Poll: Whaddya reckon about God's existence?

[JimC]

Maybe it wasn't so much of a troll fail after all.

Can't believe guys are seriously rising to this bait

Not so much rising to bait, but patiently correcting a toddler's mistakes...

Admittedly, for the umpteenth time...

[Animavore]

Maybe it wasn't so much of a troll fail after all.

Can't believe guys are seriously rising to this bait

Not so much rising to bait, but patiently correcting a toddler's mistakes...

Admittedly, for the umpteenth time...

He's not making the same mistake over and over. He knows exactly what he's doing.

[pErvinalia]

That's just an excuse for his woeful fucking logic.

[rainbow]

Maybe it wasn't so much of a troll fail after all.

Can't believe guys are seriously rising to this bait

I don't think suggesting carrots are evil is "serious".

Well then you'd be wrong, since they are inherently evil. In fact most root vegetables are the work of Satan.

[Lion IRC]

...Can't believe guys are seriously rising to this bait

Why is that?
Because your excess spare time is worth so much more than everybody else's?

[Animavore]

...Can't believe guys are seriously rising to this bait

Why is that?
Because your excess spare time is worth so much more than everybody else's?

Can't believe you seriouly think I'd rise to this bait.

[pErvinalia]

[Seth]

That's just an excuse for his woeful fucking logic.

It's not woeful, it's perfectly correct. Your difficulty in analyzing logical arguments does not make the arguments illogical.

[pErvinalia]

Piscator explained (not that it was needed) why your "logic" was retarded.

[Seth]

Piscator explained (not that it was needed) why your "logic" was retarded.

No he didn't, he made the same errors in reasoning you did.

[pErvinalia]

Troll

[Seth]

Troll

Trollbait

[piscator]

Carroteater

[pErvinalia]

Religious apologists, particularly those of the Christian variety, are big fans of what I have dubbed, the atheist atrocities fallacy. Christians commonly employ this fallacy to shield their egos from the harsh reality of the brutality of their own religion, by utilizing a most absurd form of the tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy, mingled with numerous other logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies. Despite the fact that the atheist atrocities fallacy has already been thoroughly exposed by Hitchens and other great thinkers, it continues to circulate amongst the desperate believers of a religion in its death throes. Should an atheist present a believer with the crimes committed by the Holy See of the Inquisition(s), the Crusaders and other faith-wielding misanthropes, they will often hear the reply; “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler? They were atheists, and they killed millions!”

Given the obstinate nature of religious faith and the wilful ignorance it cultivates in the mind of the believer, I am quite certain that this article will not be the final nail in this rancid and rotting coffin. Having said this, I do hope it will contribute to the arsenal required by those who value reason, facts and evidence, in their struggle against the fallacies perpetually flaunted by those who do not value the truth above their own egocentric delusions, delusions inspired by an unquenchable thirst for security, no matter how frighteningly false its foundation.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the- ... n-pol-pot/

[Seth]

Religious apologists, particularly those of the Christian variety, are big fans of what I have dubbed, the atheist atrocities fallacy. Christians commonly employ this fallacy to shield their egos from the harsh reality of the brutality of their own religion, by utilizing a most absurd form of the tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy, mingled with numerous other logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies. Despite the fact that the atheist atrocities fallacy has already been thoroughly exposed by Hitchens and other great thinkers, it continues to circulate amongst the desperate believers of a religion in its death throes. Should an atheist present a believer with the crimes committed by the Holy See of the Inquisition(s), the Crusaders and other faith-wielding misanthropes, they will often hear the reply; “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler? They were atheists, and they killed millions!”

Given the obstinate nature of religious faith and the wilful ignorance it cultivates in the mind of the believer, I am quite certain that this article will not be the final nail in this rancid and rotting coffin. Having said this, I do hope it will contribute to the arsenal required by those who value reason, facts and evidence, in their struggle against the fallacies perpetually flaunted by those who do not value the truth above their own egocentric delusions, delusions inspired by an unquenchable thirst for security, no matter how frighteningly false its foundation.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the- ... n-pol-pot/

So, the Wayback Machine fallacy meets the Tu Quoque fallacy...and the winner is....

The Wayback Machine fallacy is the winner and still champeen!

The failure in Dawkins' reasoning, like the failure in your reasoning and the reasoning of every other Atheist is one of compositional fallacy, wherein the reasoning is that parts A, B, and C of object X have characteristics 1, 2, and 3, and therefore all of object X has those same characteristics.

To simplify for the simple minds here, the Wayback Machine fallacy proposes that evil things have been done in ancient (or even contemporary) history in the name of religion and therefore religion as a concept is inherently evil. The answer to that fallacy is of course to point out via the Tu Quoque fallacy that if one is going to commit a fallacy of composition by waving ancient acts about as justification for maligning the whole of religion, it's just exactly as correct to apply the same chain of reasoning to Atheists by pointing out that atheism may be likewise maligned by use of the Wayback Machine fallacy.

What Big Brain Dawkins, and you, fail to understand is that the reference to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et. al. is nothing more than a sarcastic and cutting rejoinder to the invocation of the Wayback Machine fallacy and the fallacy of composition committed by dredging up ancient evils committed by persons long dead as a condemnation of those alive today who have no culpability for those long-past acts, who, like Dawkins and you, also revile those long-past evils, and who themselves practice their religious beliefs peaceably and with nothing but the best of intentions for all.

Now your inevitable rejoinder is that modern-day religious zealots commit evils and act less than "Christian" in their condemnations of various social behaviors like homosexuality, adultery, and various other behaviors that they find to be "sinful."

This is certainly true of some religious zealots, but it is absolutely not true of others, which makes Big Brain Dawkins' and your condemnations of religion generally nothing more than mindless, reasonless bigotry and hatred.

Individuals are to be judged on their actions, and their actions alone. Those who commit crimes may be rightfully reviled, but to assign blame to the innocent for ancient acts done in the name of any ideology or belief whatsoever is intellectually and morally bankrupt and beneath contempt. The sins of the fathers cannot be rationally laid at the feet of the children. Only bigoted zealots like radical Muslims and Atheists try to do that as some sort of idiotic argument.

I will gladly join you and Dawkins at reviling the Inquisition, or the Intifada or any other social misbehavior by those of the past, but I decline to smear and tar everyone who happens to profess a religious belief with the same brush because I have more common sense, compassion, humanity, understanding, tolerance and intelligence than those who consistently do so.

If the shoe fits, rEv, wear it.