Friday Fallacy: February 7, 2014

It’s Friday, and that means it’s time for your Friday Fallacy!

ring-around-the-reasoning

We’ll name the fallacy at the end to give you a chance to guess it.

Thinking about debating a creationist?

Ask your opponent first, “What would change your mind?” If the answer is “nothing,” it’s a waste of time and you only give credibility to their mythology by agreeing to a debate. There are some creationists who claim they believe because of a different interpretation of evidence—Ken Ham, for example—by he does not base his belief in creationism on the evidence in itself, and this is something he readily admits. He admits that he starts from a place of believing the Bible, although he makes a superficial show of talking about evidence.

In that case, your debate becomes a Bible debate, not a scientific one. You need different tools for that kind of debate: knowledge of the history of religion, knowledge of ancient Middle Eastern syncretism, knowledge of translation problems, and knowledge of the contents of the Bible itself, among other things.

It’s important to nail down the exact question you want to debate before you start, so that you can point it out if your opponent goes off-topic. That, too, is a fallacy, but not the one we’re covering in this week’s Friday Fallacy.

If you ask someone to spell out her argument, and she says, “The Bible says…” then that is all you need to know to identify this fallacy. Creationists want to use the Bible as evidence, when in fact the Bible is the claim they are defending, not the evidence for that claim.

It is perfectly fine if you or your debate opponent wants to use a book (any book) as evidence for a claim, but introducing a book as evidence requires that the debater introducing it provide evidence that the book contains factual information. An appeal to authority is not always fallacious if the authority is a legitimate expert in the topic at hand. For example, if you want to cite “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking as support for a claim about the Big Bang, it is your responsibility to provide context for this by pointing out that Hawking is a world-renowned, legitimate expert in the fields of theoretical physics, cosmology, and cosmogony. Citing an irrelevant book, or a book by someone who is not an expert, or someone who is an expert but in an irrelevant field, are all examples of fallacious appeals to authority.

Introducing the Bible into a creation debate actually makes the creationist’s job *harder,* not easier. By introducing the Bible, they not only have to defend their claim that the Earth was created in 6 days only 6,000 years ago, but if their evidence for this is that the Bible says so, they now must also provide evidence that the authors of the Bible were experts in the origins of the both the universe and life on our planet. If they try to make the claim that the authors were ancient Middle Eastern nomads with no expert knowledge of these topics, but their writings can be trusted as accurate because God inspired the writers of the Bible, that means they must demonstrate that God exists and now that God did in fact inspire the writers as they claim, too. They are basically fighting three battles at once by bringing up the Bible, as opposed to sticking with “scientific” evidences like alleged inconsistencies in radiometric dating etc. Remember, every time they add on an additional claim, that is one more thing they have to defend, and don’t be afraid to call them out on it.

So, to get to the fallacy itself: Using the Bible to prove itself is an example of what fallacy?

Scroll down to the bottom of the link section for the answer 


Become a member at http://www.atheists.org/membership
Support the cause at http://www.atheists.org/donate
Follow us at http://www.twitter.com/AmericanAtheist
Subscribe to our quarterly magazine athttp://www.atheists.org/magazine

And subscribe to our NEW YouTube channel athttp://www.YouTube.com/atheistsdotorg

And our NEW Instagram feed athttp://instagram.com/americanatheists

Register for the 2014 National Convention athttp://www.atheists.org/convention2014


Answer to Friday Fallacy: The fallacy is circular reasoning, or circulus in probando (circle in proving) in Latin.

Coming soon: Another of our monthly workshop series on formal debates! If you’re interested in informal debating (aka discussing religion), here is a previous workshop on that topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QPHMViCZVo

Have a great Friday!

– Dave Muscato, Public Relations Director

  • Thought Police

    There’s nothing like a good old fallacy to prove one’s lack of intellectual fortitude. “Hey, I prayed for the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl and they did, therefore prayer works.” See: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

  • rargos

    “Ask your opponent first, “What would change your mind?” If the answer is “nothing,” it’s a waste of time ”

    One could say the same thing about most of the atheists here — there is nothing that would change their mind about their beliefs.

    Not that I’m implying they SHOULD change their minds, but it’s intellectually dishonest to accuse other people of behavior that you yourself engage in.

    • Thought Police

      Rargos, you know that this is bunk. Why do atheists exist? Is it because we’re intentionally denying the gods that there is so much evidence of merely for the sake of being contrary? I, and so many other atheists would without fanfare believe in any god for which existed objective and scientifically verifiable evidence of existence. That is not the case, and hence atheism. What would change an atheists mind concerning the existence or lack of a deity is scientifically measureable, testable, evidence where results could be reproduced.

      But the fact of the matter is that the opposite is true. Instead of offering any intellectually defensible positions for believers, all deities have produced for their believers the opposite. If current trends continue (you may find this interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/atheism-to-defeat-religion-by-2038_b_1565108.html) the world very well may be largely secular by 2041. The people of the world are at an ever increasing pace relying less and less on the myths of previous generations.

      This is not because the people of the world are becoming somehow more amoral, but rather it is due to the steady improvement of living conditions throughout developed nations. If people don’t have to worry as much about the basic necessities of life, they’re less inclined to appeal to a “higher power” for the things that are needed. I posit that when every person on this planet readily meets their wants and needs through the result of scientific progress/technology, within several generations, religion will have lost its place in the world.

      If nobody fears death, and everybody’s health is guaranteed, and everyone has easy access to healthy appealing food and clean potable water; when all are equally comfortable in their existence, what appeal will the gods of the past hold? In such a world, who would be compelled to prostrate themselves before an empty alter?
      It’s intellectually dishonest to claim that religion holds influence in the world because of any reason other than that of the exploitation of people’s fears and childhood indoctrination.

      • rargos

        The evidence of a higher power is blatently obvious — you’re seeing only the trees, not the forest.

        And as for “childhood indoctrination”, I presume that as an atheist you would not attempt to influence your childrens’ beliefs in any way, even if they came home carrying a Bible and singing “Jesus loves me”, right???

        • Cthulhu21

          If the evidence for a higher power is so obivious, where should I be looking for it?

          • Thought Police

            You won’t get a reply to that Cthulhu21. Not one that makes sense anyway.

          • Thought Police

            That was two days ago as of the time that I am writing this, so I think it’s a safe bet that rargos isn’t going to be providing you with any “obvious” evidence of his pet deity.

          • Cthulhu21

            I mostly wrote that to see how he would react. I’d say the fact that he is not answering the post says plenty.

          • Thought Police

            You may find some of the bible verses that I’ve posted below to be fairly entertaining, and largely disturbing. I’ve read the bible several times, because what better way is there to reinforce one’s atheism than to remind one’s self what others can be bothered to believe.

        • Thought Police

          When my son asks me about god, I will tell him about some of the most popular religions and to the best of my ability, accurately and honestly answer whatever questions he has. Why do such people believe such things? I will tell him that a lot of people are afraid of death and that they are also afraid of the pains of life and that those beliefs some times offer them comfort. If he wants to know why I don’t believe in the biblical god, I will tell him that it’s logically impossible for such a deity to exist and that said deity is a cruel misrepresentation of what humanity has wanted from the beginning, a stable parental figure and the reasons for believing in the god of Abraham cry of the psychological inability to effectively cope with life.

          ” The evidence of a higher power is blatently obvious — you’re seeing only the trees, not the forest. ” How so? Where is the evidence so blatant that I make myself look like an idiot for being an atheist? Where in the nature of the universe and humanity will I find evidence of a deity so irrefutable that I can smugly decry opposing views to be irrelevant in their ridiculous pretense? You sir, are a victim, but a willing and eager one.

          • rargos

            So you’re essentially going to pass on your misinformed, intolerant, and prejudiced views about religion to your son and claim they are facts — are you afraid he might not be “smart enough” to follow your beliefs without being brainwashed by you? Maybe you should also tell him that parents only say they love their children in order to manipulate them … can you “prove” otherwise?

            It seems that you’ve abandoned mature, rational discussion and have lapsed back into bigotry and name-calling. I’m guessing that you’ll start using vulagirty and profanity again too — that seems to be your solution for dealing with people who disagree with you, isn’t it?

            Say what you like about religion, but it’s clear that intellectual and emotional maturity are neither a requirement for nor a result of being an atheist.

          • Thought Police

            Now, read through your posts here and find all of the fallacies.

      • Ken L

        Thought Police,
        Question….Does the theory of evolution met the requirements you require for a deity?

        • Thought Police

          No, the theory of evolution does not “met the requirements” that I “require for a deity”. Theories are simply theories, just as people’s notions of deities are merely abstract reflections of their insecurities.

  • rargos

    So if I’m a Christian who also believes in evolution (as does the Catholic Church), you’re okay with my religious beliefs?

    • Cthulhu21

      As long as you’re not a part of the problem that many other Christians are, yes we’re ok with that. Or at least I am. Can’t account for others here.

      • rargos

        Which problems? Atheists like to blame religion for all of the country’s problems — despite the fact that the role of religion in society is declining at the same time most people feel this country is headed in the wrong direction.

        If we had a completely secular society, who would you blame all our problems on?

        • Cthulhu21

          How many should I note? Halting scientific progress, bigotry towards other religions, and, as my Mom insists I mention, overpopulation. If you don’t agree with these points or do your best to counter these, then yeah, like I’ve said I don’t have a problem you. It’s other practitioners of Christianity that you might call extremists that I have a problem with, probably part of different sects of this religion.

          • Cthulhu21

            If I’m leaving anything out, let me know.

          • rargos

            Well, for starters, you’re leaving out all the humanitarian and charity work done by believers of all religions. I guess the billions of believers who live their faith by donating their time, talents, and treasure (so to speak) to the less fortunate aren’t important, are they?

            You do realize that the Red Cross began as a Christian organization, right? Just like the YMCA, Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries, etc. According to Forbes, half of the top ten charities in the United States are faith-based:

            http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/

            Don’t see the word “atheist” in that list anywhere …

          • Cthulhu21

            I’m not denying that they do, but you can be charitable even in the absence of religion. Actually, people who are being charitable in the absence of religion are more honest about their charity. They do it because it makes them feel good about themselfs for the act itself and not because they are obligated to be charitable. You probably are charitable because you want to be and not simply because of your religion, but that just drives my point straight home.

          • rargos

            Amazing how you can psychoanalyze the majority of believers when you seen to have very little firsthand knowledge of them.

          • Thought Police

            That would have to do with what? Do you have to intimately know somebody before you can correctly judge their motives? Are you implying that the psychology of believers is hidden behind a magic veil of impenetrable mystery? Dude, people are still people no matter what they do or don’t believe. That you think you have to on a daily basis argue with atheists merely spells out for the entire world just how insecure you are. I can empathize with your dilemma, but will not condone your means of seeking absolution from your doubt. Your psychology is just as plainly visible as everyone else’s my friend.

          • Thought Police

            What are the other half then rargos concerning those charities? Did I just prove a point?

          • rargos

            My point was simply that charity is an important part of religion — i.e. religious people found organizations to help others.

          • Thought Police

            But apparently you missed the point that you must have passed on your way to secure proof of your moral superiority; thus being that the half of charities that are NOT affiliated with a religion tell you that a god is not necessary in order to have a society of morally perceptive and righteous people.

          • rargos

            To your points:

            (1) Exactly which “scientific progress” is religious belief halting? It’s easy to say religion is anti-science, it’s a lot harder to find specific examples of modern scientific progress that’s being held up because of religious opposition. BTW, I’m an engineer and also a believer, and I have yet to see any kind of religion-based obstacles in my work.

            (2) “Bigotry towards other religions”. Really? So if atheists are bigoted towards religion, that’s okay, but if one religion is bigoted towards another, that’s not okay? Are you honestly trying to say that atheists oppose religious beliefs to protect religions from being “bigoted” towards each other? That’s some pretty convoluted logic.

            (3) How is religion responsible for overpopulation? Even the majority of Catholics (like myself) don’t see anything wrong wtih artificial birth control, and ALL other religions and Christian denominations have nothing against birth control. You’ll have to try harder than that.

          • Cthulhu21

            1. Creationists are in opposition to evolution and are trying to have creationism be taught as a seperate but equal theory to evolution. You may not have a problem with evolution but there are many who still don’t except it (about 40% here in the united states according to a previous poll).

            2. Christians saying that their religion is the one true religion and others are boloney even though they preach similar cases. You’re begging the question in this situation, atheist are being pursicuted by Christians according to the Geneva convention.

            3. Your church is still in opposition to the practice even if many of you are starting to see the benefits.
            http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/10/3270161/global-poll-catholics-contraceptioon-abortion/
            Read paragraph 5; there may be shift happening to change this but it’s

          • Cthulhu21

            Cont: gradual and not happening overnight. ( if your wondering why I’m contenuing my reply here it’s because there’s a bug that keep me from typing after a certain point when I use my tablet to acces this site)

          • rargos

            “atheist are being pursicuted by Christians according to the Geneva convention”

            That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Please provide details on this so-called “pursicution” [sic]

          • Cthulhu21
          • rargos

            (1) “in some European countries and the United States which favor the religious and their organizations and treat atheists and humanists as outsiders.” — Even if that were true (and it’s not), that’s hardly “persecution”. Don’t know where you got the “Geneva Convention” part, since that’s nowhere in the article or report.

            (2) Name a single atheist who was executed for simply being an atheist. Strange that the article doesn’t mention names of countries, individuals, etc., don’t you think? Note that the article said “CAN” be executed, not “WERE” executed.

            (3) On the other hand, North Korea has publically executed people for being Christians or owning Bibles.

          • Cthulhu21

            Did you follow the links on the page or did you just read the one article?

          • Thought Police

            Let’s start with this: (2 Chronicles 15:12-13) 12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, 13 but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
            And I really doubt that anyone would challenge me to find Muslim scripture that calls for the death of non-believers. Now, will you recant your assertion that your religion isn’t inherently violent, or are you the type of person that needs outright proof, like us atheists? And what of history? Let’s not even bother addressing the current state of the world and recent events and your wonderful loving deity and its
            inherent self-contradictions. Do you seriously have nothing other to do than harass atheists on an atheist website?
            You’re simply further evidence against your own pet deity. If you’d like to carry out an actually constructive dialog on an atheist website, a good place to begin is from the obvious lack of any deity. I could kill how many believers without any god stepping in? How many angels would stay my hand as I raised it to plunge a blade into the throat of pretty little Christian child? Would you wager that I could not burn a church full of god’s chosen whatever it is you like to refer to yourselves as?
            You want proof that your god doesn’t exist, let me introduce you to him personally.

          • rargos

            “How many angels would stay my hand as I raised it to plunge a blade into the throat of pretty little Christian child?”

            Sounds more like a sick fantasy than a rhetorical question.

          • Cthulhu21

            It’s a sick fantasy if you ignore the intent behind it.

          • rargos

            It’s a sick fantasy, period.

          • Thought Police

            Just in case you don’t realize how frequently you so discredit your own “points”.
            fan·ta·sy
            ˈfantəsē/
            noun
            noun: fantasy
            1.
            the faculty or activity of imagining things, esp. things that are impossible or improbable.
            “his research had moved into the realm of fantasy”
            synonyms:imagination, fancy, invention, make-believe; More
            creativity, vision;
            daydreaming, reverie
            “a mix of fantasy and realism”
            antonyms:realism, truth
            the product of imagining impossible or improbable things.
            “the scene is clearly fantasy”
            a fanciful mental image, typically one on which a person dwells at length or repeatedly and which reflects their conscious or unconscious wishes.
            plural noun: fantasies
            “the notion of being independent is a child’s ultimate fantasy”
            synonyms:dream, daydream, pipe dream, fanciful notion, wish; More
            fond hope, chimera, delusion, illusion;
            informalpie in the sky
            “his fantasy about being famous”
            an idea with no basis in reality.
            “it is a misleading fantasy to suggest that the bill can be implemented”
            a genre of imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure, esp. in a setting other than the real world.
            2.
            a musical composition, free in form, typically involving variation on an existing work or the imaginative representation of a situation or story; a fantasia.
            verb
            literary
            verb: fantasy; 3rd person present: fantasies; past tense: fantasied; past participle: fantasied; gerund or present participle: fantasying
            1.
            imagine the occurrence of; fantasize about.

          • Thought Police

            fan·ta·sy
            ˈfantəsē/
            noun
            noun: fantasy
            1.
            the faculty or activity of imagining things, esp. things that are impossible or improbable.
            “his research had moved into the realm of fantasy”
            synonyms:imagination, fancy, invention, make-believe; More
            creativity, vision;
            daydreaming, reverie
            “a mix of fantasy and realism”
            antonyms:realism, truth
            the product of imagining impossible or improbable things.
            “the scene is clearly fantasy”
            a fanciful mental image, typically one on which a person dwells at length or repeatedly and which reflects their conscious or unconscious wishes.
            plural noun: fantasies
            “the notion of being independent is a child’s ultimate fantasy”
            synonyms:dream, daydream, pipe dream, fanciful notion, wish; More
            fond hope, chimera, delusion, illusion;
            informalpie in the sky
            “his fantasy about being famous”
            an idea with no basis in reality.
            “it is a misleading fantasy to suggest that the bill can be implemented”
            a genre of imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure, esp. in a setting other than the real world.
            2.
            a musical composition, free in form, typically involving variation on an existing work or the imaginative representation of a situation or story; a fantasia.
            verb
            literary
            verb: fantasy; 3rd person present: fantasies; past tense: fantasied; past participle: fantasied; gerund or present participle: fantasying
            1.
            imagine the occurrence of; fantasize about.

          • Cthulhu21

            Yeah… that post I put up made more sense to me when I was writing it up. I meant that rargos had glanced right over the point of your comment. I did not mean to insult you and I’m sorry that it came out that way.

          • Thought Police

            I only really take offense at willful and deliberate ignorance. We’re all ignorant of a great many things, especially me, and not all of our communications are always interpreted as intended. No harm, no foul.

          • Thought Police

            It was meant to colorfully illustrate a point; thus being that your god is more in favor of senseless murder than not. Your god would not stop me from playing in the guts of your family, and you know it. What good is a god that does nothing?

          • rargos

            “Your god would not stop me from playing in the guts of your family, and you know it.” – ThoughtPolice

            “How many angels would stay my hand as I raised it to plunge a blade into the throat of pretty little Christian child?” – ThoughtPolice

            You are a sick individual. If I knew your real name, I would report you to the local law enforcement and mental health authorities.

            If you want to continue your disturbing fantasies about murdering children and the families of people who disagree with you, then you’ll have to do it with someone else — I have nothing but contempt for you.

          • Thought Police

            So my point touches home? Would you like to discuss any of these: Deuteronomy 17:12
            Exodus 22:17
            Leviticus 20:13
            Leviticus 20:27
            Exodus 21:15
            Proverbs 20:20
            Leviticus 20:9
            Leviticus20:10
            Leviticus 21:9
            Exodus 22:19
            2 Chronicles 15:12-13
            Zechariah 13:3
            Deuteronomy 13:13-19
            Deuteronomy 22:20-21
            Deuteronomy 13:7-12
            Deuteronomy 17:2-5
            Leviticus 24:10-16
            Deuteronomy 13:1-5
            Deuteronomy 18:20-22
            Romans 1:24-32
            Numbers 1:48-51
            Exodus 31:12-15
            2 Kings 2:23-24
            1 Samuel 6:19-20
            1 Kings 20:35-36
            2 Samuel 6:3-7
            Isaiah 14:21
            Hosea 9:11-16
            Ezekiel 9:5-7
            Exodus 12:29-30
            Jeremiah 51:20-26
            Leviticus 26:21-22
            Isaiah 13:15-18
            Judges 15:14-15
            Acts 5:1-11
            1 Samuel 15:2-3
            Jeremiah 48:10
            Joshua 19:47
            Jeremiah 15:1-4
            Ezekiel 35:7-9
            Exodus 23:23
            Joshua 8:1-29
            Joshua6:20-21
            1 Kings 14:9-16
            Judges 20:48
            2 Kings 19:35
            Exodus 32:26-29
            Joshua 7:19-26
            Numbers 25:1-9
            1 Kings 18:36-40
            Jeremiah 50:21-22
            Judges 18:27-29 ???
            Can you justify the worship of a god that is so violent and morally reprehensible? If you would claim to be so far above the type of behavior that you have just so thoroughly condemned, then how is it you can pretend such self-righteousness comes from the worship of this deity that you claim is likewise above the murder of children as I’ve just proven without a shadow of a doubt is indeed NOT the case. You are a hypocrite of the sort which is incapable of taking responsibility for their own beliefs, let alone their behavior. You sir are reprehensible in such a profound way that you cannot even begin to comprehend the depth to which I must soil myself to speak to you. But yeah, you’re right, nobody is capable of being as morally righteous as your tragically ironic god.

          • rargos

            “”How many angels would stay my hand as I raised it to plunge a blade into the throat of pretty little Christian child?”

            The more I reflect on this sick fantasy of yours, the more I’m troubled by it and by the idea of leaving any children alone with you.

          • Cthulhu21

            The what-ifs you’re giving here at the end aren’t really helping.

          • Cthulhu21
          • rargos

            Would you be so kind as to point out what parts of that 244 page document you’re referring to? You have read all 244 pages, right?

          • Cthulhu21

            I will admit that I haven’t read the whole report before posting the link to you. But, after realizing this I went ahead and read the reports on pages 105, 110 and 207. I can and will read more on this when I have the time. I recomend that you read pages 22 so you understand why they classify the separate countries as they did and then read the pages that I’ve previously listed here.

          • rargos

            With all due respect, this is precisely the problem I have with many atheists (and, frankly, many non-atheists as well). They find a link or two on the internet, read a few lines of it, and then consider themselves experts on a subject and cite things they haven’t thoroughly read or understood to support their point — and all of this coming from a group that attacks religion because it’s not based on facts and reason ….

            You’re certaining entitled to hold whatever views you like, but if you’re going to say that your opponent doesn’t use facts and reason, it really undermines your position when you engage in the very behavior you criticize.

          • Thought Police

            “because it’s not based on facts and reason” So in your own words, you’re effectively describing your own religion as being based in fantasy and magic.

          • Cthulhu21

            I’d say I given a list of facts and and observations with very good reason for doing so (that being to answer the bigotry you accuse atheists of showing theists). The only problem you have with it is that I haven’t done an exhaustive look at it and refuse to take it seriously because of it. I chose those three because they had spicific examples of prejudice against Athiests as well as freethinkers, humanists, and other religious believers. This will be the last I reply to you on this page because, as others have pointed out, there’s probably no point in arguing with you.

          • Cthulhu21

            3) Even though that’s true that doesn’t mean North Korea promotes atheism. They’re promoting idea that if people are thinking for themselfs or don’t support the state, they will be executed. It doesn’t matter whether or not you’re religious. See page 18 in the “Freedom of Thought Report 2013”. You can also look at 116 for details on North Korea.

          • rargos

            Your argument : atheists are being persecuted and *can* be killed for being atheists (but none have been).

            My response : Christians are being persecuted and *are* being executed for being Christians.

            So please forgive me if your argument about atheists being persecuted rings a little hollow to me.

          • Thought Police

            1) Stem cell research, as ONE example. 2) Atheists in general don’t give half a flying shit what non-atheists believe, so long as religion keeps its greedy tendrils out of the aspects of society that affect said atheists. 3) Everyone who fucks is responsible for overpopulation.

          • rargos

            (1) It’s not stem cell research that religious people object to – it’s the use of stem cells from aborted fetuses, since for some people the use of these tissues makes abortion more palatable. Even the Catholic Church has no objection to stem cell research unless the cells are taken from aborted fetuses.

            2) “Greedy tendrils” is hardly an objective description. Do you have a specific example?

            3) Agree completely.

  • rargos

    “Citing an irrelevant book, or a book by someone who is not an expert, or someone who is an expert but in an irrelevant field, are all examples of fallacious appeals to authority.”

    Like using a book entitled “Beautifully Unique Sparkleponies” written by a former football player to support atheism?

    http://news.atheists.org/2014/01/24/press-release-chris-kluwe-will-appear-on-atheist-hangouts-to-take-live-audience-questions/

    • Guest

      If the book itself has relevant information and is well informed, yes, you could cite it.

      • rargos

        Have you read the book? I have (ask me what the n-th word in a given chapter is if you don’t believe I own the book).

        It’s not even good humor, much less political or social commentary. But then again, I prefer to get my information from “experts” whose books don’t have literary gems like this in the introduction:

        “A lot of people seemed to enjoy reading this letter, and one of the reasons they enjoyed reading it was that it had a bunch of naughty words in it. Words like lustful cockmonster andnarcissistic fromunda stain and holy fucking shitballs.” – From the Introduction to Chris Kluwe’s “Beautifully Unique Sparkleponies”

        • Cthulhu21

          Would you prefer the “God Delusion”?

          • rargos

            Propaganda from a scientist does not equal science.

          • Thought Police

            When did the topic become the debate of scientific matters? Isn’t your whole wildly childish campaign here propelled by your compulsive need to defend your idiotic beliefs to strangers who couldn’t possibly care less what you do or don’t believe? So shouldn’t you be arguing that only bona fide super-genius roman catholic infallible demigods and their ever-not-so-humble cronies are capable of doling out truth? After all, propaganda from intellectually crippled emotionally retarded Christians experiencing an identity crisis should most certainly bear more relevance than any of those inconvenient facts.

            But wait, don’t forget to quote me from a post which you did not respond to the points of in an effort to further obfuscate your inability to meet the logic upon which sits the very material that you ever-so-eagerly take out of context to yet further push your non-points. When you can address the questions that you’re presented with, instead of fleeing into your safe little world of fallacies, perhaps you will be met with the civility that you demand of others while you are expelling your intentionally evasive and “intellectually dishonest” nonsense, misinformation, and pathetically impotent and transparent attempts at promoting your mindless, directionless agenda.

          • rargos

            Yawn.

          • Thought Police

            That’s what I thought.

  • Cthulhu21

    Sorry to the guys who posted this page for going off tangent (I know people do this all the time, but still).

  • Thought Police

    I’ve found that to challenge the beliefs of a theist is generally quite pointless, unless your true motives are to test your patience and offer yourself an opportunity to exercise your powers of emotional control. If you really want to help others find the path back to reality, the safest bet is to avoid feeding their egos by granting in their eyes validity to their beliefs by debating them. There’s nothing to debate as far as the grounds for religion is concerned, and the only thing you will take away from such an encounter is further reinforcement of the absurdity and instability of the mind/s proposing such nonsense.

  • Thought Police
Copyright 2013 American Atheists