The author of this post has made a serious conceptual error in failing to distinguish between validity (i.e., whether one's conclusion follows from one's premises) and soundness (i.e., the truth of one's premises or conclusion). 

If an argument is valid, the soundness of the conclusion depends on the truth of the premises. For example, consider the following arguments:

A. John is a bachelor

B. Most bachelors drive sports cars

--> C. John drives a sports car

This argument is invalid because it does not follow from the fact that most bachelors drive sports cars that John drives a sports car; he may be one of the few who drives a minivan (i.e., ˜[A & B --> C]). Now, consider the following: 

1. John is a bachelor

2. All bachelors drive sports cars

--> John drives a sports car.

This argument is valid because if John is a bachelor and if all bachelors drive sports cars, it is necessarily the case that John drives a sports car (because he is a bachelor and all bachelors drive sports cars). But this conclusion is unsound because (at least) the 2nd premise is false. 

Now, if I said "John is a bachelor" and you do not know and have never heard anything about John, I have made what the author of the post calls a "bald assertion." The proposition (J) that John is a bachelor may be false, but there is nothing illogical about my asserting (J). I may be lying to you out of spite and if so, I would be acting immorally but not irrationally. Or I may have every reason to believe John has never married- say he drives a sports car, doesn't have a wedding ring, has told me he has never been married and, because i've never known him to lie to me over the course of our long friendship, I have no reason to doubt him. In this case, it would be unreasonable for me to deny that (J). I could defend proposition (J) and my defense would be perfectly valid. Notwithstanding, (J) is false and the conclusion is unsound.

The pertinent point is that the argument is unsound whether or not John does, in fact, drive a sports car (i.e., whether the conclusion is true). And just as it does not follow from the fact that the argument supporting a proposition is unsound that the proposition is untrue, it does not follow from the fact that one fails to back up a proposition (i.e., (G) God exists) that it is not the case that (G).

(G) is not an argument and it would be a mistake of logic to treat it as such. Notwithstanding, (G) may be true. God either exists or he doesn't (i.e., it is the case that (G) or that (˜G)) and just as one begs the question if one's argument for (G) is based on the presumption that (G) is the case, one begs the question if one's argument against (G) is based on the presumption that (˜G) is the case.  God exists because he exists (or doesn't because he doesn't) irrespective of whether his existence can be proven or whether one believes he exists.

Human rationality is wonderful but limited. Even if we put aside the fact that no person is free from malfunctions of one's rationality (e.g., when one's reason is clouded by emotion), perfectly rational arguments are necessarily valid but not necessarily sound; a perfectly rational and sound argument requires perfect knowledge of the relevant facts that serve as premises. In light of our imperfect rationality and our imperfect knowledge, we can only be certain about the soundness of the most trivial of arguments -- when what one is asserting is 'painfully obvious.'

Reason guides us when we ask the difficult, important questions that have occupied philosophers for millennia, but it cannot give us the answers. Instead, rationality and logic are safeguards that  (if we are very careful) prevent us from making a certain kind of mistake -- the mistake of drawing invalid conclusions. The rational thing is to recognize that at some point, reason runs out and we must rely on faith (or intuition or what you like), and to be sensitive to the fact that, at best, reason leads us to answers to the big questions that are the conclusions of valid arguments based upon premises that may be true (i.e., conclusions that may be sound). Failure to see the limits of logic, especially when combined with careless reasoning, is very dangerous indeed.  

I would just like to note that saying "God doesn't exist" would be just as much of a bald assertion as saying "God exists".

When pointing out other people's logical fallicies, be careful not to make one yourself.

 Have another look over your essay and see how many bald assertions you make, particularly in the first paragraph.  I thought this was just you being meta but then I had a look at some of your other 'lessons' and it would appear not.

To, ahem, back this up, rather than just assert this, here's a few right off the bat:

* 'A logical fallacy is an error in logic. That is to say: A logical fallacy is stupidity.' - An error in logic ¬= stupidity necessarily.  This would only follow if you supplied the missing premise that stupidity was defined by making errors in logic, rather than simply baldly asserting it, as many people would take issue with this.

* 'What makes an idiot an idiot is how often they believe and fall for fallacies.' - Thought experiment.  Man has impeccable logic, yet has an entire set of consistent yet erroneous, and indeed offensive beliefs.  Most people would describe him as an idiot, and if you are going to argue that an idiot is simply how often one falls for fallacies, then you're going to have to do some backing up if you're not just baldly asserting this.

* 'Intelligence is all about reasoning.' - Again, a bald assertion given that Nietzsche, Jung and pretty much every continental Philosopher for the last hundred or so years would disagree with you, as well as entire schools of psychiatry who study emotional intelligence.

I figured you would suggest using science and statistics to back up our premises rather than using faith and intuition.  You went backward rather than forward.  I agree that faith and intuition are important, but if you want sound conclusions you have to plug scientific data and statistics into your premises.  And where rigorous science doesn't apply, observations that can be publicy confirmed should be plugged in.

This blog/post needs to be revised. There are several errors in the logic and I find there are personal opinions/emotions injected to the post.

Keep it logical and with out personal opinion.