There are plenty of people who are anti-science (that is, anti-points 1 and/or 2, and necessarily argue illogically about it). If you are lumped into that category by disagreeing with points 3 and/or 4, you are in fact on thin ice if you really understand the implications of 1 and 2.
But there is room to make the case against 3 or 4 relatively reasonably. This doesn't prevent people from making those cases unreasonably as well.
So if you're a victim of occasional false positives, I am sorry. But given what is going on around you it is not surprising. Try to start by acknowledging the parts you do accept. And then proceed by identifying how likely it might be that you are wrong on the points where you part ways, and what the risks are.
Not many people do that effectively. I'll still argue against them, respectfully. But despite the sensible observation, the best bet is still that you are talking, um, through your hat.