You buy fallacious arguments supporting what you want to believe and
reject valid arguments that don't.
Not exact matches
You would need to admit that if your
argument is
valid and that in order to
reject belief in something, we would need to be omniscient, than you'd have to admit that they should also believe in Thor because to NOT believe would mean that YOU are omniscient and see that Thor is not in that set of knowledge you possess.
The fear
argument is just silly, for it is just as
valid to say that people
reject spiritualism and the afterlife for fear of divine punishment.
Absent any
valid reasons for
rejecting the
argument, the request for back - channel data was apparently in an effort to show that the use of incorrect methods «didn't matter» when applied to a particular result which needed to be defended.
The double - dipping
argument was
rejected as it was the income earning capacity of the payor that gave rise to the assets in the company and this
argument was not
valid.