Religious Apologist Logic Fail

A Religious Apologist becomes frustrated when his arguments are constantly refuted. He then tries to argue that if I can’t provide an alternative to his supernatural ideas, then I am “not arguing logically”. Which is, ironically, an illogical argument. In fact it’s a fallacious argument ...

"Whoever critiques without offering a case for an alternate opinion is not arguing logically. Attacking other perspectives presumes and necessitates defense of an alternative, whatever the subject!"

Actually it is perfectly acceptable to provide a "critique" without an "alternate opinion". If I was to present a flawed explanation, the fact that you can't provide an alternative does not make my flawed explanation less flawed. For example, if I was to assert that the sky is blue because air molecules are blue, you would (I hope) realise my explanation was silly. But at the same time you might not be able to explain why the sky is blue. That doesn't make me right. Is a flawed argument better than no argument? An argument that attacks someone because they don't have an alternative hypothesis to your flawed hypothesis is a fallacious argument known as The Argument from Ignorance... http://tinyurl.com/RGFSMCL-010