Defining "Gay"

Once again, I must profess my hatred for semantics; or, rather, I must profess my hatred for those times when a person who utterly lacks semantics unwittingly punches a hole in their reasoning skills because they do not understand how context works.

Instead of defining "atheism", I shall be defining "gay" this time around.  The adjective "gay" has four accepted definitions:

1. sexually attracted to a person of the same sex; homosexual
2. lighthearted and carefree; happy and exited
3. very bright in color
4. foolish, stupid, or unimpressive

Now, here is the main point of this entire article: at no point in using the word "gay" will you ever invoke every one of its definitions simultaneously.

A Lesson In Context

Whenever you hear a person speak, it is important that you are aware of the circumstances or situations that gave rise to the idea, event, or statement in question.  When you read a passage, it is important that you have also read the passages that immediately precede and follow the words or passages you are currently reading in order to understand and clarify the meaning of your selected text.  When consider a word, such as "gay", with its surrounding words or circumstances, you are taking that word in context.  When you ignore the surrounding words or circumstances, you have taken the word out of context, and therefore the meaning of the word is not fully understood.  Taking the word "gay" out of context is why so many people wantonly get upset when they hear it spoken aloud.

For example, let's say I declare, with a grin on my face, that "I am feeling gay!"  A person who understood what I said in context will understand instantly that I am feeling lighthearted or happy.  They will also understand that I am not saying that I am feeling stupid, or homosexual, or bright in color.  They would see my smiling face, hear the excitement in my voice, and understand with the utmost comprehension that in this context, "gay" means "happy".

Another example: let's say I want to buy something nice to treat myself, but later realize I lack the funds to do so.  In my frustration, I might remark, "Aw man!  I don't have enough money.  That is so gay!"  I ask you, would it make any shred of sense to conclude that I must be referring to this situation as being homosexual in nature?  The correct answer is no: it would make no sense to infer that I am using "gay" in any way other the intended meaning—the context in this case being "stupid".

The problem is that there are people on this earth who are quite neurotic and frankly inept at understanding things in their proper context.  These hypersensitive individuals erringly conclude that when I refer to something as "gay", I must be referring to that something as being homosexual, regardless of the context.  They then go on to insinuate that by doing so, I am somehow indirectly insulting every homosexual on the planet.

Two words: utter nonsense.  No one is being insulted.  You are simply choosing to be offended.

I cannot stress enough how important context is, and how often reasonable human beings take it for granted.  As individuals and intellectuals, we really do have a responsibility to educate ourselves thoroughly and properly, because our stupidity cannot just harm us.  It can also harm others.

Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, drunkenness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.     —Aristophanes 

Defining "Atheism"

One of my greatest pet peeves is semantics.  Too often, people become so caught up in what they think a certain word actually means that they miss the entire point of their conversation.  The word is not important, dear reader: the meaning is.

In recent years, people have been trying to redefine the word atheism.  The new definition that the New Oxford Dictionary offers for atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".  Google defines atheism in the same way, and so does Urban Dictionary, and American Atheists, and Atheism.org.  I, on the other hand, much prefer the proper and traditional definition of atheism which is used by the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language as well as theologians and philosophers the world over.  Here is the correct definition of atheism:

a·the·ism

ˈāTHēˌizəm

noun

The theological/philosophical stance which holds that the statement "There is at least one deity" is false.

I'll be frank: this new definition of atheism as a "lack of belief" is totally stupid.  It is incoherent, incomplete, and it suffers logically and philosophically.  Atheists aren't even fully aware of the implications of defining their atheism as such.  This new definition is nothing more than a pitiful attempt of avoiding the burden of proof that the claim "there is no god" thrusts upon them.

In a deceptive game of wordplay, atheists (most particularly the New Atheist movement) have been attempting to put the burden of proof completely on the theist by declaring, "I do not believe that no gods exist.  I do not believe that gods exist.  I merely lack belief in any gods.  I am ignorant to there being any deities at all.  I am not making any special knowledge claim."  Essentially, they are insisting that their theological stance is not a stance at all, because they are intellectually lazy and/or dishonest.  I find that all this really does is trivialize atheism.  It isn't very productive, it's intellectually dissatisfying, and in my humble opinion it is quite annoying.

On the Burden of Proof:

If a person makes a claim, then that person is a claimant.  A claimant is a person who says "I know something that is true."  The burden of proof dictates that the claimant is solely responsible for proving that his claim is true.  Here is an example: I am a Christian, and I thusly make the claim that God does exist.  For this reason, I, the claimant, have the burden of proof: I alone am responsible for proving my claim.  It would be fallacious for me to attempt to ignore or shirk the burden of proof by saying, "Prove me wrong", or "You can't prove that I'm wrong".  It is not your job to prove or disprove my claim.  It is my job, and mine alone.  Since I am making a knowledge claim, I am responsible for proving that my claim to knowledge is true.

Many atheists do not want the burden of proof, often because the burden of proof is too much for the atheist to handle (either because they are intellectually lazy, dishonest, or they simply can't find any sufficient proof to support their claim that no gods exist).  They try to avoid it by either saying, "Well, I merely lack a belief in a god or gods" or "Atheism isn't a claim; it's a response to a claim".  No, it is indeed a claim.

Making a Diagnosis

I'll make things very simple for everyone with a simple litmus test.  This test will be able to tell you whether a person is a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic.  All you have to do is ask one yes/no question, and the person's answer will determine their theological position.

Ask someone the question: "Is there a god?"  If he answers "yes", then he is a theist.  If he answers "no", then he is an atheist.  If he answers "I do not know" or "I am not sure", then he is an agnostic.

It is very important that the test remain in the form of a question, and not a statement.  By asking a question, you are prompting the person you are asking to make a knowledge claim.  This is why we ask questions.  Questions are how humans request knowledge claims.  Answers are knowledge claims.  Therefore, by asking "Is there a god?" you are forcing the person you are asking to make a claim to knowledge.  You can also word the question by using the definition I provided earlier—"Do you think the claim 'There is at least one deity' is true or false?"  If they answer "true", then again, they are theists.  If they answer "false", they are atheists, and if they answer, "I don't know/I'm not sure", they are agnostic.

I'll make this abundantly clear: Agnostics are the ones who lack a belief in God, not atheists.

So, What Is An Atheist?

Philosophy is in essence the pursuit of knowledge.  Science is the most commonplace form of philosophy.  Science is an empirical philosophy: the pursuit of knowledge by means of observation and measurement.  By defining atheism as a lack of belief, atheists are asserting that atheism is not a philosophical stance, but instead an autobiographical summary of their current psychological state.

I find this utterly laughable, because given this new definition of atheism, my cat, Mouser, is an atheist.  Mouser utterly lacks belief in any sort of deity, so he is an atheist by this new definition.  What is more, my laptop which I am using to type out this blog is also an atheist, because my laptop not only lacks belief in a god, but also lacks belief in anything!  My doorknob and my beard likewise lack belief in a god, so these things are atheists as well.  Most interestingly: the neurons firing in my brain—which I use to profess my belief in God—are themselves atheists.  As you can see, this new definition of atheism is completely trivial and not meaningful.  It certainly wasn't thought through.

This new definition, as I've said several times already, is intellectually dissatisfying, because even if atheism really is simply a lack of belief, it doesn't help to answer the question so many of us are asking: "Is there a god or not?"

Now, let's say that the New Atheists have their day, and everyone universally agrees to redefine atheism as being a lack of belief in a god.  That still does not mean that only theists have the burden of proof, because there will still be people who make the claim "There are no gods", and these people will still have the burden of proof.

The only difference is that we won't call them atheists.  We'll just call them something else instead.

And that, dear reader, is why I hate semantics.

The Analogous Trilogy: Abortion, Slavery, and Guns for Hire

If you support abortion, you must also support slavery and guns for hire.

Now that I have your attention, I shall elucidate.  I am not a slave owner, nor do I support slavery.  I am not an advocate for human trafficking, nor am I a racist, nor a misogynist, nor an abortionist.  I am an abolitionist against both abortion and slavery, and I am calling the Pro-Choice movement out on their outrageous inconsistencies.

I will present various popular arguments used in support of abortion, and then demonstrate how they can also logically be used to support either slavery or guns for hire.  I will be doing this to show why these arguments for abortion ultimately admit that the human fetus is being mistreated, abused, and murdered every time one is aborted.

I have covered the two most general arguments below.  I shall add more analogies after this post has been published as they are brought to my attention.

"My body; my choice." is analogous to "My plantation; my prerogative."

Many pro-choice advocates assert that the woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body.  They also claim that the fetus inside of a pregnant woman is a part of her body.  Therefore, the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses.

Advocates for slavery assert that the slave owner has the right to do whatever they want with their own property.  They also claim that slaves are like cattle, and in this way are the property of the slave owner.  Therefore, the slave owner has the right to buy, sell, put to work, beat, and kill the slave if he so chooses.

Neither of these arguments provide apt justification for the following reasons:

1. They dehumanize their respective victims.
   
   
   Pro-choice advocates liken the fetus to a clump of cells.  No one would object to the killing of cells, because cells are not capable of feeling pain.  The reality is that the fetus is biologically separate from the mother.  This can be proven by the fact that, if the blood of the fetus is shared with the blood of the mother, both the mother and the baby would die.  The DNA of the fetus and the DNA of the mother will also always be completely, 100% distinguishable from each other.  This same DNA will also show that the fetus is homo sapiens sapiens, and is indeed human.  Therefore, it follows that the unborn is a human being being denied the same right to life as its mother.
   
   
   In the same way, pro-slavery advocates liken the slave to cattle.  Cattle are put to work in fields, butchered, and skinned for their hide to benefit mankind every day.  Cattle do not have human rights because they are inferior animals.  This is the mentality of slave owners.  Slaves are animals that can be traded, put to work for no pay (no one would ever pay a cow except in food), and killed or sold when their usefulness comes to an end.  The reality is that all slaves are human beings who are denied the same rights to freedom as their human masters.
   
   
2. They assume ownership where they should not.
   
   Pro-choice advocates say that because a fetus resides within the mother, then the fetus belongs to and is a part of the woman's body.  This claim is unfounded and ultimately selfish.  If you accept that the self owns the self, then you must conclude that the fetus owns itself, and not the mother.  Therefore, the mother is obligated to provide the fetus with its basic human rights, as the mother does with all other human beings under her care.
   
   Pro-slavery advocates say that because slave owners buy their slaves, and that because those slaves live on their plantation, then the slave owners do indeed own their slaves.  This claim is unfounded and ultimately selfish as well.  If you accept that the self owns the self, that every human being is entitled to self-ownership, then you must conclude that the slave owns himself, and not his master.  Therefore their masters are obligated to release their slaves and provide them with the same rights that they themselves are given as free human beings.  We saw this happen as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation in the 1860s and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.  I hope similar situations happen with abortion.
   
   
3. They imply that ownership justifies neglect and abuse.
   
   Pro-choice advocates say that the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body.  The woman is therefore allowed to get tattoos, paint her nails, put on make-up, mutilate her skin, amputate her limbs, and eliminate anything growing inside of her uterus.  While I uphold the ideology of self-ownership, I also argue that if you own something—even yourself—you are morally obligated to care for your own property.  If you are not willing to care for your possessions, you do not deserve to have it in the first place.  Failing to care for your own things demonstrates laziness, apathy, and selfishness on your part.  If you are pregnant, care for the child growing within you, or at the very least, put it up for adoption when it is born so that someone else can care for it.  Do not murder it.
   
   Pro-slavery advocates say that a slave owner can do whatever he likes with his property on his plantation.  This includes their slaves.  The slave owner is therefore able to brand, beat, whip, mutilate, amputate, and kill his slaves.  If you are not going to treat your slave well, then you wasted your money by buying one.  If you have a slave, take good care of him, or better yet, emancipate him!  If you're not willing to do either of those, at the very least sell him to another slave owner who will take good care of him.  Do not abuse another human being.
   
   

"My life was improved because I aborted." is analogous to "My live was improved because I hired an assassin to kill my husband."

A woman finds herself pregnant.  She is now faced with the financial struggle of having to pay for doctor's appointments, baby clothes, baby accessories, baby food, diapers, and insurance to cover both herself and her child.  She may or may not have a husband to support her financially as well as emotionally.  She will have to face nearly a full year of physical pain and hormonal hurricanes, and at the end will have to endure the outrageously massive pain of delivery, where her situation will still not improve.  Think of how much easier her life would be if she was able to hire a third party (trained doctors) to terminate her pregnancy.

Let's say that a woman finds herself in an abusive relationship.  She is now faced with the financial struggle of having to pay for things she needs like food and clothing while her partner wastes it on beer and porn magazines, and also has to pay for the visits to the doctor to fix her broken bones and bruised ribs when he or she beats her.  She may or may not be seeking for help from friends, and therefore may or may not have the emotional support she needs.  Her attempts to divorce her partner have failed due to legal complications, as well as not being able to afford a lawyer, and her attempts to escape from him/her have resulted in her being severely punished.  She is stuck with her partner, and sees no end to her suffering.  Think of how much easier her life would be if she was able to hire a third party (trained assassins) to terminate her abusive partner.

Neither of these arguments provide apt justification for the following reasons:

1. Appealing to emotion cannot justify anything.
   
   While both arguments appear to present a strong case for what they are trying to defend (abortion and guns for hire), they are both in reality logical fallacies.  They attempt to manipulate an emotional response instead of providing an actual, concrete, compelling argument.  In the end, neither case even comes close to validating what they are trying to support.  All they really do is tug at your heartstrings in an attempt to manipulate you into allowing them to commit violence.
   
   
2. In the end, murder is still murder, no matter who carries it out.
   
   No matter what your reasons are for killing another human being, you must have the reality that you have killed a human being.  Even the woman who has her life threatened by her husband every day, if she hires a third party to kill him, has committed premeditated murder, and would face criminal charges.  Abortion is not self-defense.  Abortion is murder by a third party, i.e. doctors with degrees instead of assassins with bullets.
   
   
3. Women are not the only ones with the right to live.
   
   Women's rights are very important, and the Women's Rights movement is a noble one.  Feminism is also a movement with good intentions at its core.  However, one must not put so much focus on the rights of women that one infringes on the rights of others as a result.
   
   As Gianna Jessen, a survivor of a failed saline abortion attempt, said: "My life was being snuffed out in the name of Women's Rights."
   
   That is not to say that we should do away with the rights of women!  Make no mistake!  The point is that human rights are for the betterment of humanity, and not for the betterment of a single, entitled party.  If a woman has the right to choose what is done with her own body, then every unborn baby girl must automatically have the right to life until she can choose for herself whether or not to continue living.  Even if a woman is in an abusive relationship, that does not give her the right to hire a third party to do the dirty work for her.  That is not self-defense, as I said previously.  That is premeditated murder.

Trivial Thought God's Antithesis: Revisited

In one of my earlier posts, I attempted to determine God's antithesis, the direct opposite of the Christian God. What could possibly be the polar opposite of God in every aspect?  If you read the blog, you will see that I didn't get very far.  I did root out the problem, however: I was being too specific.

I was also making another big mistake: I assumed that God actually had an antithesis.  I have since found out that He does not.

The Perks of Being Maximally Great:

If God exists, then He must exist as a maximally great being.  To have maximal greatness, you must be superior to all other things in every respect.  You must be supremely perfect.  From this, you must conclude that if God exists, then He must be omniscient, omnipresent, causeless, timeless, and morally perfect.  His existence is therefore also necessary.

There is no antithesis to a maximally great being; only entities that are not maximally great.  That is to say, anything that is not maximally great could be a potential antithesis to a maximally great being.  One could propose that nothing is God's antithesis, but since absolute nothingness cannot logically exist, then it cannot be said to be God's antithesis.  It would be more appropriate to say that not anything is God's antithesis.

Looking back on my previous post on this topic, it was rather embarrassing.

A Logic Bomb: Know Your LOGICAL FALLACIES!

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.  Think of it as a trick or illusion of thought.  In an argument or debate, a fallacy is an error in a person's argument, which can lead to faulty conclusions.  Despite this, an argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.  I am writing this to spread awareness of the existence of these acts of illogic, as well as to make an appeal to coherency.

Basically, I shall introduce a logical fallacy, describe it, and then provide an example.  There is a website that provides similar services and is an excellent source, which can be found here.

So, without further ado, some fallacies:

The Straw Man Argument

The name of this fallacy is a metaphor.  It is easier to attack a man made of straw than to attack a man made of flesh and bone.  To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a claim or argument by replacing (often called "misrepresenting") it with a superficially similar yet unequal argument.  You then refute your fabricated argument, making it appear that you have refuted the original proposition.  A common example of a Straw Man Argument is when someone refutes a quote taken out of context.

Here's another example:
I make the claim that sunny days are good.  Someone could say that I am wrong, because if all days were sunny, then we would have no rain which would result in famine and death.

This is a Straw Man fallacy because I never said that I felt that all days should be sunny.  All I said was that sunny days are good.  While you can make the argument that not all sunny days are good, the example above misrepresented what I said, and therefore never actually challenged my claim.

The False Cause Fallacy

A False Cause Fallacy occurs when people conflate correlation with causation.  Sometimes, people assume that because two things have a relationship between each other, then one is the cause of the other.  This is not necessarily true.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody deity which was created to demonstrate a false cause fallacy within Christianity: that the high numbers of disasters, famines, and wars in the world is due to the lack of respect and worship toward God.

In the Pastafarian example, a chart is shown graphing the steady rise in temperature over the past few centuries.  The graph also points out that at the same rate the global temperature was increasing, the number of pirates on earth was decreasing.  Thus, pirates cool the world, and global warming is an outright fabrication.

The Regression Fallacy

Similar to False Cause, this fallacy assumes that there is a cause when none exists.  This happens when you have something, such as a golf score, that fluctuates on its own, but you assume that this fluctuation is the result of something else, such as changing your grip on the golf club.

If you have chronic back pain, and see a doctor about the pain, and then your back pain subsides, the Regression Fallacy would be concluding that you therefore benefitted from the doctor's treatment.  While that may have been the case, chronic back pain comes and goes with or without the intervention of a doctor.  Therefore, it is possible that the back pain would have subsided on its own.

The Regression Fallacy gets its name from the fact that natural fluctuations usually regress towards the mean or average out.  This gives the illusion of cause and effect when there is none.

The Appeal to Emotion

This fallacy is commonly found within controversial topics, such as homosexuality and abortion.  It occurs when someone replaces a valid argument with an attempt to get an emotional reaction.  Instead of arguing, you simply play with people emotions.  Guilt Tripping is an example of Appeal to Emotion.

To quote yourlogicalfallacyis.com:

It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position.

For example, let's say you don't want to eat something that has been put in front of you.  I want you to eat it, so I may say, "Think of all the starving children in Africa who are lucky to eat anything at all!"  In saying that, I did not once give you a good reason to eat your food.  All I did was try to make you guilty over a completely unrelated issue.

Some examples of Appealing to Emotion are wishful thinking, guilt tripping, mockery (God is an evil tyrant, so he cannot possible exist!), and flattery.

The Fallacy Fallacy

This is like the Inception of logical fallacies.  Basically, you assume that something is wrong simply because it was poorly argued or a fallacy was committed.  As I mentioned earlier, an argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true, so the fallacy fallacy assumes that if you make a fallacy, your conclusion must be wrong.

Let's say I commit a Bandwagon Fallacy (more on that later).  Say I tell you that we should eat bacon because it is popular.  A fallacy fallacy would be to say that because I made a fallacy while trying to get you to eat more bacon, we should therefore boycott bacon entirely, or eating bacon is therefore wrong.

The Slippery Slope

This fallacy assumes that if one thing happens, then something bad must happen; therefore, the first thing should not happen.  To put it another way, if A happens, then B will happen, followed by C, and so on all the way to Z; because Z is bad, A should not happen, because it leads to Z.

This is a fallacy because it doesn't address the issue at hand.  Instead, it distracts the argument with a bunch of exaggerated hypothetical situations which may or may not ever happen.  Unless you can prove, with statistical data or another form of evidence, that the hypothetical situations will in fact occur, your argument will not be valid.

A common example is one argument against the legalization of homosexual marriage which claims if we allow men to marry men, then eventually people will be wanting to marry their pets or their cars; therefore, we should not let gays marry.  There is no statistical evidence to support that these things would happen, and so this argument is a Slippery Slope fallacy.

Ad Hominem

This is a shortening of the Latin phrase argumentum ad homenim, meaning an argument to the man.  This is what happens when you attack a person's character or personality rather than challenge their argument.

A demonstration:

I made Claim X.
I also have Trait Y.
You say that because I have Trait Y, therefore Claim X is false.

An example:

I made the claim that evolution is not true (Claim X).
I am a college dropout (Trait Y).
You say that because I am a college dropout (I have Trait Y), no one should take my claim (Claim X) seriously.

This is a fallacy because no evidence was provided in favor of or against my original claim.  Also, I'd like to point out that Ad Hom. is different than simply name-calling.

Guilt By Association can sometimes be an example of Ad Hom.

The Nirvana Fallacy

Instead of attacking a person's character, you can criticize their argument for not being perfect.  Often times, problems are very difficult to solve, and not every solution is perfect.  A solution to this fallacy is Occam's Razor, which says that the solution with the fewest assumptions is the preferred solution.  The solution selected by Occam's Razor may not always be the right or correct solution, but it helps eliminate candidates and allows you to start addressing the problem.  At any rate, one should not dismiss an argument simply because it is imperfect.  Disregarding the theory of evolution on the grounds that "it doesn't have all the answers" would be a Nirvana fallacy.

Tu Quoque

This is a Latin phrase meaning "you too".  This fallacy is also called "An Appeal to Hypocrisy", and is similar to Ad Hominem.  You say that because I am a hypocrite, my argument is therefore invalid.  This is common in debates when Person A says that Person B has made a fallacy, but rather than defending his argument, Person B accuses Person A of committing a fallacy earlier in the debate.

"You just committed a logical fallacy!"
"Yeah?  Well, you committed a logical fallacy before I did, so shut up!"

This is a fallacy because it shifts the spotlight from the person who just made a fallacy to the accuser.  It's a dishonest way of covering one's tracks, and is therefore an example of a "red herring" (more on that later).  While a person's hypocrisy should be addressed, this does not mean that the accuse is exempt from defending their own arguments.

Personal Incredulity

The premise of this fallacy is simple: you don't understand something, or you think something is confusing; therefore, it's probably wrong.  I call this fallacy an "Appeal to Ignorance".  To avoid committing this fallacy, refrain from making a judgement on something you do not understand, and address it later after you've done some research.

The Big Bang is a tricky concept to understand, but it would be a Personal Incredulity fallacy to say, "Well, I don't see how nothing can magically explode into everything, so the Big Bang is a load of hooey!"  If you want to debunk the Big Bang Theory, try mentioning that its title is grossly inaccurate instead. (It's not actually a "Big Bang"; it's more of an "Everywhere Stretch".)

Special Pleading

For some reason or another, people don't like being wrong, and some of us will do anything to cover our tracks to avoid that happening.  Special Pleading is a fallacy that happens when you make up excuses for why your claim seems false.

For instance, I can claim that I can jump 10 feet in the air, but when I try to prove my claim, I only jump a foot.  Seeing that my claim has been shown to be false, I will use the Special Pleading fallacy: I say that you need to have faith for my jumping skills to kick in.  Since you did not have faith, that is why I did not jump 10 feet like I said I could.

Special Pleading is very common in faith instances, because we'd rather believe whatever we feel like, rather than changing our views whenever new data is presented.  This is why many people think that science and religion do not mix.

The Loaded Question

A loaded question is a question that is rigged to explode.  It is essentially a Yes/No question with a presumption built into it, so that no matter how the person answers it, they still look guilty of something.  Loaded Questions are often used to catch one's opponent off-guard with a question that assumes they are guilty of something, putting them on the defensive and appearing flustered.

One example would be attempting to throw suspicion on your opponent (and thereby derailing the debate) by asking him, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

If he answers yes, then he implies that he has beat his wife in the past.  If he answers no, then he implies that he is currently abusing his wife.  Either way, he is put in a bad light, and the attention (along with the scrutiny) is taken off of you.

An easy way to diffuse a loaded question is to either point out the presumption built into the question, or to give a non-Yes/No answer.  For example:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Your question makes no sense; I have never beaten my wife.  Please stop including assumptions in your questions.

"I noticed you didn't stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.  Why do you hate our soldiers?"
I have never once stated that I hate soldiers, nor have I ever expressed hatred towards them.  Please stop making blind assumptions.

The Burden of Proof

If you make a claim, you are the one who gets to prove it.  If people challenge your claim, they don't have to make any effort to disprove it.  Since you're talking, you get to back up your words.  End of story.  The Burden of Proof, therefore, rests on the shoulders of the claimant alone.

The Burden of Proof fallacy is often seen in "prove me wrong" scenarios.  Bertrand Russell demonstrated this fallacy by claiming that there was a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars.  At the time of his claim, there were no telescopes strong enough to disprove his claim.  The fallacy is made when someone says that since no one can disprove Russell's claim, it is therefore a valid claim.

It is helpful to remember that scientific methodology operates on evidence, not lack of evidence.  Things are not true because they can't be disproven.  Things are true because they are repeatedly shown to be true.  If you want people to take you seriously in the scientific community, you need to learn how to prove (or disprove) your own claims.  Also, a claims validity is not contingent on its ability to be proven or disproven.

The Ambiguity Fallacy

I hate debates on semantics, because everyone uses their own definitions for certain words in order to manipulate the argument in their favor.  That's what the Ambiguity Fallacy does: it uses a double-meaning of a word to create confusion, to mislead, or to misrepresent the truth.

I see supporters of the Big Bang Theory commit this fallacy all the time.  Many of them say that energy—not God—is eternal, always having existed.  I have to remind them that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and certainly cannot create itself, nor cause itself to exist before the Big Bang (time did not exist before the Big Bang).  Their response is either that nothing does not actually mean nothing (at which point I offer to buy them a dictionary) or that nothing simply equals 0 (which is mathematically untrue, considering zero is a whole number).  Both responses are appealing to the ambiguity of the word "nothing".  They are both fallacies by ambiguity.

A more formal example was provided by Aristotle:

P1) Socrates is Greek.
P2) Greek is a language.
C) Therefore, Socrates is a language.

In P1, Aristotle used one definition of the word "Greek".  In P2, he swapped out the first definition (referring to the people of Greece) for the second definition (referring to the language spoken in Greece).  This bait-and-switch led to the false conclusion that Socrates is a language.

The Gambler's Fallacy

This fallacy effectively built the city of Las Vegas, Nevada.  If you toss a coin, your chance of landing heads-up or tails-up is 50/50 every time.  The Gambler's Fallacy assumes that if you constantly land heads-up, you are more likely to land tails-down on the next flip.  This is not true: your chances are still 50/50, even if you flip heads a thousand times in a row (which is mathematically possible, but statistically rare).  Here's why:

"The system has no memory." 

—John Norton

That coin doesn't remember what face it landed on when you last flipped it, so it's still going to retain its 50/50 chance of landing either heads-up or tails-up.  Each flip of the coin is statistically independent of every other flip.

Things associated with Gambler's Fallacies are Roulette Wheels, Punnett Squares, Slot Machines, and Dice.

The Bandwagon

This is not only a logical fallacy, but also a propaganda tactic.  It is also known as the "Everybody's Doing It" pitch and the "Appeal to Popularity Fallacy".  The premise of the fallacy is that if many believe something is true, then it is true.  It assumes that the popularity of something can give it validation, which is not true.

Christianity is the most popular religion in the entire world, but that doesn't mean that Christianity is necessarily true.  Over 2 billion people practice Christianity, but just because they are strong in numbers does not make them right.  If this were true, then at one point in human history, the earth really was flat.

Reality does not bend to satisfy popular belief.  Reality is entirely independent of one's beliefs and perceptions.

The Appeal to Authority

If you've seen a commercial of a celebrity endorsing a product, you've seen the Appeal to Authority.  This fallacy asserts that a person's title or status gives their claims validity.  A scientist who makes a claim isn't right just because he is a scientist; he is right because he has tested his theories and published his observations to be reviewed by everyone, and his findings were found to be true.  Basically, this fallacy thinks that people in authority are inherently correct.

Let's say that I'm making a case against evolution.  I could Appeal to Authority by saying that I know a professor who questions evolution.  That does not close the case.  Now both the professor and I have to support our claims that evolution is false.  His being a learned scholar does not validate his claims.

And now, a disclaimer from yourlogicalfallacyis.com:

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.  Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but neither is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.  However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

The Composition/Division Fallacy

With this fallacy, one must assume that a thing of many parts must be like all of its parts, or that its parts are just like other parts of it.  This happens because we see that many things are consistent, so often we just assume that there are consistencies in places where they don't actually exist.

Leaves aren't very heavy.  Neither are garbage bags.  I figured that if I put a million leaves into a garbage bad, I'd be able to carry it no problem, because the bag full of leaves would be light since the leaves and the bag itself are also light.  This is not true (a million leaves in a bag is quite heavy).  The bag of leaves (the Composition) is heavy, whereas the leaves themselves (a Division) and the bag itself (another Division) are light.

It is entirely possible that if something is true for a part of something, it can also be true for the whole thing.  The fallacy lies in assuming that this is always the case.

The Masked Man Fallacy

This fallacy has two other names: the Intensional Fallacy and the Epistemic Fallacy.  It is a fallacy derived from a misunderstanding of Leibniz's Law of the Identity of Indiscernibles.  Leibniz's Law states that if there are any two things, and if they are identical to each other, then for what is true of one it will be true of the other.  The misunderstanding occurs when two identical things do not appear to be identical, but are still identical regardless.

For example, let's say that I know a man named Jones.  I know who Jones is.  Now, suppose I meet a masked man on the street.  The Masked Man Fallacy would be for me to say that because I know who Jones is, and I do not know who the masked man is, Jones is therefore not the masked man.  Jones may very well be the masked man, which would make Jones and the masked man identical.  Lois Lane no doubt committed this very fallacy when she concluded that Superman was not Clark Kent, despite them being the same person.

"No True Scotsman..."

So, two Scotsmen were eating some porridge.  One of them claimed "Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge", to which the second Scotsman replied, "I am a Scotsman, and I do put sugar on my porridge."  In response, the first Scotsman declared, "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!"

Thusly this fallacy was named.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is also called "The Appeal to Purity".  It is a method of dismissing relevant criticisms or flaws in your argument, or as a method of covering your tracks in order to avoid embarrassment.

For instance, I once participated in a golf tournament with my dad and some of his friends.  A few of my friends were on another team, which did not score as well as my team.  Rather than accept their position on the scoreboard, one of them said, "You used Mulligans to improve your score; we didn't.  No true golfer uses Mulligans.  We played true golf."  (Rather than point out the fallacy to him, I let it slide and bought him a drink.)

The Genetic Fallacy

Genetics determine the origin of something, and this fallacy assumes that a claim is wrong based solely on the grounds of from where or from whom the claim originated.  A great example of this fallacy is found in the defense of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's pitch is that it is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit".  If that is the case, then the possibility of inaccurate or incomplete information being published to the site is likely.  You have to be careful when using Wikipedia as a research tool, and should always cross-reference its articles with other sources of information, as you would do for any thorough research project.

The fallacy rears its ugly head when a teacher says, "You may not use Wikipedia articles in your Works Cited page because Wikipedia is not an accurate source."  This throws a negative shadow over Wikipedia articles, and ignores the actual truthiness of the articles in question.  It is similar to Ad Hominem for this reason; it uses preexisting negative connotations to make a claim or argument appear invalid.

A rampant example of this fallacy is saying, "You can't believe everything you hear on the internet", after seeing rumors about yourself posted online.  This is a fallacy whether or not the rumors are true.  Just because it is easy to publish falsehoods online does not mean that everything on the internet is not true.

Black & White Reasoning

This is also known as the Either/Or Fallacy or the False Dilemma.  It is an extremely dishonest debate tactic that often looks like a coherent, logical argument.  This fallacy assumes that only two possibilities can exist for a given situation, and that only one of those possibilities can be true.  This presents a dilemma, a circumstance wherein there are only two options, and neither are entirely favorable.  However, in a debate setting, dilemmas rarely occur.  This binary illogic doesn't consider the variables, contexts, or other conditions that the real world possesses.  In real-world scenarios, you are hard-pressed to find a situation in which there are only two possibilities.

For example, the phrase "you are either with us or against us" is a false dilemma.  If I do not align myself with a certain party (a political party, for example), it does not necessarily follow that I must align myself with the opposing party.  Indeed, there are other possibilities in this scenario.  I could align with a third party, or even with no party at all.  I could be completely neutral or apathetic towards all parties.

If something is not white, that does not necessarily make it black.  It could be black, of course, but it could be a multitude of colors, or even a combination of colors.  Thus, Black & White Reasoning is illogical.

Begging the Question

I encountered this fallacy while having a discussion with a Mormon.  I had asked him how he knew that the Book of Mormon was true.  He then showed me a section of the Book's preface where it informed me that Book of Mormon was indeed true, and was also comparable to the Bible in terms of religious priority.

In essence, his argument was that the Book of Mormon is true because the Book of Mormon said it was true.

A person begs the question in a debate when they make an argument where the conclusion is included in the premise of the argument.  Thus, the argument becomes circular, as the conclusion is within the premise, rather than the conclusion logically following the premise.  For instance:

1) Claim X assumes that x is true.
2) Therefore, Claim X is true.

My favorite example is, We know the Bible is false because Atheism is true.  I've actually heard a person use that in an argument.  The argument assumes that Atheism is true, which is not logically axiomatic, and therefore this argument is circular.  What this argument is really saying is Atheism is true because it isn't false.  It's a never ending circle of faulty logic.

Begging the Question is often called Circular Reasoning, but that is not entirely accurate.  Begging the Question is a particular type of vicious Circular Reasoning.  There are certain situations where Circular Reasoning is acceptable.

The Appeal to Nature

Many people assume that if something happens naturally, then it must be okay or valid.  This is not necessarily true.  It's easy to think that natural things are good, but making such a broad generalization makes it easier for us to fall into logical traps, such as the Appeal to Nature.

To commit this fallacy, simply assume that natural things can be justified by their naturalness.  I know a few advocates of the LGBT movement who attempt to justify same-sex marriage by saying it is a natural thing that has been practiced for centuries.  I exposed their appeal to nature by stating that rape is also natural (mallard ducks have been observed to rape their mates, often in a rather aggressive manner), so by their logic, rape should be just as acceptable as gay marriage.  I made a few enemies that day, but my point nevertheless got across.

Anecdotes

An anecdote is a short, often personal, story.  Anecdotes are great for casual conversation, but be careful not to use them as a substitute for a rational argument.  Personal experiences often do not match up with statistically verifiable data, so using an anecdote to refute a point is a logical fallacy.

For example, I can prove in 4 points or less why abortion is not only unethical, but also an illogical practice.  Despite my rationally-constructed points, women try to dismiss my arguments by essentially giving me their life story, explaining how getting an abortion was beneficial to their lives.

Not only was their "argument" merely a selfish justification, it also did absolutely nothing to refute the logical points I presented them with.  They outright ignored my argument and instead gave me an emotionally-charged personal testimony.  That does not a coherent argument make.

A more specific example: your statistical odds of having a coin flip and land heads-up is 50/50.  Now, suppose you flip a quarter 100 times, and it lands heads-up 77 times.  If you then said, "I flipped a quarter 100 times, and it fell on heads 77 times, so the chance of a quarter landing on heads is 77%," you would be committing an anecdotal fallacy.  You used an anecdote to dodge statistical data.

The Texas Sharpshooter

There is a story of a Texan marksman who shot at random points on the wall of a barn.  Afterwards, he painted a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes he had made.  This made it look like he was an excellent shot, when in fact all he did was focused on the cluster that best supported his claim of being a sharpshooter.

Similarly, it is easy to focus on data clusters that support your claims, while ignoring instances where the data differs.  A false conclusion arises when you focus on similarities and ignore differences.

If you are a Texas Sharpshooter, you present skewed statistics or take quotes or points out of context to fit your argument.  Indeed, quoting a source out of context is the most common example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.  Every attempt to find cryptograms in the Bible has been shown to be a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.  The author of The DaVinci Code is likewise a Texas Sharpshooter.

Suppose I make a claim that is false.  I don't want to admit that I'm wrong, so I do a quick Google search and find an article that supports my claim.  If I present this article and say "Aha!  I was right all along!  Here is my source." that is a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, because I have ignored all of the sources that contradict my claim and focused on the only source that supported my claim.  In reality, my source was just as incorrect as I was.

The Fallacy of the Middle Ground

Making a compromise to avoid an argument or to avoid Black & White extremes is hazardous to the coherency of your points.  The Fallacy of the Middle Ground is a fallacy wherein you say that the middle ground between two extremes must be true.  While it is true that many times the truth does lie between two extremes, that does not mean that the middle point must be true.  This fallacy is similar to Black & White reasoning in this regard.

At times, one or both of two extremes might be true.  Likewise, on or both of two extremes might be false.  Sometimes, things are just untrue, and by extension, compromises drawn from these untruths are also untrue.

For example, many scientists agree that Evolution is true.  However, there are some scientists who disagree, and posit that the species of the earth are intelligently designed, rather than having evolved.  A Middle Ground fallacy would be to compromise that Theistic Evolution—or at least a guided evolutionary process—must therefore be true, without offering any other evidence in support of your claim.

The Appeal to Probability

People like to take statistical probabilities for granted, ignoring the fact that we live in a chaotic world where randomness abounds.  Appealing to probability does exactly that.   I will use Murphy's Law as an example.  Murphy's Law states that "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."  However, to say that something can go wrong, therefore it will go wrong is an invalid conclusion.  You cannot make a logical deduction by using an inductive argument.

P1) There is an 80% chance that it will rain tomorrow.
P2) Because it will probably rain tomorrow, then it will rain tomorrow.
C) Therefore, it will rain tomorrow.

The Argument from Silence

It is easy for us to say that because there is no evidence for something, it must therefore be false.  One's conclusion should not be based on the absence of evidence; rather, the conclusion should be based on the existence of evidence.

For example, there is no evidence to suggest that I am a kangaroo.  However, there is evidence to suggest that I am a human.  The conclusion that I am a human should be drawn from the fact that there is evidence to support my humanity.  One should not conclude that I am not a kangaroo simply because there is a lack of evidence to support this claim.

A more relevant example would be to say that because there is a lack of evidence for the existence of there being a deity, no deities must exist.  When there is no evidence to support a positive claim, try looking for evidence to support the negative claim.  If you can find no evidence for or against a claim, I would recommend either amending the claim or finding a new one.

The Appeal to Tradition

It's easy to conclude that just because something has been held true for a long time, then it must genuinely be true.  If this were the case, however, then the earth, at one point in time, actually was orbited by the sun and the other planets, as it was widely held to be the case for centuries.

It can be hazardous for someone to be "set in their ways", because ones ways could be wrong.  There was a time when dark-skinned humans were traditionally believed to be cursed, which was used to justify the African slave trade.  Indeed, some people still hold to this tradition, despite the overwhelming evidence which demonstrated a noted lack of any curse resulting in dark skin.

The opposite of this fallacy is the Appeal to Novelty, which asserts that an idea is superior because it is new or modern.  Appealing to Tradition or Novelty are both equally fallacious.

The Fallacy of Relative Privation

This fallacy is an appeal to worse problems.  It asserts that a person's claim should be ignored because there are more important issues or problems in the world that should be addressed instead.  This is a fallacy because it does nothing to refute or debunk the person's claim.  It merely shifts the spotlight away from the claim so that doesn't have to be addressed.

A common example of this fallacy is as follows: "If you are prepared to feed the homeless people in your city, what about the starving children in Africa?"  Here, it is easier to see that this fallacy implies that any issue less serious than starving Africans is not worthy of discussion.  It is often used to protest inconsistent behavior or to deflect a criticism against oneself.

Red Herrings

This is the logical fallacy I am most commonly guilty of, though not always intentionally.  A red herring is a point or argument that is used to distract the debate from the original topic being discussed.  The red herring argument is often easier to speak to, which is why they crop up in debates.  It is important to keep the original topic in focus, otherwise the debate will follow a series of rabbit trails, and the original points will not be addressed.

A few months ago, some of my peers and I were debating on the implications of Separation of Church and State.  One of my friends made the point that we do indeed have such a separation here in America.  I put forth the red herring argument that Separation of Church and State does not appear in the United States Constitution.  Thankfully, my friend caught me, explained how it appears in several other important American documents, and steered the debate back towards the original topic.  I was embarrassed afterwards.

Appeals to Emotion, Authority, and Nature, as well as Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque fallacies are other variations of red herring arguments.

The Hasty Generalization

Generalization is very dangerous, because it often leads to unwarranted assumptions.  Hasty generalizations are similar to Composition/Division Fallacies: they assume that because a small sample of something is a certain way, then that something must always be that way.

For example, it can be observed that birds have wings.  All the birds I have seen fly.  Therefore, all birds fly.  This is a hasty generalization because while generally birds are flying animals, certain birds, such as the penguin, do not fly.  Just because something is generally true does not mean that it is always true.

Stereotypes are a great example of the hasty generalization.  It's easy to say that everyone in a certain people group is exactly the same in one aspect, because that way we don't have to think as hard.  Reputations are the same way.  We like to generalize because it makes things easier to understand, even at the cost of losing some correct information along the way.

Confirmation Bias

If you have a hypothesis, you probably want your hypothesis to be proven correct so you can move on to your next point or project or what have you.  We humans, ever confident in ourselves, can often have our thinking biased due to our fear of being wrong.  If you have a confirmation bias, this means that you have a tendency to favor evidence that supports your hypothesis, rather than evidence that opposes your hypothesis.  This fallacious line of thinking often leads to other fallacies, such as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, because you may exclusively select evidence that only supports your argument, or interpret evidence in a biased way.

Every human being has bias.  It is important to keep that in mind as you conduct research, because while you may want to be right all the time (who doesn't want that?), what is more important is that you and everyone else knows the facts, rather than what we would like to believe is true.  Thus, we most often see the Confirmation Bias at its strongest in controversial and emotionally-charged topics, such as abortion, homosexuality, evolution, and religion.

The Argument from Fallacy

It is possible for a person's conclusion to be true, even if they came to that conclusion using flawed reasoning.  When you say a conclusion is false because its premises are fallacious, you are committing the Argument from Fallacy.  I will use my cat to demonstrate this fallacy.

Suppose I make the claim, "Since all cats are animals and since Mouser is an animal, Mouser is therefore a cat."  My best friend (and fellow lover of logic) Andrew could respond by saying, "You have committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent!  Therefore, Mouser is not a cat!"  The problem is that Mouser is indeed a cat, and so Andrew would be guilty of the Argument from Fallacy.  I arrived at a correct conclusion from fallacious premises, indeed.  However, Andrew arrived at a false conclusion from correct premises.

An Alumnus's Mind Bomb: My Schooling Experience

I graduated on June 9th, and I cannot express just how liberated I feel.  I attended the same private Christian school since I was in Kindergarten.  I had strict, conservative guidelines that I was required to follow every day, and I had Baptist doctrine (they swore it was "nondenominational", which is itself a denomination) force fed to me until I wasn't even aware I was being indoctrinated.  The teacher's word was law.  The school rules applied to my entire life, not just life on campus.  I wasn't an individual or even a human being; I was a student.  I was someone to handle, to control, to indoctrinate, to program.

I've always struggled with authority, but for the longest time I had no idea why.  Now, with the gift of hindsight, I realize why authority figures and I would always knock heads.  It wasn't because I was a horrible, disrespectful, rebellious sinner.  It was because the authority was wrong.  My teachers and other members of the staff insisted time and time again that they could be trusted, that they were my friends, that they were there to help me.  Authority figures have a tendency to tell you that they are the good guys, the heroes, people to look up to.  The reality is that I could not trust the people in authority over me.  They were too absorbed in their way of doing things; their methodology, their traditions and practices, their religion, their lives and their wants and desires.  They did not want me to become Nicolas Portwood.  They wanted me to be a submissive, easy to control, docile robot to make their jobs that much easier.  When I refused to comply, they had me deported to the principal's office, in hopes that I would be ashamed or embarrassed into submission.

I remember Kindergarten, when I was first being forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag, to the Christian Flag (which is in my opinion a very pathetic icon), and to the Bible.  How is a five-year-old supposed to understand what those words mean?  Yet, I would drone on every day, reciting those laughable mantras like the little robot I was.  This carried on until my Junior Year of high school, when I finally refused to recite the pledges on the grounds of strong moral convictions.  I would not swear fealty to a worthless piece of cloth, regardless of the symbolism.  Was I punished?  Absolutely.  When I asked why I was being punished, the staff told me it was on the grounds of disrespect.  Disrespect?  That was only the 120,000th time I had heard that cop-out excuse for punishing a student.  Anything a teacher doesn't know how to deal with, or hasn't the patience to deal with, is tantamount to disrespect.  Even something as trivial as a differing opinion is disrespect.  

Teachers don't like being challenged.  They don't like having their authority questioned.  It reminds me all too well of the corruption we see in Congress and in the White House.  Edward Snowden is on the run from the federal government because he called them out on illegal activity.  Whistleblowing is not treason.  Calling a teacher out is not disrespect.  Teachers have no right to demand respect.  Respect can only be given voluntarily.  Too many students are not aware of this.  They are told to shut up, sit down, or go to the office. The threat of discipline is always over the students' heads.  Many teachers blatantly violate various sections of the Geneva Conventions; did you know that?  Punishing an entire class for the infraction(s) of one individual or a few individuals is a breach of the Third Convention (which is all about how to treat prisoners of war, I might add).  Likewise, holding a class after the dismissal bell as a form of punishment is a breach of the same Convention.  Have you ever heard a teacher say, "The bell doesn't dismiss you; I do"?  That is a lie.  The dismissal bell dismisses the students, not the teacher.

Many teachers even liken their classes to dictatorships.  That's a incredible demonstration of idiocy.  In such a paranoid country that has on more than one occasion executed dictators (remember Saddam Hussein?), our teachers confess to being dictators.  How can they claim to be upholders of democracy when their classes are draconian and totalitarian?  That is hypocrisy.  I was blessed to have some teachers who were not like this.  There was voting, there was discussion, there was debate, and there was change.  I did not experience this until my Senior Year of high school, and by that time, I was already burned.

My elementary school days were filled with screaming and crying.  That is all I can remember, honestly.  I had a horrible childhood.  I was only trying to be myself, to express myself, to discover myself.  My teachers didn't want me to be creative or adventurous, though.  They wanted a robot that responded to their every command without question.  They would tell me I had talents and that God had big plans for my life.  I discovered my talents on my own, away from school.  I figured out God's plans for my life by talking to God, not my teachers.  My teachers, with all their knowledge and experience, were idiots.  Sweet and friendly idiots, but nonetheless.  They loved scolding me when I tried to be an individual.  They didn't realize that I talk because I have knowledge I wish to share.  They thought I was just being "disruptive".  Sharing knowledge is "disruptive" unless the teacher is reading it from a book published by Bob Jones University Press, a heavily conservative and biased college press who believes that Catholics aren't Christians.  That was my curriculum.  Biased, conservative, and religious.

I was required to attend a chapel service every Thursday for thirteen years.  They painted a picture in my head of a God with an iron gavel and anger in his eyes.  Every sin I committed pushed me closer and closer to hell.  They never taught me how to have a relationship with God.  They taught me how to be afraid of God.  They used the chapel services to push their agenda of obedience and submission.  The question "Why?" was a question that would send me to hell.  Follow blindly.  Be a sheep, a drone, a robot, a copy of a copy of a copy of the ideal student.  Religion was rampant and relationship was nonexistent; thus, I felt alone, scared, and angry.  I never knew why I was always so angry.  I was too young to realize that I was experiencing social injustice, that I was being belittled because of my youth (which is a practice Paul the Apostle condemned).

Ironically, when I disobeyed out of spite, I never felt freer.  When I rebelled with the anticipation of being punished, it was exhilarating.  I was manipulating my teachers to perform a preprogrammed response: discipline.  I realized that I was not the robot, they were!  I discovered the presence of consequence and the absence of love.  There was never any love behind any discipline I ever received as a Christian school student.  They were too busy trying to keep me in line to love me.  I was an volatile child.  I was prone to chronic fits of rage, wherein I would scream at the top of my lungs and cry and slam various body parts against the ground.  This was my coping mechanism until around the sixth grade, where I started to mellow out (I owe it all to child therapy from a doctor in neuropsychology; yes, they insisted I needed therapy).  They could not handle me at my worst behavior, and they demanded I be on my best.

After dozens of parent-teacher conferences and scores of visits to the principal's office, I found myself in Junior High School.  Not much changed.  I was still an immature idiot, and my teachers were still slaves to the Teacher's Agenda of Methodology: rules, instructions, and systematic procedure.  Any deviation was met with humiliation and shame disguised as discipline.  The principal was a righteous man who told me to my face that I was obnoxious and that I was not a Christian.  He told me that "a wise man speaks little" immediately after a forty-minute lecture on what a horrible little rebel I was (I am not exaggerating: it was forty minutes.  There was a clock right behind him).  The staff was trying to control every aspect of my life.  They called me into the office for things I said on Facebook that they disagreed with.  They had no legal justification to do this; the papers I signed to enroll as a student said nothing about my life outside of school.  For all these reasons listed in this paragraph, Junior High was rank with hypocrisy and Christian Legalism.  I have nothing good to say about those years, no matter how generous I may be feeling.

High school was the darkest period of my life.  I had several members of the staff personally verbally degrade me on more than one occasion, further justifying my belief that teachers were not allowed to love their students while on duty.  Enforcing the rules and stifling ideas they didn't want to hear were more important than demonstrating the love of Jesus Christ.  I saw that first hand.  The only difference from elementary school is that I was spurned by seven teachers instead of one.  Thus, high school was seven times worse than elementary school.  In the tenth grade, confused and scared and sad and convinced that I was a horrible sinner and that all my teachers hated me, I attempted suicide twice.

Senior Year was different, because for the first time in my life, I had some measure of authority.  I had influence, and the teachers realized it.  By this time, I was so used to authoritarianism, I knew exactly how to manipulate it.  I behaved myself.  I listened to my teachers and obeyed their instructions.  I used my influence over the underclassmen to convince my fellow students that, "Even though the rules seem stupid, they still exist, so you still have to obey them".  By saying this, I reinforced the idea that rules can be wrong.  It was a subtle but effective message to my peers that the laws of the land are not infallible.  It was a clandestine call to question the rules, to challenge authority, in hopes of improving the school for everyone.  Eschew the ridiculous rules and promote the beneficial ones.  Emphasize love over enforcement.

That was the message of my Senior Year.  Outright rebellion is a fool's path.  Subtle influence, in my experience, is much more effective.  Why?  Because love is contagious.  People will respond to love and naturally resist having their freedoms limited by rules and restrictions.  For this reason, I became "popular", I maintained my level of relative influence, and you know what?  It's working.  My school has changed.  Love is becoming more prevalent.  Rules are being reevaluated, some are being struck down, and others are being redefined.  Some are even being left alone.  Change is happening, as I had hoped for the longest time.

I wish I could say that I enjoyed school.  I never stopped hating it, dreading every weekday morning, worshiping the weekend.  Overall, I have to say that my schooling experience was horrible; however, it was also productive.  I promoted the question "Why?" and I got answers.  I got results.  I saw change.  I saw progress.

I started a silent rebellion.

Debunked: The "Sin" of Instrumental Worship

This should be a rather interesting post.

My attention was drawn to an article giving ten reasons why instrumental music is wrong in worship.  What my post about is simple: showing you all how wrong the article is.  Thus, I debunk!

1. There is no command in the New Testament for Christians to use instruments of music in the worship of the church.
   
   The Book of Psalms is a collection of 150 worship songs, the 150th of which says "Praise Him with trumpet and sound; praise Him with harp and lyre.  Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe." (Psalm 150:3-4 [NASB]).  This Psalm was written by King David of Israel, who is described in the Bible as being a man after God's own heart.  Surely, a man so close to God would not dare sin against Him by worshiping in a way that God forbade.  There may be no command in the New Testament for instrumental worship, but such music is rampant in the Old Testament, and if you accept one part of the Bible, you would do well to accept the entire thing.
    
2. There is no example in the New Testament of a church, apostle, teacher, or any Christian ever using an instrument in worship.
   
   Again, there are many examples of this in the Old Testament, which is still completely valid and crucial to modern day Christianity.  The Old and New Testament are actually extremely similar, so to reject the Old Testament to force your argument is extremely foolish and ignorant.  Furthermore, it is irrelevant that there are no New Testament examples.  There are no examples of anyone in the New Testament going to the bathroom.  Does that make defecating a sin?
    
3. It is not faith, therefore it is a sin (Romans 14:23).
   
   I shall quote the cited verse: "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin" (NASB).  In this passage (this is where I apply proper context), the author of Romans is advising the Christians in Rome not to do anything that causes their brethren to stumble in their faith.
   
   In Jewish culture, eating pork is ceremonially unclean.  I am not a Messianic Jew (a Jew who believes that Jesus was the Messiah, and so a "Jewish Christian", so to speak), and so I was never forbidden from eating pork.  However, because I do not wish my Messianic Jewish brother to stumble, I will not eat unclean food in his presence.  In fact, I would not do so around any sort of Jew, or a Muslim, or even a common vegetarian.  That is what the verse that the site was using is supposed to mean.
   
   By that logic, it could be argued that you should not participate in instrumental worship if it will cause one of your brethren to stumble, but that does not at all mean that instrumental worship must be prohibited universally.  The verse they used provides grossly insufficient justification for the point they were trying to make, and so the point is moot.
    
4. It is going beyond that which is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).
   
   This verse says, "Now these things, brethren, I have applied figuratively to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that you will not become arrogant on behalf of one against the other" (NASB).
   
   My question: how does instrumental worship "go beyond that which is written"?  That is a massive and unjustifiable assumption which they provide absolutely no proof for.  What Paul was talking about in this letter was advising his fellow believers not to pass judgment on others before the time of judgment (during which time, all the judgments will be performed by God, and not Christians).  It has absolutely nothing at all to do with instrumental worship.
    
5. It violates the command to "sing" (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).
   
   No it doesn't.  That is another grossly unjustifiable assumption.  Remember that Psalm I mentioned earlier?  The one about praising God with various instruments?  That Psalm was a song.  Both of the verses that they provided here explicitly mention worshiping God with psalms, as well as hymns and spiritual songs.  Psalms were written to be accompanied by music.  King David, the author of many of the Bible's Psalms, played the harp.
    
6. Singing is commanded; the accompaniment of a musical instrument is an "addition" to this command, and therefore it is wrong (Revelation 22:18).
   
   Here, John the Apostle, one of Jesus' original twelve disciples, says, "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book" (NASB).  He is specifically referring to the book of Revelation, because John had no idea that his book would be incorporated into the Bible.  He wrote it while in exile on the island of Patmos, for crying out loud!  What John was saying is that no one should add any additional prophecies (or revelations) to the book of Revelation.  Once again, it has absolutely nothing to do with how worship should be conducted.
   
   Also, their point that singing is commanded forgets to add that the very same Psalm I keep mentioning also encourages instruments and even DANCING!  Save your solemn worship music for Catholic Mass (which has organ music, so the Catholic Church must be in universal sin).
    
7. The use of the instrument in worship to God is a failure to "abide in the doctrine of Christ" (2 John 9).
   
   Yet another huge assumption which for which they offer no justification.  "Anyone who goes to far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (NASB).  The teachings of Christ were simple: love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; love your neighbor as yourself; and prepare for the Kingdom of Heaven.  Jesus never gave specific instructions on how to worship.  In fact, He gave us many freedoms on how we may choose to worship Him.  Jesus is always delighted when we worship Him, even if it is done with musical instruments.
    
8. Those who use the instrument in worship "reject" the authority of Christ (Matthew 28:19; Luke 6:46).
   
   These points are very circular at this point.  They are essentially arguing that instruments in worship are wrong because instruments in worship are wrong.  They make an assumption, and attempt to prove the assumption correct by assuming that they are already correct.  That is a very pathetic demonstration of illogic.  And just to come full circle, no: those who use instruments in worship do not reject Christ's authority, for reasons I have already mentioned.
    
9. It cannot be done "in the name" (or by the authority) of Jesus (1 Corinthians 4:6; Colossians 3:17).
   
   Yes it can, and it is done quite often.  These points are committing suicide at this point.  I can't debunk each one without sounding redundant.
    
10. From the above evidences, the use of the instrument in worship is obviously not from Heaven, so it must be from men (Matthew 21:25).
    
    They did it AGAIN!!!  They assumed they were already correct, so they could bring in their final point!  First off, they provided no evidence, only Scripture verses quoted way out of context and a legalistic theology WHICH, ironically enough, IS FROM MEN!  Not only is the author of this article an idiot, but also a blatant hypocrite!

But wait, it gets better!  Here's how the article is concluded:

From the above Scriptures, we can now "clearly" answer this question, "Can Christians use musical instruments in worship and still be pleasing to God?"

I am sorry, idiot who wrote this article, but the answer is "Yes, God is overjoyed when we worship Him, instruments or no instruments."  He is infinitely more gracious than you can ever hope to be.  It's people like you, who treat the Bible like a book of laws to be forced upon others, to whom Jesus said, "Woe to you!"  I would say, "God have mercy on your soul," but not only is that tremendously cliché, but I also know that God already will be.

God loves music, and music is made with instruments.  Get over it.