the existence of [[Hell]] and the necessity of [[faith]] for redemption. Matt. 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is quoted out of [[context]] particularly often for this purpose. When read in context, this verse is part of a condemnation of [[hypocrisy]], not judgment in general.<ref>[https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/the-most-misused-verses-in-the-bible-excerpt.html Judging Others: A Closer Look at Matthew 7:1], from [[Crosswalk.com]]</ref> Likewise, they selectively ignore passages which refute [[evolution]], condemn [[abortion]], make statements about the role of [[women]] that refute modern [[feminism|feminist]] dogmas, condemn [[homosexuality]], [[adultery]], and [[remarriage]] after an un-Biblical [[divorce]], and conflict with other liberal views. Liberal Christians are also fond of citing Scripture selectively in order to rebuke [[Hypocrisy|only someone else's sins]] or to [[special pleading|explain away]] the sins of liberal political allies.

However, cafeteria Christianity is not limited to the left side of the political spectrum: conservative Christians are also fond of citing Scripture selectively in order to expose hypocrisy while explaining away the same issues in their own camp (such as criticizing the Catholic Church for covering up child molestation among its priests—arguing that the problem is due to the Church's prohibition against priests marrying—while ignoring similar cases involving married pastors or leaders within major Protestant churches or denominations). A notable example of "right-wing" cafeteria Christianity is the [[Westboro Baptist Church]]; their followers quote verses about God's judgment but ignore those about mercy.

Espousing cafeteria Christianity invalidates a person's [[Christian witness]]. If a self-proclaimed Christian does not take the entire Bible seriously, unbelievers will assume that they need not do so, either. Also, cafeteria Christians have proved to be such an embarrassment to Christianity that committed Christians are now searching for new terminology to distinguish themselves from cafeteria Christians. A cafeteria Christian can even endanger the faith of others by spreading false doctrine as though it were genuine Christianity.<ref>[http://roblattin.hubpages.com/hub/How-To-Spot-A-Cafeteria-Christian How to Spot a Cafeteria Christian]</ref>

==Bible teaching against cafeteria Christianity==

The Bible quotes [[Jesus]] as saying:
{{Bible quote|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.|book=Matthew|chap=4|verses=4|version=KJV}}
Note: "every word," not "some words." The counterargument of many cafeteria Christians is to assert, typically [[Logical_fallacy#Manufacturing_facts_from_a_theory|without evidence]], that the word of the authors of certain parts of the Bible is not necessarily the word of God. However, absent evidence that a certain passage of the Bible is not God's Word (e.g., Paul's explicit statement that he is expressing a personal view), that counterargument is [[beg the question|circular]], as it assumes the propriety of cherry-picking the Bible in order to justify cherry-picking the Bible.

Confusion as to just how literally Biblical texts should be taken abounds, even amongst those who generally accept the Bible to be the word for God. Few would argue, for example, with the statement: 'However, the bible cannot be interpreted literally, if this was the case then rebellious children would be killed: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Also, Women may not speak in church: Cor 14:33-36. The bible is not a collection of dogmatic and strict rules, it is a book of God that promotes compassion, faith in God, truth, and love.'<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality</ref> Conversely, many would argue for and against those passages in the Bible which command obedience to tradition <ref>2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 11:2; </ref>, to established authority <ref>Romans 13:1-2</ref>, to the leaders of the church <ref>Hebrews 13:17</ref>, to human institutions <ref>1 Peter 2:13-18</ref>, and against ''[[sola scriptura]]'' private interpretations of the Bible <ref>2 Peter 1:20-21; 3:14-18</ref><ref>See [[Five Solas]] and [[Sola spiritu]]</ref>.

==Proof texts==

A common tactic used by cafeteria Christians is reliance on '''proof texts'''. A proof text (sometimes spelled prooftext) is a short passage from Scripture that is cited, typically [[Quoting out of context|out of context]], to support a doctrinal position that the [[Hermeneutics|Bible when read as a whole]] may not support.<ref>[http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/definition-of-christian-terms/prooftexting.html Definition of Christian Terms - Prooftexting]</ref>
::"A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext" —''Evangelical Protestant scholar Dr. Donald A. Carson, who attributed this saying to his father''.
When cafeteria Christians are confronted with Bible verses that contradict the results of their prooftexting, they typically [[fallacy of invincible ignorance|ignore]] such Bible verses. If they do respond, they switch quickly from "The Word of God is the Word of God, and it says what it says" to "Yes, that's what it says, but what it means is ...." This is a classic example of [[confirmation bias]].

Conservative Christian historians and [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] are mindful of this statement by [[John Eck]] addressed to [[Martin Luther]], in the year 1521:<ref>Eck's statement here is supremely appropriate in light of Luther's refusal to submit to the judgment of the Church, the emperor Charles V, and the [[Pope]], and the teaching of Paul in [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:1-5&version=KJV Romans 13:1-5].</ref><blockquote>
"...there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that [[Pelagianism|Pelagius]] and [[Arius]] maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Word—an eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New Testament—''Joseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son''; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage '''enchained''' him. When the fathers of the [[council of Constance]] condemned this proposition of [[John Huss]]—''The church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect'', they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/lutherbyluther.html#secondnarrative|title=Life of Luther (Luther by Martin Luther)|author=Martin Luther|publisher=}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Catholic]]
*[[Christian In Name Only]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Fluffy bunny]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Situational ethics]]
*[[Casuistry]]
*[[Sophistry]]
*[[Specious reasoning]]
*[[Hypocrites]]
*[[Confirmation bias]]
*[[Schism]]
*[[Heresy]]
*[[Apostasy]]

==References==
<references/>

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Slang Terms]]

Correlation is not causation

2020-06-29T17:25:37Z

DavidE: formatting

'''"Correlation is not causation"''' is one of the unofficial mottos of [[modern science]]. When we observe that two things generally or always happen together, it is natural to wonder whether one may be [[causation|causing]] the other. A [[correlation]] between two variables does not always mean that one variable has caused a change in the other. Often a third variable is causing both, such as shark attacks and ice cream sales. These two factors may correlate, but they are not directly related. Rather, both go up each summer as people go swimming at ocean beaches.

It is a [[logical fallacy]] to assume that correlation implies causation. In fact, it is a subset of the [[Logical fallacy#False cause|fallacy of false cause]]. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality.<ref>http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5980</ref> This fallacy is particularly popular with radical [[feminism|feminists]] such as Gail Dines and with other liberals. Liberals and radical feminists use the fallacy to call for expanded government: If there is, or appears to be, a correlation between ''X'' and undesirable event ''Y,'' they argue that ''X'' must be banned to prevent future occurrences of ''Y.''

The following is a flawed argument:

#Event A occurs in concurrence with Event B
#Therefore, Event A causes Event B

This is flawed because:

#There may be a third, confounding variable C which causes A ''and'' B
#B may cause A
#The relationship may be a complete coincidence

==Examples==

1.

Hypothesis: As sales of ice cream rise, so do reports of shark attacks.

Conclusion: High sales of ice cream cause shark attacks.

'''Flaw:''' Shark attacks and ice cream sales follow a seasonal pattern. Both rise in the summer months. The seasons are a confounding variable.

2.

Hypothesis: The more people convert to Christianity, the more powerful God becomes.

Conclusion: God gains power from his followers.

'''Flaw:''' God is already all-powerful. His magnificence is what draws people to conversion. B causes A.

3.

Hypothesis: The construction of a stadium began in Alaska, and the value of your home in Texas has risen.

Conclusion: Stadium construction in Alaska causes higher home values in Texas.

'''Flaw:''' This is a coincidence between unrelated variables.

==Correlation vs. Causation in Science==

The difference between [[science]] and [[superstition]] lies in the ways an idea is tested. Scientists test a [[theory]] by drawing conclusions from it, [[hypotheses]] which can be confirmed or contradicted by observation.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

*[http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node42.html Texas A&M University]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Christian In Name Only

2020-06-04T12:29:21Z

DavidE: another way to say it, with source

A '''Christian in Name Only'''<ref name="name">[http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/christians-name-only/ Christians in Name Only?]</ref> (abbreviated '''XINO'''), also called a '''cultural Christian''',<ref>[http://www.equip.org/perspectives/are-you-a-cultural-christian/ Are you a Cultural Christian?] from the Christian Research Institute</ref> '''nominal Christian''',<ref>[http://www.comprehensivechristian.com/The-Nominal-Christian-comprehensivechristian.com.asp The Nominal Christian]</ref> or more often, a [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christian]], is someone who professes to be a [[Christian]] in public but has a considerable lack of knowledge about the basic tenets of one's professed faith, often "knowing" it only from what is half-remembered from [[Sunday School|Sunday school]] or from [[pop-cultural osmosis]]. To put it another way, a Christian in name only is someone who "would call himself a Christian, or be so regarded by others, but who has no authentic commitment to Christ based on personal faith."<ref>[https://www.lausanne.org/content/lop/lop-23 Christian Witness to Nominal Christians Among Protestants (LOP 23)]</ref>

This includes ignorance of the contents of the [[Bible]] in general and may specifically include not being able to name the Four [[The Gospels|Gospels]], the [[Ten Commandments]], or even the fact that [[Jesus Christ]] gave the [[Sermon on the Mount]]. They may hold beliefs contrary to the teachings of Jesus, including considering [[abortion]], [[special rights]] for [[homosexual]]s, [[social justice]], [[gun control]], [[adultery]], and [[cohabitation]] between unmarried people to be morally acceptable<ref name="name"/> and following [[situational ethics]] rather than the absolute morality of the Bible. They also might believe in other ways to attain [[salvation]] rather than accepting Jesus as one's Lord and Savior or otherwise dismiss core Christian doctrines regarding salvation, such as the need for [[forgiveness]]. They may themselves live according to lifestyle choices condemned by Scripture or hold up others who do so as good Christian role models, thereby rendering their [[Christian witness]] worthless or even damaging. When challenged on their views with quotations from Scripture, Christians in name only, if they believe in [[God]] at all, often respond with [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|unsupported assertions]] as to what God really wants or with Bible passages that are [[eisegesis|"interpreted" beyond recognition]]. Christians in name only, especially those motivated by liberal politics, have proved to be such an embarrassment that committed Christians are now seeking new terminology to replace the terminology that Christians in name only have appropriated and thereby distinguish themselves from Christians in name only.

==Christians in name only and liberal politics==
Christians in name only are common in liberal politics. Sometimes, they may attempt to justify their liberal political views through loose paraphrases of the Bible and leaps of logic (e.g., going from the Christian communities described in Acts to a call for a [[welfare state]]). They may at other times abandon any pretense that the Bible has anything to do with their views, in some cases explicitly denying that it does, and identify as "Christian" solely for advancement in liberal political circles or for identification with a side in the [[Culture War]]. They also often attempt to turn Christianity into a purely or predominantly secular political movement, emphasizing [[social justice]] and other notions that are completely unmoored from Bible-based Christianity.<ref>[https://johnluke.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-cafeteria-is-closed/ The Cafeteria Is Closed.]</ref>

== Opposition to the term==
<blockquote>
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26 NASB</blockquote>

This can be taken to mean that there is no such thing as a deal breaker. If you are a [[Paul]]ian Christian and accept the [[Epistle to the Romans]] as canonical, then the one true standard for receiving eternal salvation can be viewed as solely the result of the personal relationship with Jesus, something that cannot be measured from the outside by other people.

The counterargument is that Christ said that we will know every tree by its fruit and that only those who do the will of the Father in Heaven will be saved:

{{Bible quote|15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.|book=Matthew|chap=7|verses=15-23|version=KJV}}

That is, evil fruit and not doing the will of the Father in Heaven are signs of a Christian in name only. The Bible also teaches us how to discern false conversions to Christianity, which are common among celebrities and others in the public eye.<ref>[https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2019/11/23/clergy/celebrity-conversions-line-scripture/ Celebrity Conversions that Don't Always Line Up with Scripture], from Conservative News and Views</ref>

==List of individuals who either are, or give the appearance of being, XINOs==
*Any practitioner of [[liberal Christianity]].
*[[Ben Affleck]] - liberal actor.
*[[Alec Baldwin]] - liberal actor who also supports [[animal rights]], [[gun control]], and [[environmentalism]].
*[[George W. Bush]] - Once claimed that there are multiple ways to [[Heaven]], not just through Christ; member of the [[Council on Foreign Relations]]; blundered in the [[Iraq War]].
*Anders Breivik - Mass murderer of seventy-seven victims in [[Norway]].
*[[Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical|The Roman Catholic Church]] especially [[Pope Francis]].
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the United States. A Democrat who used his support from southern evangelicals to unseat [[Gerald Ford]] in the 1976 presidential election. In debate, Ford even claimed that he was unfamiliar with the term "born-again" Christian, which is specifically mentioned in the Bible. Carter left the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] to join the liberal [[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Carter claimed that Jesus would approve of homosexual "marriage" and certain abortions.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (July 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/09/jimmy-carter-jesus-would-approve-of-gay-marriage-some-abortions/ Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would ‘Approve’ of Gay Marriage, Some Abortions]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 9, 2018.</ref>
*Any practitioner of [[Christian Identity]].
*Any [[corrupt official|corrupt church official]]
*[[Bill Clinton]] - 42nd President. A Democrat, he sang in the Immanuel [[Southern Baptist]] Church choir in [[Little Rock]], when seeking the governorship there. Was seen on television by many [[Arkansas]] residents. Falsely claimed that his former pastor [[W. O. Vaught]] did not consider oral sex to be [[sin]]ful.
*[[Hillary Clinton]] - A corrupt liberal. Took a lesson in [[voodoo]] for her honeymoon in 1975 and involved in the occult. At the October 20, 2016, [[Al Smith]] dinner in [[New York City]], Clinton stated that [[salvation]] (justification) is by faith and good works, which contradicts the clear teaching of the Book of James on salvation and undermines her claim during the presidential campaign of being a real Christian.<ref>Gutierrez-Cachila, Suzette (October 27, 2016). [http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/67543/20161027/ Hillary Clinton: Both Faith and Good Works Needed for Salvation]. ''The Gospel Herald Society''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref><ref>West, Marsha (October 21, 2016). [http://christianresearchnetwork.org/2016/10/21/clinton-at-al-smith-dinner-in-order-to-achieve-salvation-we-need-both-faith-and-good-works/ Clinton at Al Smith Dinner: “In Order to Achieve Salvation, We Need Both Faith and Good Works”]. ''Christian Research Network''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>
*[[Matt Damon]] - liberal actor and friend of Ben Affleck.
*[[David Duke]] - former Louisiana state representative who claimed to be a traditional Christian in his losing bid for [[governor]] in 1991.
*[[John Edwards]] - former senator from North Carolina, who cancelled out most of the votes of his conservative colleague [[Jesse Helms]]. Democratic vice-presidential choice in 2004.
*Emilio Estevez - liberal actor, brother of Charlie Sheen, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - serial killer and child molester who was also an avowed liberal.
*[[Al Gore]] - 45th Vice President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party<ref>To be precise, he's the head of the Church of [[Global Warming]], that insists that man-made global warming is real, and you must give [[tithe]]s to it.</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] - Although millions of people experienced salvation through the long-running Graham Crusades, the evangelist denied some key Christian doctrines, such as faith in Christ alone for salvation. Active in the ecumenical movement, he treated [[Roman Catholic]]s and [[Jews]] as spiritual equals and entrusted them with new believers. He has made numerous unbiblical, watered-down statements such as supporting abortion in the case of [[rape]]. He was a 33° Mason, which "take[s] sworn oaths to a pagan demonic god." Was an early admirer of Bill and Hillary Clinton, defended Clinton in the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal, and was also close to nominal [[Quaker]] [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Disciples of Christ]] adherent [[Lyndon B. Johnson]].<ref>Johnson, Christopher J. E. (July 17, 2013). [http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/graham.php Wolves in Costume: Billy Graham]. ''creationliberty.com''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> His son, [[Franklin Graham]], head of the charity Samaritan's Purse, is considered more conservative in matters of theology and political issues than was his father. Franklin Graham in 2018 released a new book, ''Through My Father's Eyes'', based on how his father's teachings impacted him.
*[[Amy Grant]] - Contemporary Christian artist. While married had an affair with country singer Vince Gill (also married); they then both divorced their spouses and married each other.
*[[Ted Haggard]] - disgraced former pastor of New Life Church.
*[[Adolf Hitler]] - leader of Nazi Germany. Responsible for the extermination of over 6,000,000 Jews.<ref>Despite being raised [[Roman Catholic]] and claiming that [[Jesus]] was his inspiration, Hitler was only using Christianity to gain favor with the German people. His true beliefs were based off of his [[social darwinism|social darwinistic]] views.</ref> In reality, Hitler was a Darwinian secularist who believed in adult fairy tale of evolution,<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/hitler-and-evolution/ Hitler and Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> hated and despised Christianity,<ref>John Baskette, [http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html Was Hitler a Christian?]. ''Answers in Action''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref><ref>Bergman, Jerry, Dr. (November 1, 1999). [https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/ Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> and attempted to warp Christianity into a XINO organization that adhered to Nazi beliefs.<ref>Hodge, Bodie (July 13, 2009). [https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/the-results-of-evolution/ The Results of Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref>
*[[Jesse Jackson]] - media-seeking [[civil rights]] activist who claimed to have held the dying [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], at the 1968 assassination in [[Memphis]], [[Tennessee]]. The [[South Carolina]] native who has since lived for years in [[Chicago]], is a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Like Bill Clinton, who he mentored, Jackson has himself been involved in [[adultery]].
*[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
*[[Jim Jones]] - cult leader from [[California]].
*[[Helen Keller]]<ref>A rather radical [[Socialist]] from northern [[Alabama]], founding member of the anti-Christian [[American Civil Liberties Union]], and personal friend of [[Planned Parenthood]] founder [[Margaret Sanger]]. Most people know her, however, only from the inspirational film, ''The Miracle Worker'', with [[Patty Duke]].</ref>
*[[John Kerry]] - Democratic senator from Massachusetts and 2004 presidential nominee. Later as secretary of state failed in most of his missions.
*[[Joseph Kony]]
*The [[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Timothy McVeigh]] - perpetrator of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
*[[Michael Moore]] - anti-capitalist liberal film maker.
*[[Mormons]]
*[[Barack Obama]] - 44th President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party <ref>Barack Obama may be a special case. There is [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|much evidence]] that he may be a [[Muslim]] who is practicing ''[[taqiyya]],'' an Islamic custom which allows a Muslim to conceal his true religion if the adherent [[deceit|feels it would be beneficial to do so.]]</ref>
*[[Joel Osteen]] - runs a large "New Age" church in [[Houston, Texas|Houston]], [[Texas]]; seems more concerned about making people feel good about their state of sin, instead of accurately teaching the Word of God. This is called "the prosperity gospel."
*[[Nancy Pelosi]] - Democratic House Minority Leader from the [[San Francisco]] area; liberal Roman Catholic originally from [[Baltimore]], [[Maryland]].
*[[Sean Penn]] - liberal actor who portrayed on film the homosexual figure [[Harvey Milk]].
*[[Fred Phelps]] - Cult leader<ref>The leader of radical hyper-[[Calvinist]] church that protests the funerals of soldiers killed on duty. Because of his indecent and Un-American, and utterly un-Christian nature of this activity, he would appear to be Christian in name only. He was once aligned with Al Gore politically.</ref>
*[[Harry Reid]] - former Democratic Senate Majority Leader from [[Nevada]], who claims he is personally opposed to abortion but would not interfere with a woman seeking the procedure.
*[[Ben Roethlisberger]] - controversial [[NFL]] quarterback for [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] who committed assault.
*Much of the [[British]] Royal Family, who endorse [[homosexual marriage]] and have let the [[Anglican Church]] spiritually decline under their watch, as well as overall British culture. Conversely, [[Queen Victoria]] was a dedicated Christian when the British Empire was at its peak.
*Jerry Sandusky - retired head coach from [[Pennsylvania State University]] who was a convicted child molester and rapist.
*Susan Sarandon - liberal actress.
*[[Al Sharpton]] - hosts a show on [[MSNBC]]. Stirs up racial animosity throughout the nation.
*Martin Sheen - liberal actor.
*[[Charlie Sheen]] - liberal actor, conspiracy theorist, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[Carrie Underwood]] - supports same-sex marriage and is a practicing vegan. Mocked President Trump on a country music awards show. Several of her songs espouse vengenance.
*[[Rick Warren]] - Operates a "New Age" style church in California. Gave the inaugural prayer at Obama's swearing-in as President. [[CFR]] member. Runs his church to gain members, not to preach the gospel.
*The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] of [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], formerly pastored by [[Fred Phelps]].
*[[Oprah Winfrey]] - Talk show host, media mogul, and occasional host on ''[[60 Minutes]]''. Endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.<ref>a liberal "Christian" and a [[New age movement|New-Age-style]] [[occult]]ist.</ref>
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] - Obama's pastor and preacher of Black Liberation Theology.

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Churchian]]
*[[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Fluffy bunny]]
*[[Indifference]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Sloth (sin)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Anti-Christianity]]

Verb

2020-05-08T13:44:41Z

DavidE: expanded on encoding into verb

A '''verb''' is a word or words that express actions, events, or states of being. The verb or compound verb is often a critical element of the [[Subject and predicate|predicate]] of a sentence. In each of the following sentences, the verb or compound verb is italicized:

"Jesus ''died'' on the cross for your sins."

The verb "died" describes the action of Jesus.

"God ''gave'' us memories that we might have roses in
December."

Forms of "to be", such as "is", "are", etc. are also verbs of a particular type, called copulas, which define states of being (Jesus is the perfect teacher. Mary is Jesus' mother.) Some languages, such as Russian, do not use copulas in the present tense.

Many languages inflect verbs to indicate such categories as [[person (grammar)|person]], [[number (grammar)|number]], [[tense]], [[aspect (grammar)|aspect]], [[mood (grammar)|mood]], and [[voice (grammar)|voice]]. Languages differ in the extent to which such categories are separately encoded into a verb or the extent to which they are encoded into the verb at all. The set of all forms of a verb is called its ''conjugation''. English inflects for tense and to a limited extent for person and number. God ''loves'' us; but we ''love'' God. God ''created'' the Heavens and the Earth; but He creates things daily. English also inflects for mood; compare ''If I were a rich man'' (subjunctive) with ''I was a rich man'' (indicative). Other ways in which various languages express such things are [[particle (grammar)|particles]], [[periphrasis]], and context.

Verbs can also be divided into [[regular verb]]s, where the tense is conjugated by adding "-d", "-ed" or occasionally "-t" to the [[base form]], and [[irregular verb]]s where the base form's spelling is altered during conjugation.

For example, a regular verb would be "listen" (past tense = "listen'''ed''') and an irregular verb would be "sit" (past tense = "s'''a'''t").
==Intransitive and transitive verbs==
Intransitive verbs have no object: ''I ran.'' Transitive verbs have an object: ''I saw you.'' Some transitive verbs are doubly transitive, meaning that they have both direct and indirect objects: ''I gave her the book.'' Some languages inflect verbs to agree with their objects as well as their subjects.

==Compound verbs==
The most simple compound verb are verbs with the "[[auxiliary verb|helper]]" verb of "has" and "to be".
I ''am going''. He ''had been going''.
In English, compound verbs generally mark aspect, that is, space in time, telling us what actions in a sentence happen in relation to other actions. "I had been reading the Bible, when I decided to change my life". "had been" tells us what the subject (I) was doing, when I acted "decided" to change.

==External links==
*[http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerb.asp Finding Subjects and Verbs] and [http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar_quiz/finding_subjects_verbs_1.asp Finding Subjects and Verbs Quiz]
*[http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp Subject and Verb Agreement] and [http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar_quiz/subject_verb_agreement_1.asp Subject and Verb Agreement Quiz]

[[Category:Grammar]]
[[Category:Parts of Speech]]

Mood (grammar)

2020-05-08T13:38:07Z

DavidE: /* Imperative mood */ the first person plural imperative in English

'''Mood''' is a grammatical category that expresses the speaker's attitude toward the action or state of being described in a [[verb]], namely, whether it is a simple statement of fact, a hypothetical or counterfactual situation, a desire, a command, etc. [[English]] has indicative, subjunctive, and imperative moods; other languages distinguish more or fewer.
==Indicative mood==
The indicative mood indicates a simple statement of fact: "I'm here."
==Subjunctive mood==
The subjunctive mood expresses a hypothetical, counterfactual, or desired situation. A counterfactual present situation is expressed in the [[tense|past]] subjunctive: ''If I were king...'' (which the speaker is not). A counterfactual past situation is expressed in the past perfect subjunctive: ''If I had been king...'' (which the speaker was not at the relevant time, if ever). A desired situation can be expressed in the present or future subjunctive: ''I request that he be there/should be there at noon.'' ''God save the Queen!'' The future subjunctive also expresses a possible future situation in a dependent clause: ''If I should die before I wake....''

In counterfactual statements, the independent clause is expressed in the conditional, which is sometimes considered to be a mood distinct from the subjunctive: ''If I were king, what riches I would give you.''
==Imperative mood==
The imperative mood expresses a command: ''Go!'' It typically exists only in the second [[person (grammar)|person]] and in the first person plural (''Let's go!''). Some languages, like [[Spanish]], have a separate polite imperative based on the subjunctive.

==See also==
*[[Imperative (Greek)]]
[[Category:Grammar]]

Cafeteria Christianity

2020-03-19T14:14:28Z

DavidE: internal link

'''Cafeteria Christianity''' refers to the practice of deciding for oneself which parts of the [[Bible]] to accept, as one might select certain foods in a cafeteria while rejecting others.<ref>[http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/cafeteria.html "Cafeteria Christianity," from the Church of God - DFW]</ref> This implies that the person is a [[Christian In Name Only|Christian in name only]] and, while believing in a deity, does not adhere to any particular creed of Christianity, preferring to decide for themself how to express their faith. Other terms include "salad-bar Christianity" and "[[cherry picking|cherry-picking]] Christianity." Cafeteria Christianity is an example of self-generated Christianity, i.e., "Christianity" developed to meet one's own demand profile.<ref>{{cite book| first1=Robert |last1=Ekelund |authorlink1= Robert Ekelund |first2= Robert |last2= Hébert |first3= Robert |last3=Tollison |authorlink3= Robert Tollison |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=FP08EXnwP3YC&lpg=PA334&dq=cafeteria%20Christianity&pg=PA258#v=onepage&q=cafeteria%20Christianity&f=false |title=The Marketplace of Christianity |publisher= MIT Press |year= 2006 |page = 258 |isbn=9780262050821 }}</ref>

This practice is particularly common among [[Liberal Christianity|liberal]] denominations, which cite only those passages which show Christ's forgiveness and mercy, but not His justice, in order to deny the existence of [[Hell]] and the necessity of [[faith]] for redemption. Matt. 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is quoted out of context particularly often for this purpose. Likewise, they selectively ignore passages which refute [[evolution]], condemn [[abortion]], make statements about the role of [[women]] that refute modern [[feminism|feminist]] dogmas, condemn [[homosexuality]], [[adultery]], and [[remarriage]] after an un-Biblical [[divorce]], and conflict with other liberal views. Liberal Christians are also fond of citing Scripture selectively in order to rebuke [[Hypocrisy|only someone else's sins]] or to [[special pleading|explain away]] the sins of liberal political allies.

However, cafeteria Christianity is not limited to the left side of the political spectrum: conservative Christians are also fond of citing Scripture selectively in order to expose hypocrisy while explaining away the same issues in their own camp (such as criticizing the Catholic Church for covering up child molestation among its priests—arguing that the problem is due to the Church's prohibition against priests marrying—while ignoring similar cases involving married pastors or leaders within major Protestant churches or denominations). A notable example of "right-wing" cafeteria Christianity is the [[Westboro Baptist Church]]; their followers quote verses about God's judgment but ignore those about mercy.

Espousing cafeteria Christianity invalidates a person's [[Christian witness]]. If a self-proclaimed Christian does not take the entire Bible seriously, unbelievers will assume that they need not do so, either. Also, cafeteria Christians have proved to be such an embarrassment to Christianity that committed Christians are now searching for new terminology to distinguish themselves from cafeteria Christians. A cafeteria Christian can even endanger the faith of others by spreading false doctrine as though it were genuine Christianity.<ref>[http://roblattin.hubpages.com/hub/How-To-Spot-A-Cafeteria-Christian How to Spot a Cafeteria Christian]</ref>

==Bible teaching against cafeteria Christianity==

The Bible quotes [[Jesus]] as saying:
{{Bible quote|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.|book=Matthew|chap=4|verses=4|version=KJV}}
Note: "every word," not "some words." The counterargument of many cafeteria Christians is to assert, typically [[Logical_fallacy#Manufacturing_facts_from_a_theory|without evidence]], that the word of the authors of certain parts of the Bible is not necessarily the word of God. However, absent evidence that a certain passage of the Bible is not God's Word (e.g., Paul's explicit statement that he is expressing a personal view), that counterargument is [[beg the question|circular]], as it assumes the propriety of cherry-picking the Bible in order to justify cherry-picking the Bible.

Confusion as to just how literally Biblical texts should be taken abounds, even amongst those who generally accept the Bible to be the word for God. Few would argue, for example, with the statement: 'However, the bible cannot be interpreted literally, if this was the case then rebellious children would be killed: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Also, Women may not speak in church: Cor 14:33-36. The bible is not a collection of dogmatic and strict rules, it is a book of God that promotes compassion, faith in God, truth, and love.'<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality</ref> Conversely, many would argue for and against those passages in the Bible which command obedience to tradition <ref>2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 11:2; </ref>, to established authority <ref>Romans 13:1-2</ref>, to the leaders of the church <ref>Hebrews 13:17</ref>, to human institutions <ref>1 Peter 2:13-18</ref>, and against ''[[sola scriptura]]'' private interpretations of the Bible <ref>2 Peter 1:20-21; 3:14-18</ref><ref>See [[Five Solas]] and [[Sola spiritu]]</ref>.

==Proof texts==

A common tactic used by cafeteria Christians is reliance on '''proof texts'''. A proof text (sometimes spelled prooftext) is a short passage from Scripture that is cited, typically [[Quoting out of context|out of context]], to support a doctrinal position that the [[Hermeneutics|Bible when read as a whole]] may not support.<ref>[http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/definition-of-christian-terms/prooftexting.html Definition of Christian Terms - Prooftexting]</ref>
::"A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext" —''Evangelical Protestant scholar Dr. Donald A. Carson, who attributed this saying to his father''.
When cafeteria Christians are confronted with Bible verses that contradict the results of their prooftexting, they typically [[fallacy of invincible ignorance|ignore]] such Bible verses. If they do respond, they switch quickly from "The Word of God is the Word of God, and it says what it says" to "Yes, that's what it says, but what it means is ...." This is a classic example of [[confirmation bias]].

Conservative Christian historians and [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] are mindful of this statement by [[John Eck]] addressed to [[Martin Luther]], in the year 1521:<ref>Eck's statement here is supremely appropriate in light of Luther's refusal to submit to the judgment of the Church, the emperor Charles V, and the [[Pope]], and the teaching of Paul in [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:1-5&version=KJV Romans 13:1-5].</ref><blockquote>
"...there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that [[Pelagianism|Pelagius]] and [[Arius]] maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Word—an eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New Testament—''Joseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son''; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage '''enchained''' him. When the fathers of the [[council of Constance]] condemned this proposition of [[John Huss]]—''The church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect'', they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/lutherbyluther.html#secondnarrative|title=Life of Luther (Luther by Martin Luther)|author=Martin Luther|publisher=}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Catholic]]
*[[Christian In Name Only]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Fluffy bunny]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Situational ethics]]
*[[Casuistry]]
*[[Sophistry]]
*[[Specious reasoning]]
*[[Hypocrites]]
*[[Confirmation bias]]
*[[Schism]]
*[[Heresy]]
*[[Apostasy]]

==References==
<references/>

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Slang Terms]]

Cafeteria Christianity

2020-03-19T14:13:48Z

DavidE: other examples

'''Cafeteria Christianity''' refers to the practice of deciding for oneself which parts of the [[Bible]] to accept, as one might select certain foods in a cafeteria while rejecting others.<ref>[http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/cafeteria.html "Cafeteria Christianity," from the Church of God - DFW]</ref> This implies that the person is a [[Christian In Name Only|Christian in name only]] and, while believing in a deity, does not adhere to any particular creed of Christianity, preferring to decide for themself how to express their faith. Other terms include "salad-bar Christianity" and "[[cherry picking|cherry-picking]] Christianity." Cafeteria Christianity is an example of self-generated Christianity, i.e., "Christianity" developed to meet one's own demand profile.<ref>{{cite book| first1=Robert |last1=Ekelund |authorlink1= Robert Ekelund |first2= Robert |last2= Hébert |first3= Robert |last3=Tollison |authorlink3= Robert Tollison |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=FP08EXnwP3YC&lpg=PA334&dq=cafeteria%20Christianity&pg=PA258#v=onepage&q=cafeteria%20Christianity&f=false |title=The Marketplace of Christianity |publisher= MIT Press |year= 2006 |page = 258 |isbn=9780262050821 }}</ref>

This practice is particularly common among [[Liberal Christianity|liberal]] denominations, which cite only those passages which show Christ's forgiveness and mercy, but not His justice, in order to deny the existence of [[Hell]] and the necessity of [[faith]] for redemption. Matt. 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is quoted out of context particularly often for this purpose. Likewise, they selectively ignore passages which refute [[evolution]], condemn [[abortion]], make statements about the role of [[women]] that refute modern [[feminism|feminist]] dogmas, condemn homosexuality, [[adultery]], and [[remarriage]] after an un-Biblical [[divorce]], and conflict with other liberal views. Liberal Christians are also fond of citing Scripture selectively in order to rebuke [[Hypocrisy|only someone else's sins]] or to [[special pleading|explain away]] the sins of liberal political allies.

However, cafeteria Christianity is not limited to the left side of the political spectrum: conservative Christians are also fond of citing Scripture selectively in order to expose hypocrisy while explaining away the same issues in their own camp (such as criticizing the Catholic Church for covering up child molestation among its priests—arguing that the problem is due to the Church's prohibition against priests marrying—while ignoring similar cases involving married pastors or leaders within major Protestant churches or denominations). A notable example of "right-wing" cafeteria Christianity is the [[Westboro Baptist Church]]; their followers quote verses about God's judgment but ignore those about mercy.

Espousing cafeteria Christianity invalidates a person's [[Christian witness]]. If a self-proclaimed Christian does not take the entire Bible seriously, unbelievers will assume that they need not do so, either. Also, cafeteria Christians have proved to be such an embarrassment to Christianity that committed Christians are now searching for new terminology to distinguish themselves from cafeteria Christians. A cafeteria Christian can even endanger the faith of others by spreading false doctrine as though it were genuine Christianity.<ref>[http://roblattin.hubpages.com/hub/How-To-Spot-A-Cafeteria-Christian How to Spot a Cafeteria Christian]</ref>

==Bible teaching against cafeteria Christianity==

The Bible quotes [[Jesus]] as saying:
{{Bible quote|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.|book=Matthew|chap=4|verses=4|version=KJV}}
Note: "every word," not "some words." The counterargument of many cafeteria Christians is to assert, typically [[Logical_fallacy#Manufacturing_facts_from_a_theory|without evidence]], that the word of the authors of certain parts of the Bible is not necessarily the word of God. However, absent evidence that a certain passage of the Bible is not God's Word (e.g., Paul's explicit statement that he is expressing a personal view), that counterargument is [[beg the question|circular]], as it assumes the propriety of cherry-picking the Bible in order to justify cherry-picking the Bible.

Confusion as to just how literally Biblical texts should be taken abounds, even amongst those who generally accept the Bible to be the word for God. Few would argue, for example, with the statement: 'However, the bible cannot be interpreted literally, if this was the case then rebellious children would be killed: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Also, Women may not speak in church: Cor 14:33-36. The bible is not a collection of dogmatic and strict rules, it is a book of God that promotes compassion, faith in God, truth, and love.'<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality</ref> Conversely, many would argue for and against those passages in the Bible which command obedience to tradition <ref>2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 11:2; </ref>, to established authority <ref>Romans 13:1-2</ref>, to the leaders of the church <ref>Hebrews 13:17</ref>, to human institutions <ref>1 Peter 2:13-18</ref>, and against ''[[sola scriptura]]'' private interpretations of the Bible <ref>2 Peter 1:20-21; 3:14-18</ref><ref>See [[Five Solas]] and [[Sola spiritu]]</ref>.

==Proof texts==

A common tactic used by cafeteria Christians is reliance on '''proof texts'''. A proof text (sometimes spelled prooftext) is a short passage from Scripture that is cited, typically [[Quoting out of context|out of context]], to support a doctrinal position that the [[Hermeneutics|Bible when read as a whole]] may not support.<ref>[http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/definition-of-christian-terms/prooftexting.html Definition of Christian Terms - Prooftexting]</ref>
::"A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext" —''Evangelical Protestant scholar Dr. Donald A. Carson, who attributed this saying to his father''.
When cafeteria Christians are confronted with Bible verses that contradict the results of their prooftexting, they typically [[fallacy of invincible ignorance|ignore]] such Bible verses. If they do respond, they switch quickly from "The Word of God is the Word of God, and it says what it says" to "Yes, that's what it says, but what it means is ...." This is a classic example of [[confirmation bias]].

Conservative Christian historians and [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] are mindful of this statement by [[John Eck]] addressed to [[Martin Luther]], in the year 1521:<ref>Eck's statement here is supremely appropriate in light of Luther's refusal to submit to the judgment of the Church, the emperor Charles V, and the [[Pope]], and the teaching of Paul in [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:1-5&version=KJV Romans 13:1-5].</ref><blockquote>
"...there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that [[Pelagianism|Pelagius]] and [[Arius]] maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Word—an eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New Testament—''Joseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son''; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage '''enchained''' him. When the fathers of the [[council of Constance]] condemned this proposition of [[John Huss]]—''The church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect'', they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/lutherbyluther.html#secondnarrative|title=Life of Luther (Luther by Martin Luther)|author=Martin Luther|publisher=}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Catholic]]
*[[Christian In Name Only]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Fluffy bunny]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Situational ethics]]
*[[Casuistry]]
*[[Sophistry]]
*[[Specious reasoning]]
*[[Hypocrites]]
*[[Confirmation bias]]
*[[Schism]]
*[[Heresy]]
*[[Apostasy]]

==References==
<references/>

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Slang Terms]]

Wishful thinking

2020-03-19T14:02:17Z

DavidE: /* Examples */ expanded, with source

'''Wishful thinking''' is both a [[cognitive bias]]<ref>[http://sidewiseinsights.blogspot.com/2011/01/credit-to-his-race-final-installment-of.html SideWise Thinking]</ref> and a [[logical fallacy]].<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html Logical Fallacy: Wishful Thinking]</ref> It consists of believing something, or believing something to be more likely than it in fact is, because one wants it to be true.

As a logical fallacy, it is similar to the [[appeal to emotion]], except that the appeal is [[self-deception|to one's own emotion]] rather than only to the emotions of the audience. The fallacy makes a desire for the conclusion to be a premise; that is, it takes the following form:
*I want ''P'' to be true.
*Therefore, ''P''.
A person engaging in wishful thinking almost never states it so bluntly, however. Instead, that person may [[cherry picking|cherry-pick]] the evidence or otherwise distort reality to support the desired conclusion.

There is also reverse wishful thinking, which is [[Murphy's law]] as a cognitive bias.
==Examples==
*[[Atheists]] engage in wishful thinking when they disbelieve in God because they do not want Him to exist, rather than because they have any direct evidence for the nonexistence of God.
*[[Homosexual]]s engage in wishful thinking when they accuse those who oppose and criticize [[homosexuality]] and [[Same-sex marriage|homosexual "marriage"]] of being "[[homophobia|homophobes]]" and "secretly gay" because, despite having no evidence to prove their claims, they want to believe that their opponents are "self-hating homosexuals", even though those homosexuals who make such accusations are not mind-readers. Proponents of homosexuality delude themselves into thinking that their opponents are the "opposite" of what they really are because those homosexuals do not want to believe that [[homophobia]] is not a widespread condition or that their opponents have legitimate reasons for not supporting or agreeing with the homosexual lifestyle and its [[Homosexuality and disease|resulting]] [[Mental Health and Homosexuality|consequences]]. They also [[fallacy of invincible ignorance|completely ignore]] the copious evidence of the harms caused by same-sex "marriage" to both individuals and society.
*Believers in discredited notions such as [[evolution]]/[[Origin of life|abiogenesis]] cling to their beliefs despite the lack of evidence for them and despite the abundant contrary evidence.

* "If we could just [[gun control|ban all guns]] and [[ammunition control|ammunition]], then there would be very little [[crime]]." The concept of a place where "people can be sure no one has a gun" has always been [[left wing]] "[[unicorn]] [[utopia]]" wishful thinking [[pollyanna]] [[fantasy]] of the [[:Essay:Anti-self-defense movement|Anti-self-defense movement]], for the simple reason that [[criminal]]s by their nature ''never'' follow laws. So-called [[political correctness|politically correct]] "gun free zones" are known to [[Second Amendment]] [[self-defense]] supporting [[conservative]] [[patriot]]s, [[veteran]]s, [[:Category:Survivalists|preppers]] and [[gun enthusiast]]s via the [[Essay:The Politically Corrected Firearms and Second Amendment Glossary|politically corrected]] term "free fire zones". "Free fire zones" are where criminals, [[gang]]s, [[War on Drugs|drug dealer]]s, [[mafia]], [[yakuza]], [[triad]]s, [[murderer]]s, [[young mass murderer]]s, and [[terrorist]]s are free to fire at will on defenseless [[gun control|disarmed]] conservatives and [[pollyanna|never armed]] liberals.

* The eager willingness of [[liberal]], [[Agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[Atheism|atheistic]] biblical scholars and [[exegete]]s in [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|higher criticism]] to take [[Specious reasoning|speciously apparent]] [[error]]s in the Bible (carelessly invented superficial difficulties which do not actually exist) as an unexamined pretext for rejecting its [[authority]] and the authority of the very [[Church]] which defends its divine [[inspiration]] as [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrant]] [[truth]].
* Liberal Christians do not start with the Bible to determine what they believe. Instead, they simply [[fluffy bunny|decide what they want to believe]], [[cafeteria Christianity|cherry-pick]] Bible verses that appear to support their chosen beliefs, and often [[eisegesis|"interpret"]] even those verses beyond recognition. This is an example of self-generated Christianity, i.e., "Christianity" developed to meet one's own demand profile.<ref>{{cite book| first1=Robert |last1=Ekelund |authorlink1= Robert Ekelund |first2= Robert |last2= Hébert |first3= Robert |last3=Tollison |authorlink3= Robert Tollison |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=FP08EXnwP3YC&lpg=PA334&dq=cafeteria%20Christianity&pg=PA258#v=onepage&q=cafeteria%20Christianity&f=false |title=The Marketplace of Christianity |publisher= MIT Press |year= 2006 |page = 258 |isbn=9780262050821 }}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Confirmation bias]]
* [[Original-position fallacy]]
* [[Pollyanna]]
* [[utopia]]n [[fantasy]]
* [[Christian apologetics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Wishful thinking

2020-03-19T13:59:01Z

DavidE: /* Examples */ another example

'''Wishful thinking''' is both a [[cognitive bias]]<ref>[http://sidewiseinsights.blogspot.com/2011/01/credit-to-his-race-final-installment-of.html SideWise Thinking]</ref> and a [[logical fallacy]].<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html Logical Fallacy: Wishful Thinking]</ref> It consists of believing something, or believing something to be more likely than it in fact is, because one wants it to be true.

As a logical fallacy, it is similar to the [[appeal to emotion]], except that the appeal is [[self-deception|to one's own emotion]] rather than only to the emotions of the audience. The fallacy makes a desire for the conclusion to be a premise; that is, it takes the following form:
*I want ''P'' to be true.
*Therefore, ''P''.
A person engaging in wishful thinking almost never states it so bluntly, however. Instead, that person may [[cherry picking|cherry-pick]] the evidence or otherwise distort reality to support the desired conclusion.

There is also reverse wishful thinking, which is [[Murphy's law]] as a cognitive bias.
==Examples==
*[[Atheists]] engage in wishful thinking when they disbelieve in God because they do not want Him to exist, rather than because they have any direct evidence for the nonexistence of God.
*[[Homosexual]]s engage in wishful thinking when they accuse those who oppose and criticize [[homosexuality]] and [[Same-sex marriage|homosexual "marriage"]] of being "[[homophobia|homophobes]]" and "secretly gay" because, despite having no evidence to prove their claims, they want to believe that their opponents are "self-hating homosexuals", even though those homosexuals who make such accusations are not mind-readers. Proponents of homosexuality delude themselves into thinking that their opponents are the "opposite" of what they really are because those homosexuals do not want to believe that [[homophobia]] is not a widespread condition or that their opponents have legitimate reasons for not supporting or agreeing with the homosexual lifestyle and its [[Homosexuality and disease|resulting]] [[Mental Health and Homosexuality|consequences]]. They also [[fallacy of invincible ignorance|completely ignore]] the copious evidence of the harms caused by same-sex "marriage" to both individuals and society.
*Believers in discredited notions such as [[evolution]]/[[Origin of life|abiogenesis]] cling to their beliefs despite the lack of evidence for them and despite the abundant contrary evidence.

* "If we could just [[gun control|ban all guns]] and [[ammunition control|ammunition]], then there would be very little [[crime]]." The concept of a place where "people can be sure no one has a gun" has always been [[left wing]] "[[unicorn]] [[utopia]]" wishful thinking [[pollyanna]] [[fantasy]] of the [[:Essay:Anti-self-defense movement|Anti-self-defense movement]], for the simple reason that [[criminal]]s by their nature ''never'' follow laws. So-called [[political correctness|politically correct]] "gun free zones" are known to [[Second Amendment]] [[self-defense]] supporting [[conservative]] [[patriot]]s, [[veteran]]s, [[:Category:Survivalists|preppers]] and [[gun enthusiast]]s via the [[Essay:The Politically Corrected Firearms and Second Amendment Glossary|politically corrected]] term "free fire zones". "Free fire zones" are where criminals, [[gang]]s, [[War on Drugs|drug dealer]]s, [[mafia]], [[yakuza]], [[triad]]s, [[murderer]]s, [[young mass murderer]]s, and [[terrorist]]s are free to fire at will on defenseless [[gun control|disarmed]] conservatives and [[pollyanna|never armed]] liberals.

* The eager willingness of [[liberal]], [[Agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[Atheism|atheistic]] biblical scholars and [[exegete]]s in [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|higher criticism]] to take [[Specious reasoning|speciously apparent]] [[error]]s in the Bible (carelessly invented superficial difficulties which do not actually exist) as an unexamined pretext for rejecting its [[authority]] and the authority of the very [[Church]] which defends its divine [[inspiration]] as [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrant]] [[truth]].
* Liberal Christians do not start with the Bible to determine what they believe. Instead, they simply [[fluffy bunny|decide what they want to believe]], [[cafeteria Christianity|cherry-pick]] Bible verses that appear to support their chosen beliefs, and often [[eisegesis|"interpret"]] even those verses beyond recognition.

==See also==
* [[Confirmation bias]]
* [[Original-position fallacy]]
* [[Pollyanna]]
* [[utopia]]n [[fantasy]]
* [[Christian apologetics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

False zero-sum game

2020-03-19T13:49:36Z

DavidE: cognitive bias

A '''false zero-sum game''', or '''zero-sum fallacy''', is the [[logical fallacy]] of asserting, typically without analysis, that a particular situation is a [[zero-sum game]], when in fact it is not. For example, [[liberal]]s assert that the [[economy]] is a zero-sum game in order to justify [[income redistribution]]. The false zero-sum game is a type of [[false dilemma]]; it can alternatively be considered a form of [[begging the question]]. In [[economics]], a particular form of the false zero-sum game is called the '''lump-of-labor fallacy''', which assumes that since there is (supposedly) a fixed amount of work to be done in the world, changing the number of workers will cause an inverse change in the amount of work per worker, or ''vice versa''. The fallacy derives from a [[cognitive bias]] called zero-sum thinking, in which humans tend to see a zero-sum game even when it is absent.
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

2020-03-06T15:46:28Z

DavidE: added "see also"

'''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''' ([[Latin]] for "after this; therefore, because of this") is a [[logical fallacy]] used to assume that two sequential events must have a cause-and-effect relationship. It is a subset of the [[Logical fallacy#False cause|fallacy of false cause]].

[[Liberal]]s use this fallacy frequently. For example, they use the fact that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] was elected, and then the economy allegedly started to recover to show that Obama's election caused the economy to recover, which is complete nonsense. Another ridiculous example that they use is good things that supposedly happen in societies that have embraced [[homosexuality]]. Liberals use the fallacy to call for expanded government: If ''X'' happened, and then undesirable event ''Y'' happened, they argue that ''X'' must be banned to prevent future occurrences of ''Y.''

A variation holds that if ''X'' happened and then ''Y'' did not happen, ''X'' must have prevented ''Y.'' Those disputing a causal relationship sometimes refer to ''X'' as an '''anti-tiger rock''', after the joke that a certain rock must have the magical ability to repel tigers because there are no tigers around. Liberals often justify their favored laws on the basis of what bad things have not happened, without presenting evidence or argument that those things would have happened otherwise.

An inversion holds that if ''X'' happened and then ''Y'' did not happen, ''X'' was unnecessary to prevent ''Y'' because ''Y'' would not have happened regardless. Both this inversion and the regular version of the fallacy are fallacious because they ignore the difference between causation and coincidence.
==See also==
*[[Affirming the consequent]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Affirming the consequent

2020-02-21T11:46:39Z

DavidE: typo

'''Affirming the consequent''' is a formal [[logical fallacy]] that results from confusing the concepts of "necessary" and "sufficient." The fallacy takes the following logical form:
*If ''P,'' then ''Q.''
*''Q.''
*Therefore, ''P.''
Thus, the fallacy confuses the truth value of a statement with the truth value of its [[converse]]. The following is an example:
*If Jack is meeting an important client today, he will wear his blue suit.
*Jack is wearing his blue suit.
*Therefore, Jack is meeting an important client today.
Affirming the consequent is fallacious because the initial premise does not rule out situations in which ''Q'' could be true even without ''P.'' In other words, in formal logic, as in general speech, "if" does not mean "only if" or "if and only if." In the example given above, even if the first premise is invariably true, Jack could decide to wear his blue suit on other days. Compare the following argument, which, while superficially similar, is [[valid argument|valid]]:
*If Jack is meeting an important client today, ''and not otherwise,'' he will wear his blue suit.
*Jack is wearing his blue suit.
*Therefore, Jack is meeting an important client today.
==Denying the ancecedent==
'''Denying the antecedent''' is a variant that takes the following form:
*If ''P,'' then ''Q.''
*Not ''P.''
*Therefore, not ''Q.''
Denying the antecedent is fallacious for the same reason given above.
==Use in supporting false belief systems==
The fallacy is often used to support false belief systems, as the following example shows:
*If the [[Qur'an]] is true, [[Mecca]] must be a real place.
*Mecca is a real place.
*Therefore, the Qur'an is true.
This reasoning is fallacious because nothing stops even an avowed fiction author from using a real place as a setting.
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Nutpicking

2020-02-17T15:37:00Z

DavidE: expanded with reference to the fallacy of extrapolation

'''Nutpicking''', named in analogy to "nitpicking" and "[[cherry picking]]," is the [[logical fallacy]] of smearing a whole group of people by finding a few extreme examples, typically in open comment threads, and holding them up as [[putting words in someone's mouth|representative of that group]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009324.php Nutpicking]</ref> Nutpicking is similar to the [[straw man fallacy]]; the difference is the difference between attacking an argument that only a few extreme people use and attacking an argument that no one uses at all.

Nutpicking is similar to the [[fallacy of extrapolation]]. However, nutpicking is also a form of bad-faith argument because it involves cherry-picking examples known not to be representative.

==Examples==
[[Czech]] [[catholic]] [[professor]] of [[theology]] Ctirad Václav Pospíšil blames partisan of [[militant atheism]] [[Dawkins]] for picking the opinions of problematic fundamentalist groups and equivocating them with all [[Christian]] believers. He calls such approach deceit and points out that after applying it together with interpreting the opinion of opponent in the most twisted sense a person does not engage in an open dialog but struggles with his or her own strawman instead.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Kde se bere tolik nenávisti? (Where so much hatred comes from?) |author=Ctirad Václav Pospíšil |url=http://www.katyd.cz/clanky/prilohy/perspektivy/kde-se-bere-tolik-nenavisti.html |journal=Katolický týdeník |volume 2010 |issue=7 |date=16 February 2010 |quote=Podle Dawkinse jsou však všichni věřící fundamentalisty, kreacionisty a zabedněnci. Je to klasický úskok. Vyberu si názory problematické skupiny a prohlásím, že to platí pro všechny věřící. Dalším úskokem je interpretace názorů toho druhého v tom nejpitomějším možném smyslu. Pak ale nepolemizuji s druhým, nýbrž jen s vlastní interpretací. |accessdate= |language=Czech}}</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Fallacy of extrapolation

2020-02-17T15:31:17Z

DavidE: /* See also */ added one

''Alternative names: Hasty Generalization, Hasty Conclusion, Overgeneralization or Unwarranted Extrapolation, Free Extrapolation.''

'''The fallacy of extrapolation''' (more precisely: '''fallacy of unwarranted extrapolation'''), occurs when a [[phenomenon]] responsible for a number of trivial local effects is read into the great global phenomena, or when a generalized rule is concluded based on too few cases.<ref name="Virkler">{{cite book |author= Henry A. Virkler|title= A Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking |accessdate=5 July 2015 |year= 2005 |publisher= Wipf and Stock Publishers |location= Eugene, OR|isbn= 1-59752-661-4|pages=224–225 |chapter= 9 |url=http://books.google.no/books?id=rUgqAAAACAAJ|quote= }}</ref> For example, [[Darwin]]'s theory of [[evolution]] makes use of a fantastic extrapolation in which the mechanisms of random variation and [[natural selection]] are declared to account for the development of such complex structures as the [[mammal]]ian eye or the [[immunology|immuno-defense]] system.<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book
|author=David Berlinski
|title=The Deniable Darwin
|publisher=Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from ''Commentary'' February 1998 by permission)
|location=Seattle, USA
|year=2009
|pages=307
|chapter=Has Darwin met his match?
|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3
|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php
|quote=}}</ref> When attempting for an interpretation of research results, the scientist must be leery of extrapolating beyond the range of the data and conscious of the underlying assumptions to avoid drawing invalid conclusions.<ref>{{cite web |title=The fallacy of free extrapolation |author=Riegelman R. |publisher=Postgraduate medicine |date=September 1979 |issue=66(3)|pages=189–91, 194 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/471851 |accessdate=October 31, 2013}}</ref>

==Valid vs. Fallacious Extrapolations==
In general, extrapolation is a legitimate scientific tool. There are at least two aspects that help to distinguish between valid and fallacious extrapolation:<ref name="Virkler"/>
#The likelihood of erroneous extrapolation is higher when insufficient data points were obtained for its construction.
#In science, the research is used to confirm or disprove the predictions of hypothesis. Reporting an extrapolation before testing it is unwise.

==Typical examples==
===Euler's conjecture===
Based on evidence from unsuccessful manual searches of relatively few numbers, [[Euler]] predicted that there were no [[whole number]] solutions to the following equation, similar to one pertaining to famous [[Fermat's Last Theorem]]:
:<math>x^4 + y^4 + z^4 = w^4</math>

For two hundred years nobody could disprove this claim despite years of computer sifting. Lack of a [[counter-example]] was interpreted as strong evidence in favor of a theory until Naom Elkies of [[Harvard University]] discovered the solution in 1988.<ref>{{cite book |title=The True Marvel of Numbers: And How Fermat Proved His Last Theorem! |author=David Searle |publisher=AuthorHouse |year=2009 |pages=71 |url=http://books.google.sk/books?id=PQC8AQiFCSsC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Naom+Elkies+of+Harvard+University+1988&source=bl&ots=vtJbAgMJdI&sig=rGHNn8o_kiBJ9Vx9o5XpP41Ep2k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8OBzUuPcLKi24ATAjYGwCw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Naom%20Elkies%20of%20Harvard%20University%201988&f=false |isbn=978-1-4389-4530-9}}</ref> Despite all the evidence, Euler's conjecture turned out to be false at the end. Extrapolating a theory to cover an infinity of numbers based on insufficient and limited amount of [[scientific evidence|evidence]] without absolute proof has shown to be an unacceptable gamble. The moral is that it is not possible to use evidence from first local set of million numbers to prove the theory or rather conjecture about global set of all numbers.<ref>{{cite book |title=Fermat's Last Theorem |author=Simon Singh |publisher=Fourth Estate |place=London |year=1997 |pages= 177–178|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=Ncrnn9hCn_kC&dq=simon+singh&hl=en&sa=X&ei=29NyUrXWEIGv4ASqzIDoAQ&redir_esc=y |isbn=1-85702-521-0}}</ref>

===[[Microevolution]] and [[Macroevolution]]===
In the 1980 [[University of Chicago]] conference entitled "Evolution", scientists were trying to address the question whether the mechanisms underlying [[microevolution]] can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of [[macroevolution]]. Despite the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer given was a clear "No".<ref>{{cite web |title=Evolutionary theory under fire: A historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis|author= |publisher=Science |date=November 21, 1980
|volume=210 |number=4472 |pages=883–887 |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4472/883.extract |doi= 10.1126/science.610799|quote=The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.}}</ref>

===[[Hubble constant]]===
It has been claimed with respect to so called [[Hubble Law]], not without the sense of humor, that ''“Some people think that [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble]] is famous because here was a bunch of coffee stains at piece of graph paper and he was able to draw a straight line through it”''.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation: The Big Mysteries of Cosmology
|author=Michail S. Turner
|publisher=Arizona connection, Lectures series
|pages=0h:05min:00sec/1h:11min:39sec
|accessdate=2012-10-14
|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWaOyy3WfWk
|quote=He also discovered that the universe is expanding. ... Some people think that Hubble is famous because here was a bunch of coffee stains at piece of graph paper and he was able to draw a straight line through it.}}</ref> Although Hubble hastily concluded, based on only 20 [[galaxy|galaxies]], that the [[redshift]] of the galaxies appears to be a [[linear function]] of their [[distance]], there is also a disturbing evidence that this linear relationship does not describe the facts entirely. Several authors made a point that Hubble's [[Scientific observation|observations]] suggested a quadratic rather than linear relation. After research of [[quasar]]s, it has been discovered that if one trends apparent brightness against the redshifts as for galaxies, the result is unexpected diagram with scattered points instead of smooth curve as it is the case of galaxies. This seems to indicate that the quasars do not follow the Hubble Law as do the most other objects. According to other authors including Capria, the value of [[Hubble constant]] depends on the cosmological model, and [[John Hartnett|J.Hartnett]] claims that the Hubble constant is not truly constant but it has shown up that there is an inherent scale dependence to its value. Consequently, new theories emerged such as [[Moshe Carmeli|M.Carmeli]]'s theory of [[Cosmological special relativity]] where the Hubble law is rewritten in a new invariant way.

== See also ==
*[[Generalization]]
*[[Logic of possibility]]
*[[Nutpicking]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Methodology of Science]]
[[Category:Rhetoric]]

Fluffy bunny

2020-01-14T21:12:51Z

DavidE: self-generated Christianity; also, added header

A '''fluffy bunny''' is a person who uses [[deliberate ignorance]] about his own professed religion to make that religion into [[wishful thinking|whatever he wants it to be]]. While the term originated in [[Wicca]],<ref>[http://www.seshen.us/Pagan/fluffybunny.html Fluffy Bunny]</ref> it has also been applied to those claiming to be [[Christian]]s.<ref>[http://johnluke.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/fluffy-bunny-christians/ Fluffy Bunny Christianity]</ref>

Fluffy bunnies tend to make sweeping statements, with [[proof by assertion|no evidential basis]], on their religion and even on [[God]]'s will. They also tend to exalt the [[churchian|form]] of their religion (often exaggerated) over its substance and make a spectacle of their religious observance instead of showing how their supposed faith has borne fruit in their lives.

==In "Christianity"==
"Christian" fluffy bunnies take great offense when shown [[Bible]] passages that contradict their (mis)understanding of Christianity and [[fallacy of invincible ignorance|seldom consider those Bible verses]] enough to repent and accept genuine Christianity. When they have the power to engage in [[liberal censorship]] against such Bible passages, they do so. They also often attempt to turn Christianity into a purely or predominantly secular political movement, emphasizing [[social justice]] and other notions that are completely unmoored from Bible-based Christianity.<ref>[https://johnluke.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-cafeteria-is-closed/ The Cafeteria Is Closed.]</ref> In doing so, they render their [[Christian witness]] ineffective or even damaging. Many "conversions" to Christianity by celebrities or others in the public eye are actually conversions to fluffy-bunny-ism; the Bible teaches us how to discern false converts.<ref>[https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2019/11/23/clergy/celebrity-conversions-line-scripture/ Celebrity Conversions that Don't Always Line Up with Scripture], from Conservative News and Views</ref> Fluffy-bunny "Christianity" is an example of self-generated Christianity, i.e., "Christianity" developed to meet one's own demand profile.<ref>{{cite book| first1=Robert |last1=Ekelund |authorlink1= Robert Ekelund |first2= Robert |last2= Hébert |first3= Robert |last3=Tollison |authorlink3= Robert Tollison |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=FP08EXnwP3YC&lpg=PA334&dq=cafeteria%20Christianity&pg=PA258#v=onepage&q=cafeteria%20Christianity&f=false |title=The Marketplace of Christianity |publisher= MIT Press |year= 2006 |page = 258 |isbn=9780262050821 }}</ref>

==Shirley god==
Bible-believing Christians often use the term '''Shirley god''' to rebuke fluffy bunnies who speculate about God's will by saying, "Surely God ...."<ref>[http://blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/shirley.htm Shirley god-- Alias, "Surely God"]</ref> Since "Shirley" and "surely" are [[homophone]]s, the implication is that fluffy bunnies worship a false god, here nicknamed "Shirley," rather than the God revealed in Scripture.
==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Christian In Name Only]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Indifference]]
*[[Sloth (sin)]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Slang Terms]]

Christian In Name Only

2020-01-14T21:09:17Z

DavidE: /* Christians in name only and liberal politics */ Sometimes they explicitly deny it.

A '''Christian in Name Only'''<ref name="name">[http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/christians-name-only/ Christians in Name Only?]</ref> (abbreviated '''XINO'''), also called a '''cultural Christian''',<ref>[http://www.equip.org/perspectives/are-you-a-cultural-christian/ Are you a Cultural Christian?] from the Christian Research Institute</ref> '''nominal Christian''',<ref>[http://www.comprehensivechristian.com/The-Nominal-Christian-comprehensivechristian.com.asp The Nominal Christian]</ref> or more often, a [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christian]], is someone who professes to be a [[Christian]] in public but has a considerable lack of knowledge about the basic tenets of one's professed faith, often "knowing" it only from what is half-remembered from [[Sunday School|Sunday school]] or from [[pop-cultural osmosis]].

This includes ignorance of the contents of the [[Bible]] in general and may specifically include not being able to name the Four [[The Gospels|Gospels]], the [[Ten Commandments]], or even the fact that [[Jesus Christ]] gave the [[Sermon on the Mount]]. They may hold beliefs contrary to the teachings of Jesus, including considering [[abortion]], [[special rights]] for [[homosexual]]s, [[social justice]], [[gun control]], [[adultery]], and [[cohabitation]] between unmarried people to be morally acceptable<ref name="name"/> and following [[situational ethics]] rather than the absolute morality of the Bible. They also might believe in other ways to attain [[salvation]] rather than accepting Jesus as one's Lord and Savior or otherwise dismiss core Christian doctrines regarding salvation, such as the need for [[forgiveness]]. They may themselves live according to lifestyle choices condemned by Scripture or hold up others who do so as good Christian role models, thereby rendering their [[Christian witness]] worthless or even damaging. When challenged on their views with quotations from Scripture, Christians in name only, if they believe in [[God]] at all, often respond with [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|unsupported assertions]] as to what God really wants or with Bible passages that are [[eisegesis|"interpreted" beyond recognition]]. Christians in name only, especially those motivated by liberal politics, have proved to be such an embarrassment that committed Christians are now seeking new terminology to replace the terminology that Christians in name only have appropriated and thereby distinguish themselves from Christians in name only.

==Christians in name only and liberal politics==
Christians in name only are common in liberal politics. Sometimes, they may attempt to justify their liberal political views through loose paraphrases of the Bible and leaps of logic (e.g., going from the Christian communities described in Acts to a call for a [[welfare state]]). They may at other times abandon any pretense that the Bible has anything to do with their views, in some cases explicitly denying that it does, and identify as "Christian" solely for advancement in liberal political circles or for identification with a side in the [[Culture War]]. They also often attempt to turn Christianity into a purely or predominantly secular political movement, emphasizing [[social justice]] and other notions that are completely unmoored from Bible-based Christianity.<ref>[https://johnluke.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-cafeteria-is-closed/ The Cafeteria Is Closed.]</ref>

== Opposition to the term==
<blockquote>
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26 NASB</blockquote>

This can be taken to mean that there is no such thing as a deal breaker. If you are a [[Paul]]ian Christian and accept the [[Epistle to the Romans]] as canonical, then the one true standard for receiving eternal salvation can be viewed as solely the result of the personal relationship with Jesus, something that cannot be measured from the outside by other people.

The counterargument is that Christ said that we will know every tree by its fruit and that only those who do the will of the Father in Heaven will be saved:

{{Bible quote|15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.|book=Matthew|chap=7|verses=15-23|version=KJV}}

That is, evil fruit and not doing the will of the Father in Heaven are signs of a Christian in name only. The Bible also teaches us how to discern false conversions to Christianity, which are common among celebrities and others in the public eye.<ref>[https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2019/11/23/clergy/celebrity-conversions-line-scripture/ Celebrity Conversions that Don't Always Line Up with Scripture], from Conservative News and Views</ref>

==List of individuals who either are, or give the appearance of being, XINOs==
*Any practitioner of [[liberal Christianity]].
*[[Ben Affleck]] - liberal actor.
*[[Alec Baldwin]] - liberal actor who also supports [[animal rights]], [[gun control]], and [[environmentalism]].
*[[George W. Bush]] - Once claimed that there are multiple ways to [[Heaven]], not just through Christ; member of the [[Council on Foreign Relations]]; blundered in the [[Iraq War]].
*Anders Breivik - Mass murderer of seventy-seven victims in [[Norway]].
*[[Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical|The Roman Catholic Church]] especially [[Pope Francis]].
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the United States. A Democrat who used his support from southern evangelicals to unseat [[Gerald Ford]] in the 1976 presidential election. In debate, Ford even claimed that he was unfamiliar with the term "born-again" Christian, which is specifically mentioned in the Bible. Carter left the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] to join the liberal [[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Carter claimed that Jesus would approve of homosexual "marriage" and certain abortions.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (July 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/09/jimmy-carter-jesus-would-approve-of-gay-marriage-some-abortions/ Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would ‘Approve’ of Gay Marriage, Some Abortions]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 9, 2018.</ref>
*Any practitioner of [[Christian Identity]].
*Any [[corrupt official|corrupt church official]]
*[[Bill Clinton]] - 42nd President. A Democrat, he sang in the Immanuel [[Southern Baptist]] Church choir in [[Little Rock]], when seeking the governorship there. Was seen on television by many [[Arkansas]] residents. Falsely claimed that his former pastor [[W. O. Vaught]] did not consider oral sex to be [[sin]]ful.
*[[Hillary Clinton]] - A corrupt liberal. Took a lesson in [[voodoo]] for her honeymoon in 1975 and involved in the occult. At the October 20, 2016, [[Al Smith]] dinner in [[New York City]], Clinton stated that [[salvation]] (justification) is by faith and good works, which contradicts the clear teaching of the Book of James on salvation and undermines her claim during the presidential campaign of being a real Christian.<ref>Gutierrez-Cachila, Suzette (October 27, 2016). [http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/67543/20161027/ Hillary Clinton: Both Faith and Good Works Needed for Salvation]. ''The Gospel Herald Society''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref><ref>West, Marsha (October 21, 2016). [http://christianresearchnetwork.org/2016/10/21/clinton-at-al-smith-dinner-in-order-to-achieve-salvation-we-need-both-faith-and-good-works/ Clinton at Al Smith Dinner: “In Order to Achieve Salvation, We Need Both Faith and Good Works”]. ''Christian Research Network''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>
*[[Matt Damon]] - liberal actor and friend of Ben Affleck.
*[[David Duke]] - former Louisiana state representative who claimed to be a traditional Christian in his losing bid for [[governor]] in 1991.
*[[John Edwards]] - former senator from North Carolina, who cancelled out most of the votes of his conservative colleague [[Jesse Helms]]. Democratic vice-presidential choice in 2004.
*Emilio Estevez - liberal actor, brother of Charlie Sheen, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - serial killer and child molester who was also an avowed liberal.
*[[Al Gore]] - 45th Vice President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party<ref>To be precise, he's the head of the Church of [[Global Warming]], that insists that man-made global warming is real, and you must give [[tithe]]s to it.</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] - Although millions of people experienced salvation through the long-running Graham Crusades, the evangelist denied some key Christian doctrines, such as faith in Christ alone for salvation. Active in the ecumenical movement, he treated [[Roman Catholic]]s and [[Jews]] as spiritual equals and entrusted them with new believers. He has made numerous unbiblical, watered-down statements such as supporting abortion in the case of [[rape]]. He was a 33° Mason, which "take[s] sworn oaths to a pagan demonic god." Was an early admirer of Bill and Hillary Clinton, defended Clinton in the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal, and was also close to nominal [[Quaker]] [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Disciples of Christ]] adherent [[Lyndon B. Johnson]].<ref>Johnson, Christopher J. E. (July 17, 2013). [http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/graham.php Wolves in Costume: Billy Graham]. ''creationliberty.com''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> His son, [[Franklin Graham]], head of the charity Samaritan's Purse, is considered more conservative in matters of theology and political issues than was his father. Franklin Graham in 2018 released a new book, ''Through My Father's Eyes'', based on how his father's teachings impacted him.
*[[Amy Grant]] - Contemporary Christian artist. While married had an affair with country singer Vince Gill (also married); they then both divorced their spouses and married each other.
*[[Ted Haggard]] - disgraced former pastor of New Life Church.
*[[Adolf Hitler]] - leader of Nazi Germany. Responsible for the extermination of over 6,000,000 Jews.<ref>Despite being raised [[Roman Catholic]] and claiming that [[Jesus]] was his inspiration, Hitler was only using Christianity to gain favor with the German people. His true beliefs were based off of his [[social darwinism|social darwinistic]] views.</ref> In reality, Hitler was a Darwinian secularist who believed in adult fairy tale of evolution,<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/hitler-and-evolution/ Hitler and Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> hated and despised Christianity,<ref>John Baskette, [http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html Was Hitler a Christian?]. ''Answers in Action''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref><ref>Bergman, Jerry, Dr. (November 1, 1999). [https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/ Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> and attempted to warp Christianity into a XINO organization that adhered to Nazi beliefs.<ref>Hodge, Bodie (July 13, 2009). [https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/the-results-of-evolution/ The Results of Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref>
*[[Jesse Jackson]] - media-seeking [[civil rights]] activist who claimed to have held the dying [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], at the 1968 assassination in [[Memphis]], [[Tennessee]]. The [[South Carolina]] native who has since lived for years in [[Chicago]], is a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Like Bill Clinton, who he mentored, Jackson has himself been involved in [[adultery]].
*[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
*[[Jim Jones]] - cult leader from [[California]].
*[[Helen Keller]]<ref>A rather radical [[Socialist]] from northern [[Alabama]], founding member of the anti-Christian [[American Civil Liberties Union]], and personal friend of [[Planned Parenthood]] founder [[Margaret Sanger]]. Most people know her, however, only from the inspirational film, ''The Miracle Worker'', with [[Patty Duke]].</ref>
*[[John Kerry]] - Democratic senator from Massachusetts and 2004 presidential nominee. Later as secretary of state failed in most of his missions.
*[[Joseph Kony]]
*The [[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Timothy McVeigh]] - perpetrator of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
*[[Michael Moore]] - anti-capitalist liberal film maker.
*[[Mormons]]
*[[Barack Obama]] - 44th President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party <ref>Barack Obama may be a special case. There is [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|much evidence]] that he may be a [[Muslim]] who is practicing ''[[taqiyya]],'' an Islamic custom which allows a Muslim to conceal his true religion if the adherent [[deceit|feels it would be beneficial to do so.]]</ref>
*[[Joel Osteen]] - runs a large "New Age" church in [[Houston, Texas|Houston]], [[Texas]]; seems more concerned about making people feel good about their state of sin, instead of accurately teaching the Word of God. This is called "the prosperity gospel."
*[[Nancy Pelosi]] - Democratic House Minority Leader from the [[San Francisco]] area; liberal Roman Catholic originally from [[Baltimore]], [[Maryland]].
*[[Sean Penn]] - liberal actor who portrayed on film the homosexual figure [[Harvey Milk]].
*[[Fred Phelps]] - Cult leader<ref>The leader of radical hyper-[[Calvinist]] church that protests the funerals of soldiers killed on duty. Because of his indecent and Un-American, and utterly un-Christian nature of this activity, he would appear to be Christian in name only. He was once aligned with Al Gore politically.</ref>
*[[Harry Reid]] - former Democratic Senate Majority Leader from [[Nevada]], who claims he is personally opposed to abortion but would not interfere with a woman seeking the procedure.
*[[Ben Roethlisberger]] - controversial [[NFL]] quarterback for [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] who committed assault.
*Much of the [[British]] Royal Family, who endorse [[homosexual marriage]] and have let the [[Anglican Church]] spiritually decline under their watch, as well as overall British culture. Conversely, [[Queen Victoria]] was a dedicated Christian when the British Empire was at its peak.
*Jerry Sandusky - retired head coach from [[Pennsylvania State University]] who was a convicted child molester and rapist.
*Susan Sarandon - liberal actress.
*[[Al Sharpton]] - hosts a show on [[MSNBC]]. Stirs up racial animosity throughout the nation.
*Martin Sheen - liberal actor.
*[[Charlie Sheen]] - liberal actor, conspiracy theorist, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[Carrie Underwood]] - supports same-sex marriage and is a practicing vegan. Mocked President Trump on a country music awards show. Several of her songs espouse vengenance.
*[[Rick Warren]] - Operates a "New Age" style church in California. Gave the inaugural prayer at Obama's swearing-in as President. [[CFR]] member. Runs his church to gain members, not to preach the gospel.
*The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] of [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], formerly pastored by [[Fred Phelps]].
*[[Oprah Winfrey]] - Talk show host, media mogul, and occasional host on ''[[60 Minutes]]''. Endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.<ref>a liberal "Christian" and a [[New age movement|New-Age-style]] [[occult]]ist.</ref>
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] - Obama's pastor and preacher of Black Liberation Theology.

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Churchian]]
*[[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Fluffy bunny]]
*[[Indifference]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Sloth (sin)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Anti-Christianity]]

Cafeteria Christianity

2020-01-10T17:47:38Z

DavidE: self-generated Christianity

'''Cafeteria Christianity''' refers to the practice of deciding for oneself which parts of the [[Bible]] to accept, as one might select certain foods in a cafeteria while rejecting others.<ref>[http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/cafeteria.html "Cafeteria Christianity," from the Church of God - DFW]</ref> This implies that the person is a [[Christian In Name Only|Christian in name only]] and, while believing in a deity, does not adhere to any particular creed of Christianity, preferring to decide for themself how to express their faith. Other terms include "salad-bar Christianity" and "[[cherry picking|cherry-picking]] Christianity." Cafeteria Christianity is an example of self-generated Christianity, i.e., "Christianity" developed to meet one's own demand profile.<ref>{{cite book| first1=Robert |last1=Ekelund |authorlink1= Robert Ekelund |first2= Robert |last2= Hébert |first3= Robert |last3=Tollison |authorlink3= Robert Tollison |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=FP08EXnwP3YC&lpg=PA334&dq=cafeteria%20Christianity&pg=PA258#v=onepage&q=cafeteria%20Christianity&f=false |title=The Marketplace of Christianity |publisher= MIT Press |year= 2006 |page = 258 |isbn=9780262050821 }}</ref>

This practice is particularly common among [[Liberal Christianity|liberal]] denominations, which cite only those passages which show Christ's forgiveness and mercy, but not His justice, in order to deny the existence of [[Hell]] and the necessity of [[faith]] for redemption. Matt. 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is quoted out of context particularly often for this purpose. Likewise, they selectively ignore passages which refute [[evolution]], condemn [[abortion]], make statements about the role of [[women]] that refute modern [[feminism|feminist]] dogmas, and conflict with other liberal views. Liberal Christians are also fond of citing Scripture selectively in order to rebuke [[Hypocrisy|only someone else's sins]] or to [[special pleading|explain away]] the sins of liberal political allies.

However, cafeteria Christianity is not limited to the left side of the political spectrum: conservative Christians are also fond of citing Scripture selectively in order to expose hypocrisy while explaining away the same issues in their own camp (such as criticizing the Catholic Church for covering up child molestation among its priests—arguing that the problem is due to the Church's prohibition against priests marrying—while ignoring similar cases involving married pastors or leaders within major Protestant churches or denominations). A notable example of "right-wing" cafeteria Christianity is the [[Westboro Baptist Church]]; their followers quote verses about God's judgment but ignore those about mercy.

Espousing cafeteria Christianity invalidates a person's [[Christian witness]]. If a self-proclaimed Christian does not take the entire Bible seriously, unbelievers will assume that they need not do so, either. Also, cafeteria Christians have proved to be such an embarrassment to Christianity that committed Christians are now searching for new terminology to distinguish themselves from cafeteria Christians. A cafeteria Christian can even endanger the faith of others by spreading false doctrine as though it were genuine Christianity.<ref>[http://roblattin.hubpages.com/hub/How-To-Spot-A-Cafeteria-Christian How to Spot a Cafeteria Christian]</ref>

==Bible teaching against cafeteria Christianity==

The Bible quotes [[Jesus]] as saying:
{{Bible quote|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.|book=Matthew|chap=4|verses=4|version=KJV}}
Note: "every word," not "some words." The counterargument of many cafeteria Christians is to assert, typically [[Logical_fallacy#Manufacturing_facts_from_a_theory|without evidence]], that the word of the authors of certain parts of the Bible is not necessarily the word of God. However, absent evidence that a certain passage of the Bible is not God's Word (e.g., Paul's explicit statement that he is expressing a personal view), that counterargument is [[beg the question|circular]], as it assumes the propriety of cherry-picking the Bible in order to justify cherry-picking the Bible.

Confusion as to just how literally Biblical texts should be taken abounds, even amongst those who generally accept the Bible to be the word for God. Few would argue, for example, with the statement: 'However, the bible cannot be interpreted literally, if this was the case then rebellious children would be killed: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Also, Women may not speak in church: Cor 14:33-36. The bible is not a collection of dogmatic and strict rules, it is a book of God that promotes compassion, faith in God, truth, and love.'<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality</ref> Conversely, many would argue for and against those passages in the Bible which command obedience to tradition <ref>2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 11:2; </ref>, to established authority <ref>Romans 13:1-2</ref>, to the leaders of the church <ref>Hebrews 13:17</ref>, to human institutions <ref>1 Peter 2:13-18</ref>, and against ''[[sola scriptura]]'' private interpretations of the Bible <ref>2 Peter 1:20-21; 3:14-18</ref><ref>See [[Five Solas]] and [[Sola spiritu]]</ref>.

==Proof texts==

A common tactic used by cafeteria Christians is reliance on '''proof texts'''. A proof text (sometimes spelled prooftext) is a short passage from Scripture that is cited, typically [[Quoting out of context|out of context]], to support a doctrinal position that the [[Hermeneutics|Bible when read as a whole]] may not support.<ref>[http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/definition-of-christian-terms/prooftexting.html Definition of Christian Terms - Prooftexting]</ref>
::"A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext" —''Evangelical Protestant scholar Dr. Donald A. Carson, who attributed this saying to his father''.
When cafeteria Christians are confronted with Bible verses that contradict the results of their prooftexting, they typically [[fallacy of invincible ignorance|ignore]] such Bible verses. If they do respond, they switch quickly from "The Word of God is the Word of God, and it says what it says" to "Yes, that's what it says, but what it means is ...." This is a classic example of [[confirmation bias]].

Conservative Christian historians and [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] are mindful of this statement by [[John Eck]] addressed to [[Martin Luther]], in the year 1521:<ref>Eck's statement here is supremely appropriate in light of Luther's refusal to submit to the judgment of the Church, the emperor Charles V, and the [[Pope]], and the teaching of Paul in [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:1-5&version=KJV Romans 13:1-5].</ref><blockquote>
"...there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that [[Pelagianism|Pelagius]] and [[Arius]] maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Word—an eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New Testament—''Joseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son''; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage '''enchained''' him. When the fathers of the [[council of Constance]] condemned this proposition of [[John Huss]]—''The church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect'', they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/lutherbyluther.html#secondnarrative|title=Life of Luther (Luther by Martin Luther)|author=Martin Luther|publisher=}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Catholic]]
*[[Christian In Name Only]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Fluffy bunny]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Situational ethics]]
*[[Casuistry]]
*[[Sophistry]]
*[[Specious reasoning]]
*[[Hypocrites]]
*[[Confirmation bias]]
*[[Schism]]
*[[Heresy]]
*[[Apostasy]]

==References==
<references/>

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Slang Terms]]

Christian In Name Only

2020-01-10T17:36:44Z

DavidE: forgiveness and XINO's

A '''Christian in Name Only'''<ref name="name">[http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/christians-name-only/ Christians in Name Only?]</ref> (abbreviated '''XINO'''), also called a '''cultural Christian''',<ref>[http://www.equip.org/perspectives/are-you-a-cultural-christian/ Are you a Cultural Christian?] from the Christian Research Institute</ref> '''nominal Christian''',<ref>[http://www.comprehensivechristian.com/The-Nominal-Christian-comprehensivechristian.com.asp The Nominal Christian]</ref> or more often, a [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christian]], is someone who professes to be a [[Christian]] in public but has a considerable lack of knowledge about the basic tenets of one's professed faith, often "knowing" it only from what is half-remembered from [[Sunday School|Sunday school]] or from [[pop-cultural osmosis]].

This includes ignorance of the contents of the [[Bible]] in general and may specifically include not being able to name the Four [[The Gospels|Gospels]], the [[Ten Commandments]], or even the fact that [[Jesus Christ]] gave the [[Sermon on the Mount]]. They may hold beliefs contrary to the teachings of Jesus, including considering [[abortion]], [[special rights]] for [[homosexual]]s, [[social justice]], [[gun control]], [[adultery]], and [[cohabitation]] between unmarried people to be morally acceptable<ref name="name"/> and following [[situational ethics]] rather than the absolute morality of the Bible. They also might believe in other ways to attain [[salvation]] rather than accepting Jesus as one's Lord and Savior or otherwise dismiss core Christian doctrines regarding salvation, such as the need for [[forgiveness]]. They may themselves live according to lifestyle choices condemned by Scripture or hold up others who do so as good Christian role models, thereby rendering their [[Christian witness]] worthless or even damaging. When challenged on their views with quotations from Scripture, Christians in name only, if they believe in [[God]] at all, often respond with [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|unsupported assertions]] as to what God really wants or with Bible passages that are [[eisegesis|"interpreted" beyond recognition]]. Christians in name only, especially those motivated by liberal politics, have proved to be such an embarrassment that committed Christians are now seeking new terminology to replace the terminology that Christians in name only have appropriated and thereby distinguish themselves from Christians in name only.

==Christians in name only and liberal politics==
Christians in name only are common in liberal politics. Sometimes, they may attempt to justify their liberal political views through loose paraphrases of the Bible and leaps of logic (e.g., going from the Christian communities described in Acts to a call for a [[welfare state]]). They may at other times abandon any pretense that the Bible has anything to do with their views and identify as "Christian" solely for advancement in liberal political circles or for identification with a side in the [[Culture War]]. They also often attempt to turn Christianity into a purely or predominantly secular political movement, emphasizing [[social justice]] and other notions that are completely unmoored from Bible-based Christianity.<ref>[https://johnluke.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-cafeteria-is-closed/ The Cafeteria Is Closed.]</ref>

== Opposition to the term==
<blockquote>
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26 NASB</blockquote>

This can be taken to mean that there is no such thing as a deal breaker. If you are a [[Paul]]ian Christian and accept the [[Epistle to the Romans]] as canonical, then the one true standard for receiving eternal salvation can be viewed as solely the result of the personal relationship with Jesus, something that cannot be measured from the outside by other people.

The counterargument is that Christ said that we will know every tree by its fruit and that only those who do the will of the Father in Heaven will be saved:

{{Bible quote|15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.|book=Matthew|chap=7|verses=15-23|version=KJV}}

That is, evil fruit and not doing the will of the Father in Heaven are signs of a Christian in name only. The Bible also teaches us how to discern false conversions to Christianity, which are common among celebrities and others in the public eye.<ref>[https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2019/11/23/clergy/celebrity-conversions-line-scripture/ Celebrity Conversions that Don't Always Line Up with Scripture], from Conservative News and Views</ref>

==List of individuals who either are, or give the appearance of being, XINOs==
*Any practitioner of [[liberal Christianity]].
*[[Ben Affleck]] - liberal actor.
*[[Alec Baldwin]] - liberal actor who also supports [[animal rights]], [[gun control]], and [[environmentalism]].
*[[George W. Bush]] - Once claimed that there are multiple ways to [[Heaven]], not just through Christ; member of the [[Council on Foreign Relations]]; blundered in the [[Iraq War]].
*Anders Breivik - Mass murderer of seventy-seven victims in [[Norway]].
*[[Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical|The Roman Catholic Church]] especially [[Pope Francis]].
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the United States. A Democrat who used his support from southern evangelicals to unseat [[Gerald Ford]] in the 1976 presidential election. In debate, Ford even claimed that he was unfamiliar with the term "born-again" Christian, which is specifically mentioned in the Bible. Carter left the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] to join the liberal [[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Carter claimed that Jesus would approve of homosexual "marriage" and certain abortions.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (July 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/09/jimmy-carter-jesus-would-approve-of-gay-marriage-some-abortions/ Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would ‘Approve’ of Gay Marriage, Some Abortions]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 9, 2018.</ref>
*Any practitioner of [[Christian Identity]].
*Any [[corrupt official|corrupt church official]]
*[[Bill Clinton]] - 42nd President. A Democrat, he sang in the Immanuel [[Southern Baptist]] Church choir in [[Little Rock]], when seeking the governorship there. Was seen on television by many [[Arkansas]] residents. Falsely claimed that his former pastor [[W. O. Vaught]] did not consider oral sex to be [[sin]]ful.
*[[Hillary Clinton]] - A corrupt liberal. Took a lesson in [[voodoo]] for her honeymoon in 1975 and involved in the occult. At the October 20, 2016, [[Al Smith]] dinner in [[New York City]], Clinton stated that [[salvation]] (justification) is by faith and good works, which contradicts the clear teaching of the Book of James on salvation and undermines her claim during the presidential campaign of being a real Christian.<ref>Gutierrez-Cachila, Suzette (October 27, 2016). [http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/67543/20161027/ Hillary Clinton: Both Faith and Good Works Needed for Salvation]. ''The Gospel Herald Society''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref><ref>West, Marsha (October 21, 2016). [http://christianresearchnetwork.org/2016/10/21/clinton-at-al-smith-dinner-in-order-to-achieve-salvation-we-need-both-faith-and-good-works/ Clinton at Al Smith Dinner: “In Order to Achieve Salvation, We Need Both Faith and Good Works”]. ''Christian Research Network''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>
*[[Matt Damon]] - liberal actor and friend of Ben Affleck.
*[[David Duke]] - former Louisiana state representative who claimed to be a traditional Christian in his losing bid for [[governor]] in 1991.
*[[John Edwards]] - former senator from North Carolina, who cancelled out most of the votes of his conservative colleague [[Jesse Helms]]. Democratic vice-presidential choice in 2004.
*Emilio Estevez - liberal actor, brother of Charlie Sheen, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - serial killer and child molester who was also an avowed liberal.
*[[Al Gore]] - 45th Vice President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party<ref>To be precise, he's the head of the Church of [[Global Warming]], that insists that man-made global warming is real, and you must give [[tithe]]s to it.</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] - Although millions of people experienced salvation through the long-running Graham Crusades, the evangelist denied some key Christian doctrines, such as faith in Christ alone for salvation. Active in the ecumenical movement, he treated [[Roman Catholic]]s and [[Jews]] as spiritual equals and entrusted them with new believers. He has made numerous unbiblical, watered-down statements such as supporting abortion in the case of [[rape]]. He was a 33° Mason, which "take[s] sworn oaths to a pagan demonic god." Was an early admirer of Bill and Hillary Clinton, defended Clinton in the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal, and was also close to nominal [[Quaker]] [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Disciples of Christ]] adherent [[Lyndon B. Johnson]].<ref>Johnson, Christopher J. E. (July 17, 2013). [http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/graham.php Wolves in Costume: Billy Graham]. ''creationliberty.com''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> His son, [[Franklin Graham]], head of the charity Samaritan's Purse, is considered more conservative in matters of theology and political issues than was his father. Franklin Graham in 2018 released a new book, ''Through My Father's Eyes'', based on how his father's teachings impacted him.
*[[Amy Grant]] - Contemporary Christian artist. While married had an affair with country singer Vince Gill (also married); they then both divorced their spouses and married each other.
*[[Ted Haggard]] - disgraced former pastor of New Life Church.
*[[Adolf Hitler]] - leader of Nazi Germany. Responsible for the extermination of over 6,000,000 Jews.<ref>Despite being raised [[Roman Catholic]] and claiming that [[Jesus]] was his inspiration, Hitler was only using Christianity to gain favor with the German people. His true beliefs were based off of his [[social darwinism|social darwinistic]] views.</ref> In reality, Hitler was a Darwinian secularist who believed in adult fairy tale of evolution,<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/hitler-and-evolution/ Hitler and Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> hated and despised Christianity,<ref>John Baskette, [http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html Was Hitler a Christian?]. ''Answers in Action''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref><ref>Bergman, Jerry, Dr. (November 1, 1999). [https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/ Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> and attempted to warp Christianity into a XINO organization that adhered to Nazi beliefs.<ref>Hodge, Bodie (July 13, 2009). [https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/the-results-of-evolution/ The Results of Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref>
*[[Jesse Jackson]] - media-seeking [[civil rights]] activist who claimed to have held the dying [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], at the 1968 assassination in [[Memphis]], [[Tennessee]]. The [[South Carolina]] native who has since lived for years in [[Chicago]], is a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Like Bill Clinton, who he mentored, Jackson has himself been involved in [[adultery]].
*[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
*[[Jim Jones]] - cult leader from [[California]].
*[[Helen Keller]]<ref>A rather radical [[Socialist]] from northern [[Alabama]], founding member of the anti-Christian [[American Civil Liberties Union]], and personal friend of [[Planned Parenthood]] founder [[Margaret Sanger]]. Most people know her, however, only from the inspirational film, ''The Miracle Worker'', with [[Patty Duke]].</ref>
*[[John Kerry]] - Democratic senator from Massachusetts and 2004 presidential nominee. Later as secretary of state failed in most of his missions.
*[[Joseph Kony]]
*The [[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Timothy McVeigh]] - perpetrator of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
*[[Michael Moore]] - anti-capitalist liberal film maker.
*[[Mormons]]
*[[Barack Obama]] - 44th President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party <ref>Barack Obama may be a special case. There is [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|much evidence]] that he may be a [[Muslim]] who is practicing ''[[taqiyya]],'' an Islamic custom which allows a Muslim to conceal his true religion if the adherent [[deceit|feels it would be beneficial to do so.]]</ref>
*[[Joel Osteen]] - runs a large "New Age" church in [[Houston, Texas|Houston]], [[Texas]]; seems more concerned about making people feel good about their state of sin, instead of accurately teaching the Word of God. This is called "the prosperity gospel."
*[[Nancy Pelosi]] - Democratic House Minority Leader from the [[San Francisco]] area; liberal Roman Catholic originally from [[Baltimore]], [[Maryland]].
*[[Sean Penn]] - liberal actor who portrayed on film the homosexual figure [[Harvey Milk]].
*[[Fred Phelps]] - Cult leader<ref>The leader of radical hyper-[[Calvinist]] church that protests the funerals of soldiers killed on duty. Because of his indecent and Un-American, and utterly un-Christian nature of this activity, he would appear to be Christian in name only. He was once aligned with Al Gore politically.</ref>
*[[Harry Reid]] - former Democratic Senate Majority Leader from [[Nevada]], who claims he is personally opposed to abortion but would not interfere with a woman seeking the procedure.
*[[Ben Roethlisberger]] - controversial [[NFL]] quarterback for [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] who committed assault.
*Much of the [[British]] Royal Family, who endorse [[homosexual marriage]] and have let the [[Anglican Church]] spiritually decline under their watch, as well as overall British culture. Conversely, [[Queen Victoria]] was a dedicated Christian when the British Empire was at its peak.
*Jerry Sandusky - retired head coach from [[Pennsylvania State University]] who was a convicted child molester and rapist.
*Susan Sarandon - liberal actress.
*[[Al Sharpton]] - hosts a show on [[MSNBC]]. Stirs up racial animosity throughout the nation.
*Martin Sheen - liberal actor.
*[[Charlie Sheen]] - liberal actor, conspiracy theorist, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[Carrie Underwood]] - supports same-sex marriage and is a practicing vegan. Mocked President Trump on a country music awards show. Several of her songs espouse vengenance.
*[[Rick Warren]] - Operates a "New Age" style church in California. Gave the inaugural prayer at Obama's swearing-in as President. [[CFR]] member. Runs his church to gain members, not to preach the gospel.
*The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] of [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], formerly pastored by [[Fred Phelps]].
*[[Oprah Winfrey]] - Talk show host, media mogul, and occasional host on ''[[60 Minutes]]''. Endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.<ref>a liberal "Christian" and a [[New age movement|New-Age-style]] [[occult]]ist.</ref>
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] - Obama's pastor and preacher of Black Liberation Theology.

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Churchian]]
*[[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Fluffy bunny]]
*[[Indifference]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Sloth (sin)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Anti-Christianity]]

Fast Food Christianity

2020-01-10T17:29:05Z

DavidE: other ways liberal "Christians" attack Biblical inerrancy

'''Fast Food Christianity''', also known as '''consumer Christianity''', is a form of "[[consumer]]-oriented" Christianity that treats churchgoers as customers and is oriented toward pleasing them rather than toward remaining true to the [[Gospel]].<ref>[http://healthelanddevotionalarchives.wordpress.com/category/fast-food-christianity/ Fast Food Christianity], from Heal the Land Daily Devotional Archives</ref><ref>[http://carolinachristianconservative.blogspot.com/2005/05/fast-food-christianity.html Fast Food Christianity], from Carolina Christian Conservative</ref>

Since "the customer is always right," such a church waters down its message so as not to scare off its attendees (or, more often than not, their [[tithe]]s and [[offering (giving)|offerings]]). If [[sin]] is ever discussed, it is generally discussed in a generic sense, but so watered down as to not really upset any specific person or group within the church, or with regard only to [[hypocrisy|someone else's sins]].

A fast-food Christian church may also ignore any parts of Biblical morality that are inconvenient to advancement in political circles (both liberal and conservative), ignoring the words of Christ in Matthew 16:26, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

[[Megachurch]]es, especially those having bought into such concepts as "seeker-sensitive", "positive thinking", and such, tend to fall into this category.

There are many similarities between this and [[cafeteria Christianity]], but there are also differences. For example, in cafeteria Christianity, certain Bible verses are not just ignored; they are also explained away (especially in [[liberal Christianity]]) as "not really being what" the author or speaker said or wrote, as being limited in applicability to a cultural context, or as being later additions that are not [[canon]]ical (i.e., direct attacks on [[Biblical inerrancy]] by a denomination or person who doesn't believe in it). On the other hand, in fast-food Christianity, the church may (at least officially) hold to Biblical inerrancy, but may "de-emphasize" a specific concept (e.g., sin) so as not to offend.

Also, fast-food Christianity is generally an issue involving churches or denominations, while cafeteria Christianity tends to involve individuals (though the concept can apply to churches or denominations as well).

==References==
<references/>
{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Slang Terms]]

Category:Fraud

2020-01-07T20:57:29Z

DavidE: +cats

[[Category:Crime]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Logical fallacy

2019-12-27T16:25:04Z

DavidE: It’s possible for the conclusion of a formal logical fallacy to be true by happenstance. See Affirming the consequent for an example.

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[Deduction|deductive arguments]], and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[Principle of induction|inductive arguments]], and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]], although it is still an error if you commit one (and dishonest if you know you are committing one). A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore, P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the conclusion ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the premise ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labor is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===Appeal to Consequences===
An ''appeal to consequences,'' or, more fully, ''appeal to adverse consequences'' or ''appeal to consequences of a belief,''<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences]</ref> is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are fallacious because the consequences of believing or disbelieving have no bearing on the truth or falsity of a belief. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected in academic circles, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

To use another example often encountered in the real world, adherents of belief systems such as [[Islam]] tout the benefits of converting to such belief systems. However, such benefits, even if real, do not prove that those belief systems are true; instead, they could arise from the conversion experience itself.

A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore, P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

===="False Causality" ====
A false causality fallacy is when a person argues that A caused B when there is little evidence to support the claim. Specifically, a false causality is committed when the basis for A causing B is based on some superficial coincidence.

*"Our house was robbed the day after that family moved in, they must have done it!"

In this example, it is only a coincidence that a new family has moved in at the same time another house has been robbed, and this is not grounds for evidence.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, alternatively, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person to discredit in advance any argument that that person may make.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X.
*Person A is wrong about Y.
*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

The second variant follows this form:

*Person B, knowing that person A will make argument X, introduces unfavorable information about person A that is unrelated to X.
*Person A makes argument X.
*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

One example of the first variant was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

An example of the second variant is to introduce information (true or false) about a distateful or objectionable aspect of someone's personal life to persuade the listeners to reject out of hand whatever that person may say, when that aspect of the person's personal life may have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the positions that that person will take.

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked. There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive, although poisoning the well in the second sense is used to mean introducing the irrelevant information preemptively.

===Genetic fallacy===
{{main|Affirming the consequent}}
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*P is false
*Therefore, Q is false

Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
{{main|Argumentum ad populum}}
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, [[distinction without a difference|unrelated to P or Q]]
*Therefore, Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

===Fallacies of relevance based on the age of an idea===
The '''appeal to antiquity''', also known as the '''appeal to tradition''', holds that an idea must be right just because it is old.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition]</ref> Its opposite is the '''appeal to novelty''', which holds that an idea must be right just because it is new.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-novelty/ Appeal to Novelty]</ref> Both are fallacies of relevance because the mere age of an idea does not tell us whether it is true. For example, an old idea could be a time-tested and sound concept, or it could be an ancient [[superstition]] like [[astrology]]. Similarly, a new idea could be the result of new [[information]] or an intellectual fad like [[postmodernism]].

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantiam'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore, Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence. Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed. For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true. In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

Another example from history. Assertions of evidence of corruption of Christian doctrine and [[Great Apostasy|apostasy]] from the faith is seen by Protestant and Fundamentalist [[Apologetics|apologists]] in the evident contrast of the 16th century doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which the Reformers assert was original Christianity, against the clearly "Catholic doctrines" in the [[Ante-Nicene Fathers]] which refute them. The utter historical silence about any fundamental [[paradigm shift]] in doctrine after the first century is due to a total lack of any supporting extant evidence of Protestant or Mormon theology in any of the writings of the first four centuries of Christianity by any of the known heretics and sects. This very fact is argued by Protestants and Mormons as sure and certain evidence that a monstrous apostasy must have occurred, because there is no evidence that it ever did, and no evidence of their unmistakable doctrines can be found, leading them to the conclusion that there was a massive [[cover up]]. (This is also a form of [[circular reasoning]]. Compare [[Memory hole]] and [[Revisionism]].) More generally, assertion of a fact coupled with total absence of evidence does not prove there was a concerted effort involving total removal of the evidence supporting the assertion. The compelling weight of conclusive evidence supporting ''absence of any evidence of a removal of all evidence'' is strong evidence that no evidence was removed. Absence (silence) of evidence is not proof of evidence erased or made absent (silenced). Conclusive evidence of absence is absence of conclusive evidence. Compare [[Abductive reasoning]] and [[Confirmation bias]].

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]]. Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*''P'' is true.
*''Q'' is true.
*Therefore, ''P'' causes ''Q.''

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
{{main|Post hoc ergo propter hoc}}
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after this; therefore, because of this") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore, P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
: ''Main article: [[Sharpshooter fallacy]]''
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>

====Equating correlation with causation====
: ''Main article: [[Correlation is not causation]]''
Yet another form of false cause is '''equating correlation with causation'''. An often cited example is "As sales of ice cream rise, so do reports of shark attacks." Neither one causes the other, whether or not there is a correlation; instead, they are both associated with summer.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore, R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization, converse accident, or painting with too broad a brush) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allow. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is/does Q.
*P is a member of the set R.
*Therefore, everyone/everything in the set R is/does Q.

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented. Proving too much includes reaching a conclusion that contradicts either things known to be true or [[stolen concept|the premises used to reach that conclusion]]. The term comes from the medieval saying, "What proves too much proves nothing."

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore, Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore, R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Analogy===
{{main|Fallacy of analogy}}
The fallacy of analogy argues that because one thing resembles another in some aspects, they must resemble each other in another aspect. In its most extreme form, it argues that a superficial resemblance proves identity, that because they look like the same thing they are in fact the same. In general, an argument by analogy takes the following form:

*A is like B (they share properties X, Y, and Z).
*B also has property Q
*Therefore, A has property Q as well.

The strength of such an argument depends upon the strength of the analogy. If A and B have more differences than shared properties, the argument is weakened. It may also be true that A is like B in many ways, but still differs from B in terms of the specific property Q. If the analogy is too weak or irrelevant to the conclusion that is drawn, then a fallacy of weak analogy has been committed. An analogy itself is never true or false; it is only weak or strong.

For example: "The erecting of statues and images by [[Paganism|pagans]] was an act of [[idolatry]], therefore the erecting of statues is an act of idolatry."

===Contradiction===
{{Main|Contradiction}}

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given. Statements beginning with [[weasel words|expressions]] such as "It goes without saying that ..." or "Everyone knows ..." are commonly proofs by assertion.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
{{Main|Circular reasoning}}

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. In law, it is called assuming facts not in evidence. It should not be confused with formulating a prediction to test a hypothesis. [[Christian In Name Only|False Christians]] often engage in this fallacy by making baseless assertions as to what God wants that may have no basis in the [[Bible]] or even contradict it, but that conveniently support whatever those false Christians would have wanted to believe anyway.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Therefore, theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

A similar fallacy is [[No true Scotsman]], which in effect says, "Your facts do not work under my theory, so your facts must be wrong."

===Straw man===
{{Main|Straw man fallacy}}

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. Typically, the fallacy involves distorting what a person actually said to make it superficially similar but easier to disprove. A straw man argument follows the form:

*Person A says P.
*Person B says that person A says P', which is not the same as P.
*Not P'.
*Therefore, not P.

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
{{Main|tautology}}

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

'''Un'''equivocal means leaving no doubt about the exact meaning of what is said, being completely clear, allowing no misunderstanding.

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

== Atheism and logical fallacies ==

*[[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

*[[Atheism and logic]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==

* [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

* [[Liberal logic]]

* [[Specious reasoning]]

Debate:

* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201–218 (1996)

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]

Logical fallacy

2019-12-27T16:23:34Z

DavidE: /* Equivocation */ parallelism

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[Deduction|deductive arguments]], and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[Principle of induction|inductive arguments]], and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument. That is, an informally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which may be true or false, but which the fallacious argument does not prove; a formally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which is always false.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]], although it is still an error if you commit one (and dishonest if you know you are committing one). A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore, P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the conclusion ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the premise ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labor is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===Appeal to Consequences===
An ''appeal to consequences,'' or, more fully, ''appeal to adverse consequences'' or ''appeal to consequences of a belief,''<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences]</ref> is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are fallacious because the consequences of believing or disbelieving have no bearing on the truth or falsity of a belief. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected in academic circles, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

To use another example often encountered in the real world, adherents of belief systems such as [[Islam]] tout the benefits of converting to such belief systems. However, such benefits, even if real, do not prove that those belief systems are true; instead, they could arise from the conversion experience itself.

A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore, P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

===="False Causality" ====
A false causality fallacy is when a person argues that A caused B when there is little evidence to support the claim. Specifically, a false causality is committed when the basis for A causing B is based on some superficial coincidence.

*"Our house was robbed the day after that family moved in, they must have done it!"

In this example, it is only a coincidence that a new family has moved in at the same time another house has been robbed, and this is not grounds for evidence.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, alternatively, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person to discredit in advance any argument that that person may make.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X.
*Person A is wrong about Y.
*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

The second variant follows this form:

*Person B, knowing that person A will make argument X, introduces unfavorable information about person A that is unrelated to X.
*Person A makes argument X.
*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

One example of the first variant was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

An example of the second variant is to introduce information (true or false) about a distateful or objectionable aspect of someone's personal life to persuade the listeners to reject out of hand whatever that person may say, when that aspect of the person's personal life may have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the positions that that person will take.

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked. There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive, although poisoning the well in the second sense is used to mean introducing the irrelevant information preemptively.

===Genetic fallacy===
{{main|Affirming the consequent}}
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*P is false
*Therefore, Q is false

Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
{{main|Argumentum ad populum}}
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, [[distinction without a difference|unrelated to P or Q]]
*Therefore, Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

===Fallacies of relevance based on the age of an idea===
The '''appeal to antiquity''', also known as the '''appeal to tradition''', holds that an idea must be right just because it is old.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition]</ref> Its opposite is the '''appeal to novelty''', which holds that an idea must be right just because it is new.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-novelty/ Appeal to Novelty]</ref> Both are fallacies of relevance because the mere age of an idea does not tell us whether it is true. For example, an old idea could be a time-tested and sound concept, or it could be an ancient [[superstition]] like [[astrology]]. Similarly, a new idea could be the result of new [[information]] or an intellectual fad like [[postmodernism]].

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantiam'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore, Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence. Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed. For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true. In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

Another example from history. Assertions of evidence of corruption of Christian doctrine and [[Great Apostasy|apostasy]] from the faith is seen by Protestant and Fundamentalist [[Apologetics|apologists]] in the evident contrast of the 16th century doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which the Reformers assert was original Christianity, against the clearly "Catholic doctrines" in the [[Ante-Nicene Fathers]] which refute them. The utter historical silence about any fundamental [[paradigm shift]] in doctrine after the first century is due to a total lack of any supporting extant evidence of Protestant or Mormon theology in any of the writings of the first four centuries of Christianity by any of the known heretics and sects. This very fact is argued by Protestants and Mormons as sure and certain evidence that a monstrous apostasy must have occurred, because there is no evidence that it ever did, and no evidence of their unmistakable doctrines can be found, leading them to the conclusion that there was a massive [[cover up]]. (This is also a form of [[circular reasoning]]. Compare [[Memory hole]] and [[Revisionism]].) More generally, assertion of a fact coupled with total absence of evidence does not prove there was a concerted effort involving total removal of the evidence supporting the assertion. The compelling weight of conclusive evidence supporting ''absence of any evidence of a removal of all evidence'' is strong evidence that no evidence was removed. Absence (silence) of evidence is not proof of evidence erased or made absent (silenced). Conclusive evidence of absence is absence of conclusive evidence. Compare [[Abductive reasoning]] and [[Confirmation bias]].

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]]. Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*''P'' is true.
*''Q'' is true.
*Therefore, ''P'' causes ''Q.''

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
{{main|Post hoc ergo propter hoc}}
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after this; therefore, because of this") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore, P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
: ''Main article: [[Sharpshooter fallacy]]''
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>

====Equating correlation with causation====
: ''Main article: [[Correlation is not causation]]''
Yet another form of false cause is '''equating correlation with causation'''. An often cited example is "As sales of ice cream rise, so do reports of shark attacks." Neither one causes the other, whether or not there is a correlation; instead, they are both associated with summer.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore, R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization, converse accident, or painting with too broad a brush) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allow. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is/does Q.
*P is a member of the set R.
*Therefore, everyone/everything in the set R is/does Q.

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented. Proving too much includes reaching a conclusion that contradicts either things known to be true or [[stolen concept|the premises used to reach that conclusion]]. The term comes from the medieval saying, "What proves too much proves nothing."

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore, Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore, R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Analogy===
{{main|Fallacy of analogy}}
The fallacy of analogy argues that because one thing resembles another in some aspects, they must resemble each other in another aspect. In its most extreme form, it argues that a superficial resemblance proves identity, that because they look like the same thing they are in fact the same. In general, an argument by analogy takes the following form:

*A is like B (they share properties X, Y, and Z).
*B also has property Q
*Therefore, A has property Q as well.

The strength of such an argument depends upon the strength of the analogy. If A and B have more differences than shared properties, the argument is weakened. It may also be true that A is like B in many ways, but still differs from B in terms of the specific property Q. If the analogy is too weak or irrelevant to the conclusion that is drawn, then a fallacy of weak analogy has been committed. An analogy itself is never true or false; it is only weak or strong.

For example: "The erecting of statues and images by [[Paganism|pagans]] was an act of [[idolatry]], therefore the erecting of statues is an act of idolatry."

===Contradiction===
{{Main|Contradiction}}

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given. Statements beginning with [[weasel words|expressions]] such as "It goes without saying that ..." or "Everyone knows ..." are commonly proofs by assertion.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
{{Main|Circular reasoning}}

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. In law, it is called assuming facts not in evidence. It should not be confused with formulating a prediction to test a hypothesis. [[Christian In Name Only|False Christians]] often engage in this fallacy by making baseless assertions as to what God wants that may have no basis in the [[Bible]] or even contradict it, but that conveniently support whatever those false Christians would have wanted to believe anyway.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Therefore, theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

A similar fallacy is [[No true Scotsman]], which in effect says, "Your facts do not work under my theory, so your facts must be wrong."

===Straw man===
{{Main|Straw man fallacy}}

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. Typically, the fallacy involves distorting what a person actually said to make it superficially similar but easier to disprove. A straw man argument follows the form:

*Person A says P.
*Person B says that person A says P', which is not the same as P.
*Not P'.
*Therefore, not P.

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
{{Main|tautology}}

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

'''Un'''equivocal means leaving no doubt about the exact meaning of what is said, being completely clear, allowing no misunderstanding.

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

== Atheism and logical fallacies ==

*[[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

*[[Atheism and logic]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==

* [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]

* [[Liberal logic]]

* [[Specious reasoning]]

Debate:

* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201–218 (1996)

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]

Ad hominem

2019-12-27T16:14:53Z

DavidE: /* See also */ alphabetized and added typo flame

An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] consisting of denigrating one's opponent or otherwise introducing irrelevant premises about one's opponent, instead of dealing with the flaws in the form and function of the opponent's argument. Note that the statement made in an ''ad hominem'' argument does not have to be false for this type of fallacy to have been committed; it just has to be irrelevant to the topic of the debate.

== Classical structure ==
Classically, this fallacy is aimed at casting doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:

# A makes claim X.
# A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc.
# Therefore, X is false.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Fallacy: Ad Hominem] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Lander>Lander University, Department of Philosophy, ''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem]''. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>

== Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable ==
The ''ad hominem'' is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because:

# It is an [[appeal to emotion]] rather than to fact.<ref name=heritage>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem Definition of ad hominem] from ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>
# It introduces an irrelevant consideration.<ref name=Engel>S. Morris Engel, ''With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies'', 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

That is, it has no bearing on the truth value of the other person's assertion.

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==
The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms, the most common of which are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

'''Example:''' Atheist scientist A might present arguments that there is no [[God]]. Opponent C might respond by stating that A is fat and should be able to use science to control his weight. This would be an example of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy.

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too") or "[[Whataboutism]]" (as in "What about [my opponent's identical character flaw]?"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "[[The pot calling the kettle black]]"<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

'''Example:''' A [[liberal]] states that people should not vote for the [[Republican Party|Republican]] candidate because he is a racist. A [[conservative]] replies with "well you are also a racist so your argument doesn't count!". In this case, while the liberal may in fact be a racist, this doesn't preclude them from voting against a racist candidate.

== Example ==
The statement

:'[[Richard Wagner]] was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis'

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music. It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment. But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ''ad hominem'' attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music. Additionally, the Nazis' misdeeds had nothing to do with their ability to critique opera. However, even if a tone-deaf person, who is not a good judge of music, said he liked Wagner, it would still be an ''ad hominem'' attack to conclude Wagner is bad.

==When ad hominem isn't ad hominem==
* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument—so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness. Again, however, this is not technically an ''ad hominem'' argument.

==Other meanings of ad hominem==
American Heritage Dictionary says:
:The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in "It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way." [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem]

== See also ==
* [[Argumentum ad populum]]
* [[Journalistic malpractice]]
* [[Slander]] and [[gossip]]
* [[Special pleading]]
*[[Typo flame]]
* [[Yellow journalism]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category:Morality]]

Biblical inerrancy

2019-12-23T21:27:12Z

DavidE: /* Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy */ for clarity and greater conformity to the source

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

All views of inerrancy are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]].

Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>https://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

Evangelical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.
These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].<ref>[http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]</ref>

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

A few Christians take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today, that version being the King James Version. Those who hold that position are within the camp of believers known as [[King James only]] (though not all in this camp hold to the same viewpoint as to the extent of preservation).

The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in {{Bible ref|book=Psalms|chap=12|verses=6-7|version=KJV}}, {{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=40|verses=8|version=KJV}}, and {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=24|verses=35|version=KJV}}; and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.<ref>[http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page6.html Faithful Word Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement]</ref><ref name="closer">[http://www.chick.com/bc/2004/truth.asp 'Nothing Could Be Closer to the Truth']</ref> It is unlikely that God would have allowed His word to be twisted in any subsequent translations, given that He could have simply inspired those doing the work in the same way as He did with those who wrote the original texts. People who take this view are called Biblical preservationists.<ref>[http://www.tks.org/Archives/bob_jones,_iii.htm Bob Jones III]</ref>

The ''Chicago Statement'''s answer to this is that the copies and translations are sufficiently faithful to the originals as to not affect any essential teaching.<ref>Article X of the ''Statement'' says:{{QuoteBox|WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
 
 
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.}}</ref> As suggested earlier, many true Christians claim that statements in one language can be reduced to a [[logic]]al propositional form and as such rendered in any other language with total fidelity.<ref>[https://creation.com/the-bible-and-hermeneutics Creation Ministries International: The Bible and hermeneutics]</ref>

Nonetheless, Biblical preservationists view the Chicago Statement as a relatively recent, [[postmodernist]] theological innovation that leads to questioning of the text and ultimately to a lack of any final authority.<ref>[http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol13_2c.htm Modern Denial of Preservation]</ref> They also ask why we should trust the Chicago Statement concerning God's Word instead of trusting God's Word concerning God's Word.

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

Some Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (e.g., the six day creation).

This view is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

See [[Revelation, Book of (historical exegesis)]].

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New Testament statements on the role of women|role of women]]. One problem which is seen with this view is that by rejecting the Bible or passages therein as inspired, due to their being contrary to a desired meaning or practice, then the authority of the Bible document itself loses its authority or relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. It is reasoned that the Bible cannot be held as sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]. Nor could someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]].

Some argue that if the Bible cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

Those holding to liberal revisionist views of the Bible most typically hold to the ''Documentary Source Hypothesis'', which is contended against by many conservatives.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS' Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?]</ref>

Some progressive Christians acknowledge that an [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] God could easily preserve His words and conclude that, for reasons that they never specify, He has chosen not to do so, instead leaving us to our subjective impressions of God's will.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/06/christian-fundamentalisms-grand-illusion/ Christian Fundamentalism's Grand Illusion]</ref> Biblical preservationists counter that that view gives ammunition to [[skeptic]]s, who can ask what sort of God would promise to preserve His words and then allow the only accurate record of those words to be lost forever.<ref name="closer" />

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative Christianity]].<ref>"Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326</ref>

== Recommended books ==

*[https://www.amazon.com/Inerrancy-Bible-Dr-Johnson-Philip-ebook/dp/B00CBWQD7E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1499240735&sr=1-1&keywords=Bible+inerrancy The Inerrancy Of The Bible] by Dr. [[Johnson C. Philip]] and Dr. Saneesh Cherian, Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2013

*[https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Analyzing-Difficulties-Integrated-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B00B7ULXMG Handbook For Analyzing Bible Difficulties (Integrated Apologetics)] by Dr. Johnson C. Philip and Dr. Saneesh Cherian, Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2013

*''New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties'' (Zondervan's Understand the Bible Reference Series) by Gleason Archer, Jr., HarperCollins Publishing, 2011

==External links==

*[https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/ Contradictions in the Bible?], ''Answers in Genesis''
*[https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/inerrancy-and-test-truth/ Inerrancy and the Test of Truth], ''Answers in Genesis''
*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]
*[http://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/inerrancy/inerrancy-scripture.html On the Inerrancy of Scripture] - Licentiate thesis by Thomas Bolin
*[https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-inerrancy.html Why is it important to believe in biblical inerrancy?], by ''[[GotQuestions]]''
*[https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?], by ''[[GotQuestions]]''

==Notes==
{{Reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]

Christian In Name Only

2019-12-20T13:08:46Z

DavidE: clarified that holding up other XINOs as good Christians can damage one's Christian witness

A '''Christian in Name Only'''<ref name="name">[http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/christians-name-only/ Christians in Name Only?]</ref> (abbreviated '''XINO'''), also called a '''cultural Christian''',<ref>[http://www.equip.org/perspectives/are-you-a-cultural-christian/ Are you a Cultural Christian?] from the Christian Research Institute</ref> '''nominal Christian''',<ref>[http://www.comprehensivechristian.com/The-Nominal-Christian-comprehensivechristian.com.asp The Nominal Christian]</ref> or more often, a [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christian]], is someone who professes to be a [[Christian]] in public but has a considerable lack of knowledge about the basic tenets of one's professed faith, often "knowing" it only from what is half-remembered from [[Sunday School|Sunday school]] or from [[pop-cultural osmosis]].

This includes ignorance of the contents of the [[Bible]] in general and may specifically include not being able to name the Four [[The Gospels|Gospels]], the [[Ten Commandments]], or even the fact that [[Jesus Christ]] gave the [[Sermon on the Mount]]. They may hold beliefs contrary to the teachings of Jesus, including considering [[abortion]], [[special rights]] for [[homosexual]]s, [[social justice]], [[gun control]], [[adultery]], and [[cohabitation]] between unmarried people to be morally acceptable<ref name="name"/> and following [[situational ethics]] rather than the absolute morality of the Bible. They also might believe in other ways to attain [[salvation]] rather than accepting Jesus as one's Lord and Savior or otherwise dismiss core Christian doctrines regarding salvation. They may themselves live according to lifestyle choices condemned by Scripture or hold up others who do so as good Christian role models, thereby rendering their [[Christian witness]] worthless or even damaging. When challenged on their views with quotations from Scripture, Christians in name only, if they believe in [[God]] at all, often respond with [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|unsupported assertions]] as to what God really wants or with Bible passages that are [[eisegesis|"interpreted" beyond recognition]]. Christians in name only, especially those motivated by liberal politics, have proved to be such an embarrassment that committed Christians are now seeking new terminology to replace the terminology that Christians in name only have appropriated and thereby distinguish themselves from Christians in name only.

==Christians in name only and liberal politics==
Christians in name only are common in liberal politics. Sometimes, they may attempt to justify their liberal political views through loose paraphrases of the Bible and leaps of logic (e.g., going from the Christian communities described in Acts to a call for a [[welfare state]]). They may at other times abandon any pretense that the Bible has anything to do with their views and identify as "Christian" solely for advancement in liberal political circles or for identification with a side in the [[Culture War]]. They also often attempt to turn Christianity into a purely or predominantly secular political movement, emphasizing [[social justice]] and other notions that are completely unmoored from Bible-based Christianity.<ref>[https://johnluke.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-cafeteria-is-closed/ The Cafeteria Is Closed.]</ref>

== Opposition to the term==
<blockquote>
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26 NASB</blockquote>

This can be taken to mean that there is no such thing as a deal breaker. If you are a [[Paul]]ian Christian and accept the [[Epistle to the Romans]] as canonical, then the one true standard for receiving eternal salvation can be viewed as solely the result of the personal relationship with Jesus, something that cannot be measured from the outside by other people.

The counterargument is that Christ said that we will know every tree by its fruit and that only those who do the will of the Father in Heaven will be saved:

{{Bible quote|15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.|book=Matthew|chap=7|verses=15-23|version=KJV}}

That is, evil fruit and not doing the will of the Father in Heaven are signs of a Christian in name only. The Bible also teaches us how to discern false conversions to Christianity, which are common among celebrities and others in the public eye.<ref>[https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2019/11/23/clergy/celebrity-conversions-line-scripture/ Celebrity Conversions that Don't Always Line Up with Scripture], from Conservative News and Views</ref>

==List of individuals who either are, or give the appearance of being, XINOs==
*Any practitioner of [[liberal Christianity]].
*[[Ben Affleck]] - liberal actor.
*[[Alec Baldwin]] - liberal actor who also supports [[animal rights]], [[gun control]], and [[environmentalism]].
*[[George W. Bush]] - Once claimed that there are multiple ways to [[Heaven]], not just through Christ; member of the [[Council on Foreign Relations]]; blundered in the [[Iraq War]].
*Anders Breivik - Mass murderer of seventy-seven victims in [[Norway]].
*[[Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical|The Roman Catholic Church]] especially [[Pope Francis]].
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the United States. A Democrat who used his support from southern evangelicals to unseat [[Gerald Ford]] in the 1976 presidential election. In debate, Ford even claimed that he was unfamiliar with the term "born-again" Christian, which is specifically mentioned in the Bible. Carter left the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] to join the liberal [[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Carter claimed that Jesus would approve of homosexual "marriage" and certain abortions.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (July 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/09/jimmy-carter-jesus-would-approve-of-gay-marriage-some-abortions/ Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would ‘Approve’ of Gay Marriage, Some Abortions]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 9, 2018.</ref>
*Any practitioner of [[Christian Identity]].
*Any [[corrupt official|corrupt church official]]
*[[Bill Clinton]] - 42nd President. A Democrat, he sang in the Immanuel [[Southern Baptist]] Church choir in [[Little Rock]], when seeking the governorship there. Was seen on television by many [[Arkansas]] residents. Falsely claimed that his former pastor [[W. O. Vaught]] did not consider oral sex to be [[sin]]ful.
*[[Hillary Clinton]] - A corrupt liberal. Took a lesson in [[voodoo]] for her honeymoon in 1975 and involved in the occult. At the October 20, 2016, [[Al Smith]] dinner in [[New York City]], Clinton stated that [[salvation]] (justification) is by faith and good works, which contradicts the clear teaching of the Book of James on salvation and undermines her claim during the presidential campaign of being a real Christian.<ref>Gutierrez-Cachila, Suzette (October 27, 2016). [http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/67543/20161027/ Hillary Clinton: Both Faith and Good Works Needed for Salvation]. ''The Gospel Herald Society''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref><ref>West, Marsha (October 21, 2016). [http://christianresearchnetwork.org/2016/10/21/clinton-at-al-smith-dinner-in-order-to-achieve-salvation-we-need-both-faith-and-good-works/ Clinton at Al Smith Dinner: “In Order to Achieve Salvation, We Need Both Faith and Good Works”]. ''Christian Research Network''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>
*[[Matt Damon]] - liberal actor and friend of Ben Affleck.
*[[David Duke]] - former Louisiana state representative who claimed to be a traditional Christian in his losing bid for [[governor]] in 1991.
*[[John Edwards]] - former senator from North Carolina, who cancelled out most of the votes of his conservative colleague [[Jesse Helms]]. Democratic vice-presidential choice in 2004.
*Emilio Estevez - liberal actor, brother of Charlie Sheen, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - serial killer and child molester who was also an avowed liberal.
*[[Al Gore]] - 45th Vice President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party<ref>To be precise, he's the head of the Church of [[Global Warming]], that insists that man-made global warming is real, and you must give [[tithe]]s to it.</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] - Although millions of people experienced salvation through the long-running Graham Crusades, the evangelist denied some key Christian doctrines, such as faith in Christ alone for salvation. Active in the ecumenical movement, he treated [[Roman Catholic]]s and [[Jews]] as spiritual equals and entrusted them with new believers. He has made numerous unbiblical, watered-down statements such as supporting abortion in the case of [[rape]]. He was a 33° Mason, which "take[s] sworn oaths to a pagan demonic god." Was an early admirer of Bill and Hillary Clinton, defended Clinton in the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal, and was also close to nominal [[Quaker]] [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Disciples of Christ]] adherent [[Lyndon B. Johnson]].<ref>Johnson, Christopher J. E. (July 17, 2013). [http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/graham.php Wolves in Costume: Billy Graham]. ''creationliberty.com''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> His son, [[Franklin Graham]], head of the charity Samaritan's Purse, is considered more conservative in matters of theology and political issues than was his father. Franklin Graham in 2018 released a new book, ''Through My Father's Eyes'', based on how his father's teachings impacted him.
*[[Amy Grant]] - Contemporary Christian artist. While married had an affair with country singer Vince Gill (also married); they then both divorced their spouses and married each other.
*[[Ted Haggard]] - disgraced former pastor of New Life Church.
*[[Adolf Hitler]] - leader of Nazi Germany. Responsible for the extermination of over 6,000,000 Jews.<ref>Despite being raised [[Roman Catholic]] and claiming that [[Jesus]] was his inspiration, Hitler was only using Christianity to gain favor with the German people. His true beliefs were based off of his [[social darwinism|social darwinistic]] views.</ref> In reality, Hitler was a Darwinian secularist who believed in adult fairy tale of evolution,<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/hitler-and-evolution/ Hitler and Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> hated and despised Christianity,<ref>John Baskette, [http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html Was Hitler a Christian?]. ''Answers in Action''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref><ref>Bergman, Jerry, Dr. (November 1, 1999). [https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/ Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> and attempted to warp Christianity into a XINO organization that adhered to Nazi beliefs.<ref>Hodge, Bodie (July 13, 2009). [https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/the-results-of-evolution/ The Results of Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref>
*[[Jesse Jackson]] - media-seeking [[civil rights]] activist who claimed to have held the dying [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], at the 1968 assassination in [[Memphis]], [[Tennessee]]. The [[South Carolina]] native who has since lived for years in [[Chicago]], is a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Like Bill Clinton, who he mentored, Jackson has himself been involved in [[adultery]].
*[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
*[[Jim Jones]] - cult leader from [[California]].
*[[Helen Keller]]<ref>A rather radical [[Socialist]] from northern [[Alabama]], founding member of the anti-Christian [[American Civil Liberties Union]], and personal friend of [[Planned Parenthood]] founder [[Margaret Sanger]]. Most people know her, however, only from the inspirational film, ''The Miracle Worker'', with [[Patty Duke]].</ref>
*[[John Kerry]] - Democratic senator from Massachusetts and 2004 presidential nominee. Later as secretary of state failed in most of his missions.
*[[Joseph Kony]]
*The [[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Timothy McVeigh]] - perpetrator of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
*[[Michael Moore]] - anti-capitalist liberal film maker.
*[[Mormons]]
*[[Barack Obama]] - 44th President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party <ref>Barack Obama may be a special case. There is [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|much evidence]] that he may be a [[Muslim]] who is practicing ''[[taqiyya]],'' an Islamic custom which allows a Muslim to conceal his true religion if the adherent [[deceit|feels it would be beneficial to do so.]]</ref>
*[[Joel Osteen]] - runs a large "New Age" church in [[Houston, Texas|Houston]], [[Texas]]; seems more concerned about making people feel good about their state of sin, instead of accurately teaching the Word of God. This is called "the prosperity gospel."
*[[Nancy Pelosi]] - Democratic House Minority Leader from the [[San Francisco]] area; liberal Roman Catholic originally from [[Baltimore]], [[Maryland]].
*[[Sean Penn]] - liberal actor who portrayed on film the homosexual figure [[Harvey Milk]].
*[[Fred Phelps]] - Cult leader<ref>The leader of radical hyper-[[Calvinist]] church that protests the funerals of soldiers killed on duty. Because of his indecent and Un-American, and utterly un-Christian nature of this activity, he would appear to be Christian in name only. He was once aligned with Al Gore politically.</ref>
*[[Harry Reid]] - former Democratic Senate Majority Leader from [[Nevada]], who claims he is personally opposed to abortion but would not interfere with a woman seeking the procedure.
*[[Ben Roethlisberger]] - controversial [[NFL]] quarterback for [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] who committed assault.
*Much of the [[British]] Royal Family, who endorse [[homosexual marriage]] and have let the [[Anglican Church]] spiritually decline under their watch, as well as overall British culture. Conversely, [[Queen Victoria]] was a dedicated Christian when the British Empire was at its peak.
*Jerry Sandusky - retired head coach from [[Pennsylvania State University]] who was a convicted child molester and rapist.
*Susan Sarandon - liberal actress.
*[[Al Sharpton]] - hosts a show on [[MSNBC]]. Stirs up racial animosity throughout the nation.
*Martin Sheen - liberal actor.
*[[Charlie Sheen]] - liberal actor, conspiracy theorist, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[Carrie Underwood]] - supports same-sex marriage and is a practicing vegan. Mocked President Trump on a country music awards show. Several of her songs espouse vengenance.
*[[Rick Warren]] - Operates a "New Age" style church in California. Gave the inaugural prayer at Obama's swearing-in as President. [[CFR]] member. Runs his church to gain members, not to preach the gospel.
*The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] of [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], formerly pastored by [[Fred Phelps]].
*[[Oprah Winfrey]] - Talk show host, media mogul, and occasional host on ''[[60 Minutes]]''. Endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.<ref>a liberal "Christian" and a [[New age movement|New-Age-style]] [[occult]]ist.</ref>
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] - Obama's pastor and preacher of Black Liberation Theology.

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Churchian]]
*[[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Fluffy bunny]]
*[[Indifference]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Sloth (sin)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Anti-Christianity]]

Special pleading

2019-12-16T22:22:24Z

DavidE: /* Ignoring Unfavorable Evidence */ internal link to cherry picking

''' Special pleading''' is a [[Logical fallacy|fallacy]] of informal [[logic]] whereby a party to a controversy exempts himself (or one whom he has a special interest in protecting) from a criticism that he applies to others, without adequate justification for that exemption.

== Argument structure ==
The logical structure of a special pleading typically follows this form:

# Person X criticizes opponent O on grounds G.
# X could be criticized on the same grounds.
# However, X is exempt from G.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html Fallacy: Special Pleading] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Damer>T. Edward Damer, ''Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments'', 3rd ed., Wadsworth, 1995, pp. 122-124. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

== Types of exemptions claimed ==
One engaged in special pleading might claim exemption from grounds G above in a variety of ways:

=== Offering an Irrelevant Difference ===
The usual form of special pleading is to cite a [[distinction without a difference|counter-ground that is simply irrelevant]].<ref name=Nizkor/><ref name=Thompson>Bruce Thompson, [http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/specialpleading.asp Special Pleading], in [http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/intro_fallacies.asp Bruce Thompson's Fallacy Pages] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref> The irrelevant ground might be either an alleged special circumstance<ref name=Nizkor/> or a unique or at least unshared perspective or credential.<ref name=Thompson/> "How dare you criticize a (wo)man of my talent/education/training" is a crude example of the special-credential plea.

=== Ignoring Unfavorable Evidence ===
The other form of special pleading involves simply [[cherry picking|ignoring evidence unfavorable to one's position]].<ref name=Heritage>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., [http://www.bartleby.com/61/43/S0614300.html Definition of special pleading] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref> One engaged in this form of special pleading concentrates only on one aspect of an issue, or a subset of aspects favorable to the person making the claim. Falsification of evidence is not involved here, but ''dissemblance'' might be.

== Examples ==
*An adherent of a non-[[Christian]] religion might criticize Christianity on the basis of alleged difficulties in the [[Bible]], while explaining away difficulties of at least the same level in his own religion's holy book by saying that his own holy book needs to be "interpreted correctly." Without adequate justification for applying different rules of interpretation to the two texts, that person engages in special pleading.
*An [[atheist]] might argue that a Creator needs a Creator, who needs a Creator, [[infinite regression|and so on]], whereas the universe can simply exist. Without an adequate reason why the universe can simply exist, while [[God]] cannot, he engages in special pleading.
*Liberals hold conservatives to stringent purity tests but exempt other liberals, such as Jimmy Kimmel.

== What Special Pleading Is Not ==
It is possible to hold different people to different standards without engaging in special pleading if a relevant difference allows it.<ref name=Nizkor/> For example, it is not necessarily special pleading to exempt a child from standards applied to adults.

== Related Concept ==
In [[law]], the introduction of an [[affirmative defense]] or other special circumstance intended to extenuate a [[crime]] or a [[tort]], instead of denying that the crime or tort occurred or that the defendant did the deed, is often called a special pleading.<ref name=Heritage/> [[Self-defense]] is the classic special plea in law. But this would not normally qualify as a special pleading in logic. Under the laws of most nation-states today, self-defense ''is'' directly relevant to a judgment of guilt for certain crimes, especially [[murder]].

== See also ==
*[[Double standard]]
*[[Hypocrisy]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Fluffy bunny

2019-11-25T20:46:24Z

DavidE: celebrity "converts"

A '''fluffy bunny''' is a person who uses [[deliberate ignorance]] about his own professed religion to make that religion into [[wishful thinking|whatever he wants it to be]]. While the term originated in [[Wicca]],<ref>[http://www.seshen.us/Pagan/fluffybunny.html Fluffy Bunny]</ref> it has also been applied to those claiming to be [[Christian]]s.<ref>[http://johnluke.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/fluffy-bunny-christians/ Fluffy Bunny Christianity]</ref>

Fluffy bunnies tend to make sweeping statements, with [[proof by assertion|no evidential basis]], on their religion and even on [[God]]'s will. They also tend to exalt the [[churchian|form]] of their religion (often exaggerated) over its substance and make a spectacle of their religious observance instead of showing how their supposed faith has borne fruit in their lives.

Christian fluffy bunnies take great offense when shown [[Bible]] passages that contradict their (mis)understanding of Christianity and [[fallacy of invincible ignorance|seldom consider those Bible verses]] enough to repent and accept genuine Christianity. When they have the power to engage in [[liberal censorship]] against such Bible passages, they do so. They also often attempt to turn Christianity into a purely or predominantly secular political movement, emphasizing [[social justice]] and other notions that are completely unmoored from Bible-based Christianity.<ref>[https://johnluke.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-cafeteria-is-closed/ The Cafeteria Is Closed.]</ref> In doing so, they render their [[Christian witness]] ineffective or even damaging. Many "conversions" to Christianity by celebrities or others in the public eye are actually conversions to fluffy-bunny-ism; the Bible teaches us how to discern false converts.<ref>[https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2019/11/23/clergy/celebrity-conversions-line-scripture/ Celebrity Conversions that Don't Always Line Up with Scripture], from Conservative News and Views</ref>

==Shirley god==
Bible-believing Christians often use the term '''Shirley god''' to rebuke fluffy bunnies who speculate about God's will by saying, "Surely God ...."<ref>[http://blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/shirley.htm Shirley god-- Alias, "Surely God"]</ref> Since "Shirley" and "surely" are [[homophone]]s, the implication is that fluffy bunnies worship a false god, here nicknamed "Shirley," rather than the God revealed in Scripture.
==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Christian In Name Only]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Indifference]]
*[[Sloth (sin)]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Slang Terms]]

Christian In Name Only

2019-11-25T20:43:18Z

DavidE: /* Opposition to the term */ tyop

A '''Christian in Name Only'''<ref name="name">[http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/christians-name-only/ Christians in Name Only?]</ref> (abbreviated '''XINO'''), also called a '''cultural Christian''',<ref>[http://www.equip.org/perspectives/are-you-a-cultural-christian/ Are you a Cultural Christian?] from the Christian Research Institute</ref> '''nominal Christian''',<ref>[http://www.comprehensivechristian.com/The-Nominal-Christian-comprehensivechristian.com.asp The Nominal Christian]</ref> or more often, a [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christian]], is someone who professes to be a [[Christian]] in public but has a considerable lack of knowledge about the basic tenets of one's professed faith, often "knowing" it only from what is half-remembered from [[Sunday School|Sunday school]] or from [[pop-cultural osmosis]].

This includes ignorance of the contents of the [[Bible]] in general and may specifically include not being able to name the Four [[The Gospels|Gospels]], the [[Ten Commandments]], or even the fact that [[Jesus Christ]] gave the [[Sermon on the Mount]]. They may hold beliefs contrary to the teachings of Jesus, including considering [[abortion]], [[special rights]] for [[homosexual]]s, [[social justice]], [[gun control]], [[adultery]], and [[cohabitation]] between unmarried people to be morally acceptable<ref name="name"/> and following [[situational ethics]] rather than the absolute morality of the Bible. They also might believe in other ways to attain [[salvation]] rather than accepting Jesus as one's Lord and Savior or otherwise dismiss core Christian doctrines regarding salvation. They may themselves live according to lifestyle choices condemned by Scripture, thereby rendering their [[Christian witness]] worthless or even damaging, or hold up others who do so as good Christian role models. When challenged on their views with quotations from Scripture, Christians in name only, if they believe in [[God]] at all, often respond with [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|unsupported assertions]] as to what God really wants or with Bible passages that are [[eisegesis|"interpreted" beyond recognition]]. Christians in name only, especially those motivated by liberal politics, have proved to be such an embarrassment that committed Christians are now seeking new terminology to replace the terminology that Christians in name only have appropriated and thereby distinguish themselves from Christians in name only.

==Christians in name only and liberal politics==
Christians in name only are common in liberal politics. Sometimes, they may attempt to justify their liberal political views through loose paraphrases of the Bible and leaps of logic (e.g., going from the Christian communities described in Acts to a call for a [[welfare state]]). They may at other times abandon any pretense that the Bible has anything to do with their views and identify as "Christian" solely for advancement in liberal political circles or for identification with a side in the [[Culture War]]. They also often attempt to turn Christianity into a purely or predominantly secular political movement, emphasizing [[social justice]] and other notions that are completely unmoored from Bible-based Christianity.<ref>[https://johnluke.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-cafeteria-is-closed/ The Cafeteria Is Closed.]</ref>

== Opposition to the term==
<blockquote>
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26 NASB</blockquote>

This can be taken to mean that there is no such thing as a deal breaker. If you are a [[Paul]]ian Christian and accept the [[Epistle to the Romans]] as canonical, then the one true standard for receiving eternal salvation can be viewed as solely the result of the personal relationship with Jesus, something that cannot be measured from the outside by other people.

The counterargument is that Christ said that we will know every tree by its fruit and that only those who do the will of the Father in Heaven will be saved:

{{Bible quote|15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.|book=Matthew|chap=7|verses=15-23|version=KJV}}

That is, evil fruit and not doing the will of the Father in Heaven are signs of a Christian in name only. The Bible also teaches us how to discern false conversions to Christianity, which are common among celebrities and others in the public eye.<ref>[https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2019/11/23/clergy/celebrity-conversions-line-scripture/ Celebrity Conversions that Don't Always Line Up with Scripture], from Conservative News and Views</ref>

==List of individuals who either are, or give the appearance of being, XINOs==
*Any practitioner of [[liberal Christianity]].
*[[Ben Affleck]] - liberal actor.
*[[Alec Baldwin]] - liberal actor who also supports [[animal rights]], [[gun control]], and [[environmentalism]].
*[[George W. Bush]] - Once claimed that there are multiple ways to [[Heaven]], not just through Christ; member of the [[Council on Foreign Relations]]; blundered in the [[Iraq War]].
*Anders Breivik - Mass murderer of seventy-seven victims in [[Norway]].
*[[Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical|The Roman Catholic Church]] especially [[Pope Francis]].
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the United States. A Democrat who used his support from southern evangelicals to unseat [[Gerald Ford]] in the 1976 presidential election. In debate, Ford even claimed that he was unfamiliar with the term "born-again" Christian, which is specifically mentioned in the Bible. Carter left the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] to join the liberal [[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Carter claimed that Jesus would approve of homosexual "marriage" and certain abortions.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (July 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/09/jimmy-carter-jesus-would-approve-of-gay-marriage-some-abortions/ Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would ‘Approve’ of Gay Marriage, Some Abortions]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 9, 2018.</ref>
*Any practitioner of [[Christian Identity]].
*Any [[corrupt official|corrupt church official]]
*[[Bill Clinton]] - 42nd President. A Democrat, he sang in the Immanuel [[Southern Baptist]] Church choir in [[Little Rock]], when seeking the governorship there. Was seen on television by many [[Arkansas]] residents. Falsely claimed that his former pastor [[W. O. Vaught]] did not consider oral sex to be [[sin]]ful.
*[[Hillary Clinton]] - A corrupt liberal. Took a lesson in [[voodoo]] for her honeymoon in 1975 and involved in the occult. At the October 20, 2016, [[Al Smith]] dinner in [[New York City]], Clinton stated that [[salvation]] (justification) is by faith and good works, which contradicts the clear teaching of the Book of James on salvation and undermines her claim during the presidential campaign of being a real Christian.<ref>Gutierrez-Cachila, Suzette (October 27, 2016). [http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/67543/20161027/ Hillary Clinton: Both Faith and Good Works Needed for Salvation]. ''The Gospel Herald Society''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref><ref>West, Marsha (October 21, 2016). [http://christianresearchnetwork.org/2016/10/21/clinton-at-al-smith-dinner-in-order-to-achieve-salvation-we-need-both-faith-and-good-works/ Clinton at Al Smith Dinner: “In Order to Achieve Salvation, We Need Both Faith and Good Works”]. ''Christian Research Network''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>
*[[Matt Damon]] - liberal actor and friend of Ben Affleck.
*[[David Duke]] - former Louisiana state representative who claimed to be a traditional Christian in his losing bid for [[governor]] in 1991.
*[[John Edwards]] - former senator from North Carolina, who cancelled out most of the votes of his conservative colleague [[Jesse Helms]]. Democratic vice-presidential choice in 2004.
*Emilio Estevez - liberal actor, brother of Charlie Sheen, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - serial killer and child molester who was also an avowed liberal.
*[[Al Gore]] - 45th Vice President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party<ref>To be precise, he's the head of the Church of [[Global Warming]], that insists that man-made global warming is real, and you must give [[tithe]]s to it.</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] - Although millions of people experienced salvation through the long-running Graham Crusades, the evangelist denied some key Christian doctrines, such as faith in Christ alone for salvation. Active in the ecumenical movement, he treated [[Roman Catholic]]s and [[Jews]] as spiritual equals and entrusted them with new believers. He has made numerous unbiblical, watered-down statements such as supporting abortion in the case of [[rape]]. He was a 33° Mason, which "take[s] sworn oaths to a pagan demonic god." Was an early admirer of Bill and Hillary Clinton, defended Clinton in the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal, and was also close to nominal [[Quaker]] [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Disciples of Christ]] adherent [[Lyndon B. Johnson]].<ref>Johnson, Christopher J. E. (July 17, 2013). [http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/graham.php Wolves in Costume: Billy Graham]. ''creationliberty.com''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> His son, [[Franklin Graham]], head of the charity Samaritan's Purse, is considered more conservative in matters of theology and political issues than was his father. Franklin Graham in 2018 released a new book, ''Through My Father's Eyes'', based on how his father's teachings impacted him.
*[[Amy Grant]] - Contemporary Christian artist. While married had an affair with country singer Vince Gill (also married); they then both divorced their spouses and married each other.
*[[Ted Haggard]] - disgraced former pastor of New Life Church.
*[[Adolf Hitler]] - leader of Nazi Germany. Responsible for the extermination of over 6,000,000 Jews.<ref>Despite being raised [[Roman Catholic]] and claiming that [[Jesus]] was his inspiration, Hitler was only using Christianity to gain favor with the German people. His true beliefs were based off of his [[social darwinism|social darwinistic]] views.</ref> In reality, Hitler was a Darwinian secularist who believed in adult fairy tale of evolution,<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/hitler-and-evolution/ Hitler and Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> hated and despised Christianity,<ref>John Baskette, [http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html Was Hitler a Christian?]. ''Answers in Action''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref><ref>Bergman, Jerry, Dr. (November 1, 1999). [https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/ Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref> and attempted to warp Christianity into a XINO organization that adhered to Nazi beliefs.<ref>Hodge, Bodie (July 13, 2009). [https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/the-results-of-evolution/ The Results of Evolution]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref>
*[[Jesse Jackson]] - media-seeking [[civil rights]] activist who claimed to have held the dying [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], at the 1968 assassination in [[Memphis]], [[Tennessee]]. The [[South Carolina]] native who has since lived for years in [[Chicago]], is a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Like Bill Clinton, who he mentored, Jackson has himself been involved in [[adultery]].
*[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
*[[Jim Jones]] - cult leader from [[California]].
*[[Helen Keller]]<ref>A rather radical [[Socialist]] from northern [[Alabama]], founding member of the anti-Christian [[American Civil Liberties Union]], and personal friend of [[Planned Parenthood]] founder [[Margaret Sanger]]. Most people know her, however, only from the inspirational film, ''The Miracle Worker'', with [[Patty Duke]].</ref>
*[[John Kerry]] - Democratic senator from Massachusetts and 2004 presidential nominee. Later as secretary of state failed in most of his missions.
*[[Joseph Kony]]
*The [[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Timothy McVeigh]] - perpetrator of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
*[[Michael Moore]] - anti-capitalist liberal film maker.
*[[Mormons]]
*[[Barack Obama]] - 44th President of the United States and member of the Democratic Party <ref>Barack Obama may be a special case. There is [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|much evidence]] that he may be a [[Muslim]] who is practicing ''[[taqiyya]],'' an Islamic custom which allows a Muslim to conceal his true religion if the adherent [[deceit|feels it would be beneficial to do so.]]</ref>
*[[Joel Osteen]] - runs a large "New Age" church in [[Houston, Texas|Houston]], [[Texas]]; seems more concerned about making people feel good about their state of sin, instead of accurately teaching the Word of God. This is called "the prosperity gospel."
*[[Nancy Pelosi]] - Democratic House Minority Leader from the [[San Francisco]] area; liberal Roman Catholic originally from [[Baltimore]], [[Maryland]].
*[[Sean Penn]] - liberal actor who portrayed on film the homosexual figure [[Harvey Milk]].
*[[Fred Phelps]] - Cult leader<ref>The leader of radical hyper-[[Calvinist]] church that protests the funerals of soldiers killed on duty. Because of his indecent and Un-American, and utterly un-Christian nature of this activity, he would appear to be Christian in name only. He was once aligned with Al Gore politically.</ref>
*[[Harry Reid]] - former Democratic Senate Majority Leader from [[Nevada]], who claims he is personally opposed to abortion but would not interfere with a woman seeking the procedure.
*[[Ben Roethlisberger]] - controversial [[NFL]] quarterback for [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] who committed assault.
*Much of the [[British]] Royal Family, who endorse [[homosexual marriage]] and have let the [[Anglican Church]] spiritually decline under their watch, as well as overall British culture. Conversely, [[Queen Victoria]] was a dedicated Christian when the British Empire was at its peak.
*Jerry Sandusky - retired head coach from [[Pennsylvania State University]] who was a convicted child molester and rapist.
*Susan Sarandon - liberal actress.
*[[Al Sharpton]] - hosts a show on [[MSNBC]]. Stirs up racial animosity throughout the nation.
*Martin Sheen - liberal actor.
*[[Charlie Sheen]] - liberal actor, conspiracy theorist, and son of Martin Sheen.
*[[Carrie Underwood]] - supports same-sex marriage and is a practicing vegan. Mocked President Trump on a country music awards show. Several of her songs espouse vengenance.
*[[Rick Warren]] - Operates a "New Age" style church in California. Gave the inaugural prayer at Obama's swearing-in as President. [[CFR]] member. Runs his church to gain members, not to preach the gospel.
*The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] of [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], formerly pastored by [[Fred Phelps]].
*[[Oprah Winfrey]] - Talk show host, media mogul, and occasional host on ''[[60 Minutes]]''. Endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.<ref>a liberal "Christian" and a [[New age movement|New-Age-style]] [[occult]]ist.</ref>
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] - Obama's pastor and preacher of Black Liberation Theology.

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Churchian]]
*[[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]]
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Fluffy bunny]]
*[[Indifference]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Sloth (sin)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Anti-Christianity]]