An insult is a powerful thing...if used correctly. However, all too often, an insult is used in a very weak way, as a kind of signal that one has lost an argument, or at least has been forced to reconsider it. We are always slow to change. A critique of our arguments is, in a sense, a critique of our character, thus it is not at all unreasonable for one to take offense after listening to a sound argument that disproves their ideology, or at least challenges it. I expect such reactions and am never surprised when I see them. I like to ask difficult questions. I have always been this way. One marvels at how easily a question can unnerve these armchair philosophers. "You dare question my logic?" they sneer, "That is just insane. Do you see how many people kiss my ass on social media? Just look at that following. I am certainly correct no matter what I say!" Then the name calling begins, almost always initiated by someone who is not only incorrect, but completely misguided. A linear model of thinking leaves one with a feeling of comfort; it explains every little question away, kind of like one shoos a fly away. A simple copy and paste is performed stating that you have given a fallacious argument and that you must study the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or the "Straw Man" fallacy; this automatically renders your concerns irrelevant and you are to bow before the master debater. But there are times when logic can be quite deceptive. Take the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, generally applied to matters of belief. The fallacy is an appeal to purity. But is stating that there are qualifications in order for one to apply a label to themselves an appeal to purity? Would you call someone who does not know how to bake a baker simply because they instructed you to do so. No, you would first demand to taste some of their desserts before you even thought of applying that label to them. Well, just like not everyone who holds a pan in their hand is a baker, not everyone who holds a religious text in their hand is religious. Many members of religions are simply members by name, attempting to connect with an organized religion that is also a social, cultural and political body in the real world. However, the bible, the doctrine of Christianity, very clearly states what a true Christian is; so, if I say that there are requirements for belief in Christianity, I am only stating what the doctrine says. I did not make up the doctrine; I am basing my argument on it. So, how is it fallacious to say that there are requirements for belief? By the way, here are the requirements for belief in Christianity, as plainly written as the eye can see, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and courage and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11.1) "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11.6). We see here that there are very strict requirements for Christian faith; there is no room for doubt whatsoever. You must be confident that god exist to even begin to be a Christian; you must have assurance about that which you do not see, namely god. The same can be said for prayer in the bible, which demands that you believe your prayer will be answered before you even fold your hands. I did not appeal to purity, I recognized the text's appeal to purity, a purity that is required for "true" belief. Whether or not you agree with the bible should be irrelevant here because the fact is that there are requirements for faith and belief. People who simply ease out of religion never got to that level of devotion; their doubt was stronger than their belief ever was. But it is much easier to simply say illogical, irrational, unfounded, and grumble of like some old geezer. It is easier to call a person a name than to recognize they may have a point. About one percent of people have narcissism, but to social media, it is another pandemic