Damn Right I'm Angry: Part Two
The Jewish Aphilosopher (Yeah - the A was intentional - figure it out)
Conflating Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, of which I am not a fan, with atheism before the actual article even begins is just the tip of the iceberg. His depiction of atheists is nothing short of bigoted and disgusting. He's "The Jewish Philosopher"? I can't even find the philosophy under the pile of steaming shit that he excreted onto his site. I'm telling you this up front only because you're going to need those hip-high waders and possibly protection for your monitor before reading further.
He starts off with the claim that we cannot define what we mean by god when we say we don't believe in one. I have yet to see a theist who can give a coherent definition of their god, and they do believe in it. Projection, anybody? He claims that we don't mind the concept of a creator (which we do, mainly because it has no basis in factual data), but that we're terrified by the ever-looming punishment awaiting us from his loving god, and so we just pretend he doesn't exist. Let's turn this around-I propose that it is you doing the pretending. There is not a shred of evidence to support your ridiculous beliefs in some anthropomorphic voyeur with sadistic tendencies, but you are so terrified of the fact that one day you and everyone you love will simply cease to be. So, you just imagine that you're immortal so you don't have face the truth about life-there is no higher purpose other than what you assign to your life; there is no afterlife and you'll never see grandma again; sometimes life just sucks so learn to deal with it.
Atheists are also "invariably highly selfish people" and it's "impossible to find a well-documented case of an atheist who was kind, honest, sober, and sexually responsible." Of course, he also tries to covertly pull out the communism card as well. Where the fuck does this guy get off? What kind of statistical data can you present for your claims, Stein? We are all mean, lying, drunken nymphomaniacs, right? Well, chew on this for a minute-you are a bigoted asshole who can only validate his own beliefs by caricaturing those of others. One would expect more from a descendent of a group that once faced the same kind of prejudiced rhetoric.
He believes that science has disproven atheism with quantum mechanics and the Big Bang. First of all, the only way to disprove atheism is to prove theism. That certainly didn't happen with either of those scientific endeavors. He says that we "apparently don't depend on any evidence." Again, can anybody see how theists tend to project the shortcomings of their belief onto us? We don't need evidence to suspend belief in the supernatural! It is up to you to present the evidence that proves the existence of your imaginary friend! Apparently, Stein is even worse with science than he is with philosophy, and that is impressive.
Stein should familiarize himself with a recent Barna study that I referenced in a previous blog post before he makes the claim that there is a "linkage between pornography and atheism" that is evident in demographic studies and the fact that "The expansion of the Internet has made pornography more widely available and at the same time atheism seems to be becoming more popular." The difference in porn consumption by christians (there are no studies to my knowledge that focus on Jews) is negligible at best. This is another survey on christians and pornography that refutes his point. The only linkage between atheism and pornography is that we don't need to pretend to not have sexual urges, and we don't need to repent after we watch it.
He reiterates his hypothesis about our denial of god in this way:
Many people, especially young males leading secure lives in developed countries, feel no need for the comfort of religion. Furthermore, they are attracted to a very selfish, self-indulgent way of life, an attraction perhaps encouraged by viewing pornography. Therefore, in order to remove any feelings of guilt, they simply deny the existence of any divine judgment or afterlife.
That's not a non sequitor or anything. (/sarcasm) The excoriation continues with the piece de resistance-my favorite quote in the whole article. I'll let you savor it.
Atheism is not a philosophy; it is a symptom of narcissism and hedonism. Calling atheism a religion is like calling alcoholism a religion. It's a bad choice, a moral failing, perhaps a disease.
Now, for all of the criticism that we take for making the claim that theism should be considered a mental disorder, at least in some cases, we make the exception for the average person with the disclaimer that belief in god is still delusional, it just may not be causing that person any hardship at the present time. Here, we have a blanket statement on the moral character of every atheist. Not only does he clearly have no evidence to support his claim, but his false analogy is fallacious nonsense. Not to mention ignorant, asinine, and absolutely disgusting. If his assertion is true, why are less atheists in prison than our population would warrant? Why are atheistic societies healthier and have less violence and crime? When was the last time you saw an atheist suicide bomber, Stein?
His bigoted moronicism leads him to the conclusion that we deny reality, science confirms religion, and for the icing on the cake-atheism is akin to an addiction. If this is the product of "loving homes of an Orthodox Jewish community," I'll pass. The "brutal violence going on in secular neighborhoods" is an assertion unsupported by any factual evidence and apparently just pulled out of his ass along with the rest of this post. Have you ever been to Israel, Stein? I hear it's really peaceful there.
I try to limit my responses to more intellectual criticism and avoid this type of argument. Even D'Souza has never elicited a response like this one, but these two men are the personification of ignorant bigotry. Their vitriolic rhetoric exemplifies the stigma that atheists in this society still face, but ultimately, it says much more about their character than it does ours. And yet, they wonder why we seem angry.
Everybody's monitors ok?
Blog Info: READERS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO PROMOTE THIS BLOG ON THEIR SITE FOR ONE YEAR. Give Kelly a year and she'll give you major media theism debunked!
Subscribe (free) to our onsite feed : 
Please support this project and make a widget to put Kelly's feed on your site (simple and sleek).
This piece is part of a year long series (ends Oct 31, 2008) that Kelly of the Rational Response Squad will be writing to address theist talking heads in the media. Kelly is a Psychology major, co-host of the RRS Radio show, and has been featured on ABC debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. All articles may be reprinted in any major media publication or any blog. All articles will be submitted by Kelly or an assistant to the major media outlet that initially published the story as well as to the author of the original piece(when possible). Reprints are encouraged in blogs and must link to source. Reprints in media will be thanked in our book, so please alert us if you repost any story. Media outlets may shorten articles if necessary without removing context. Upon completion, a book and documentary will be made about the year (ending Oct. 31, 2008) and our plight to have dishonest argumentation countered with rational and factual answers in the press. If you would like Kelly to address any major media story from a theist talking head, please post a link to the article in her blog. We welcome messages from leading atheists asking us to refute stories attacking them and their views. At the end of the year the writings will be given some bulk, some supporting citations, and edits from a publisher to be compiled in a book. The book will include a documentary DVD shot from Sapient's vantage point as he works alongside Kelly, asking her questions about the project as it moves along.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -Thomas Jefferson
"By not caring too much about what people think, I'm able to think for myself and propagate ideas which are very often unpopular. And I succeed." -Albert Ellis
Quote: Everybody's
My monitor is resiliant. I fried 3 videocards unfortunately in reading this stuff.
Seriously. This person's ignorance is a good example why we should support euthanasia. This person is in serious pain of the disease of ignorance.
*I'm not suggesting we kill him.
I am just kidding 
*
This Stein Guy
This Stein guys arguments sound like 50s adds about hygeine. How lame.
Your life is a love story!
Kelly is mad , and "I'm
Kelly is mad , and "I'm so Glad"
Wild we is ! Shread ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yi7AJvzRUA
More Cream ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUVWXzH_6_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP6eTyCN3Tc
,the original alblum recordings are even better
Fuck yeah, Kelly is mad, a caring Angel ! Angels are for REAL ! Show your wings ....
Pissed me off, too
And I blogged about it: http://enigmahp.blogspot.com
I am particularly annoyed
I am particularly annoyed by the "well documented atheist moral paragon" Strawman he pulls right there... Who in their right minds would ever sit down and try and document the life of a single individual just because he or she is an atheist? Apart from that, I can easily mention at least a number of such atheists myself - and, frankly, that means that, since there are atheists that don't fit his bill, his argument is blown out of the water.
Never the less, he should go check up on some of the greatest atheist minds of all time - I am sure he would be sadly surprised to notice that some of them not only were perfectly healthy in psychological terms, they also happen to be some of the greatest scientists and inventors of all time. And before someone says that applies to theists too, guess what: we did not assert that every theist is a misogynist, a racist, or just plain stupid, nor that they are sexually rampant perverts. Claims made by theists are only short of suggesting that statistics in Scandinavia don't show just that for atheists, just because the researchers are raped repeatedly and then murdered and eaten raw, or something... You'd think that the lacking morality and depression supposedly inflicting atheists would have turned the lands of fjords into a wasteland - why is that not the case?
Also, I'd love to see them refute Socrates' dialogues over the difference between morality for morality's sake, and morality for fear of punishment (which, interestingly, he considered immoral, unlike Plato's position on the matter). Of course, resorting to theological dogma doesn't really help their case, especially when they say that other religions have it wrong, but angry on the principle that, say, Socrates was also wrong - every one of them.
Once again, very well said, Kelly.
This is a gem: "We now have
This is a gem: "We now have proof of what Jews always believed: we do not live in a cosmic perpetual motion machine, an eternally existing universe which keeps ticking away forever according to predetermined natural laws. Atheists seem to have barely noticed this scientific upheaval. They apparently don’t depend on any evidence."
The first sentence....proof of what Jews always believed..... sounds to me like this is the true statement he is trying to make in this article : "Hi christians, muslims and what not.. I am a jew and we agree with you regarding atheists. Oh by the way, we now have proof of what jews always believed, blah blah blah"
"Tell you once you had better listen because tell you twice and I have spent one more breath closer to death. ."
More links
It would be helpful to have a link to the first part of your response, as well as a link to the content you're criticizing.
Don't hold back, Kelly, tell us how you really feel.
Renee Obsidianwords wrote:
Don't you love that? It's alright for theists to stand together and try to beat atheists to a pulp in harmony but, no, all other religions are false by definition - so it says in their ancient tribal book right here!
I find it always amusing
I find it always amusing that its the most vitrolic people who call atheists angry lol.
<Edited because Im an idiot>
Morte alla tyrannus et dei
RaspK wrote: Also, I'd
I'm sure that "philosopher" doesn't even know what "Euthyphro's Dilemma" is, much less an answer to it.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -Thomas Jefferson
"By not caring too much about what people think, I'm able to think for myself and propagate ideas which are very often unpopular. And I succeed." -Albert Ellis
Great article, Kelly, keep
Great article, Kelly, keep up the good work.
kellym78 wrote: I'm sure
All too true; which reminds me of another thing: when you and Brian went on Nightline to face "not molecular biologists or rocket scientists" (still cracks me up), these two still relied on a principle they either did not know was set down by a scientist who also happened to be a philosopher, or hid the fact, like most religious people do. I mean, of course, Pascal's Wager.
Perhaps the nastiest bit
Perhaps the nastiest bit was one of his responses to an atheist who pointed out that she herself was an example of the type of atheist he didn't think existed:
There were good Nazis too. Take Oskar Schindler.
I think that that is the first time I've seen a Jewish person pull a Godwin. There is a certain sad irony in that.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
I am genuinely embarassed
I am genuinely embarassed that this vitriolic idiot shares my Ashkenazic heritage. Not even the most brutal critics of theism go to the depths of such outright hatred that this man goes into. Not even Sam Harris, who called the whole of Islam a "cult of death", employs such language. And at least Harris is constructive and eloquent! This man seems to have absolutely nothing to offer whatsoever. He did not present the slightest evidence for any of his assertions. In no way, shape, or form did he present a cool-headed, rational opinion. It was an entirely irrelevant rant drawn wholly from his personal emotions. Added to that, as the above poster pointed out, he violated Godwin's Law. When it was pointed out that his stereotpyes had not the slightest foundation by someone to whom they did not apply, his response was to say that such is analogous to "good Nazis"? Precisely how can such insipid hatred be generated by a mere difference in a single belief about the nature of the universe? Such constitutes the ultimate acid test of something he had already demonstrated numerous times: An inability to maintain a calm, rational argument. Precisely upon what grounds did he base the assertion that "atheists know God exists", or that they are terrified of eternal hellfire?
Him: All atheists secretly belive in God, are terrified of hell, are selfish, evil, immoral drug-abusers who know that quantum mechanism prove God but ignore it and who watch a large amount of pornography, furthermore, they are diseased, and often abuse alchohol
Atheist: I don't do/believe any of these things.
The fact that he responded with the "good Nazi" analogy indicates he acknowledges that his false generalization was blatant nonsense, yet that despite that his interlocutor did not do any of the things he described, he still classed them as being analogous to a "Nazi" not on virtue of their actions, but rather solely because they were atheist! This is not constructive criticism. This is unacceptable hate speech.
One wonders if he has ever actually discoursed with or met any atheists, or is just regurgitating his irrelevant opinions on matters. He may as well have replaced "atheists" with "black people", or "diabetics".
True virtue is life under the direction of reason
-Baruch de Spinoza
It is the mark of a reasoned man that he can without problem separate what he can deduce as true from that which he wishes to be true -Me
"most destructive blow"?
I got an email telling me this "blog may be the most destructive blow dealt to Christians so far...." That's pretty sad considering this rant is aimed at such a narrow target and lacks any significant substance.
The writer complains about Stein's statement that atheists are selfish and she asks, "What kind of statistical data can you present for your claims, Stein?" Having not read Stein, I cannot say whether he presents evidence. But, I can say their is evidence atheists are more selfish than the religious--although no reasonable person should ever make such a blanket claim as "atheists are invariably highly selfish people." Check out the new book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism," by Arthur Brooks, professor of public administration at Syracuse University. When researching charitable giving and volunteerism, he came to a conclusion that surprised him; religious people are far more giving, even when you discount their giving to religious causes. For example, religious people are far more likely to donate blood or to help a homeless person. Brooks states, "I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people."
Now, I realize Democrats are not uniformly secular and Republicans are not uniformly religious, but there is also evidence that Democrats are more racist than Republicans. One study, by Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar found Democrats were more likely to believe whites should get more federal help after Hurricane Katrina than Republicans.
Again, I haven't read Stein, but if this blog is being truthful about his views, the writer still has shown nothing about Christianity--especially since Stein is Jewish. But beyond that, the blogger stated in part 1, Christianity is "a religion that hasn't come up with a new argument in 2000 years." Perhaps the blogger should take a look at Oxford philosopher Antony Flew's new book on why after decades of being a leading atheist he has accepted Intelligent Design. It's not even important whether you agree with ID, but it is clearly asinine to say there has been no philosophical progress in 2000 years.
Or consider that John Locke, whose Treatises of Government became a foundation for America, specifically wrote from a Protestant theological perspective. Is that not philosophical progress? Again, this blog is asinine.
What about morality? Lawrence Kohlberg, the areligious (yes the A was intentional) Harvard moral philosopher, found that people with the highest levels of moral thinking are almost always religious (e.g., Martin Luther King, Gandhi, etc).
I could go on, but it's probably pointless. I've done my part. I've given actual evidence and made real arguments.
Check up this crappy answer
Check up this crappy answer of his - it's as if none of us could have been an atheist to respond to him appropriately!
silly question
ok, i admit, some of their arguments are as bad as some of dawkins (eg. einstein didn't believe in god, thus god does not exist [this is admittedly a possible misreading of his book, which i do intend to read again.]), but i am sure they also raise some valid points.... even if they do take some finding.
my question is completely irrelevent to pretty much all ur points, as ur points are for the most part justified, although i do find suspending belief with no evidence against almost as logically challenging as believing with no evidence to suport.
anyway, the silly, almost pointless, if not completely pointless, question.
was all the swearing neccessary? sure, ur angry, but u can be angry and civilised as well, or how are u disproving their point? if they're saying ' atheists are not nice', how is telling them they're 'selfish, arrogent p****s' going to help? (usually, i would not have stared that, but it seemed hipocritical not to.) that's like me blowing up ur house because u said 'christians do bad things'.
ok, im done. i apologise for a) my poor spelling, and b) my poor grammer. i'm in no way a linguist, just a 16 year old with a mildly augmented vocabulary (in comparison to most 16 year olds). that's why i study the sciences (mildly ironic for a theist, i know, but i find the two pleasently compatable.)
i am truly sorry if i wasted ur time. which u probably think i did. oh well.
hail jesus, and rule Brittania.
IB_Bio wrote: Check out the
To say that Brooks' book is unbiased and the results uncontested is an understatement. The biggest problem is his immediate assumption that taxation cannot be considered a charitable donation, thus denying the label of "charitable" to people who consider that a large part of their giving. To quote Brooks from his website:
Of course, a lot of people do in fact believe that their support for government works is charity, and invest time in pushing that. Brooks' criteria allows him to ignore that completely.
Then why mention it? Because it's a cheap shot and sounds good, even if it doesn't quite hit the mark?
Who said anything about Christianity in this case? Oh, yeah, you.
From an atheistic point of view, there hasn't been any. ID is nothing new. It is reheated Creationism. Even the giants of Christian philosophy, like Aquinas, simply used preexisting Greek philosophical ideas linked into the Christian mythos.
The Locke who denied the central Christian tenet of original sin with his view of "tabula rosa"? The Locke who helped lay the foundation of deism? His works are important to the extent that they were foundational in the dissolution of the meld of church and state. I have little doubt that the majority of Christians I know would consider much of his thoughts to be nothing short of a mild blasphemy.
Highest levels of moral thinking as defined by....?
I'll grant you did more in one post than either of the bloggers in question did. But I think you need to work more for specifics in your evidence if you want to be more persuasive.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
I read Stein's reply as
I read Stein's reply as RaspK posted it.
Some philosopher. He doesn't even know what the word "agnostic" means.
This piece of mine is partially directed at Stein:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radi...
True virtue is life under the direction of reason
-Baruch de Spinoza
It is the mark of a reasoned man that he can without problem separate what he can deduce as true from that which he wishes to be true -Me
Funny, his line of thinking,
Funny, his line of thinking, isn't it? "Oh, come on, guys, you all know I am right, so please admit it!"
On Idiocy.
I completely agree. that is what bothers me the most. that people just take religion as truth, as the only answer and leaves it to the non-believers to disprove it. we don't have to prove anything! it is up to the people telling me why i should believe in their insanity and inane ritual beliefs to prove that THEY are right. when someone comes up with a scientific theory we don't assume it's right and let people try to prove it wrong. it's the other way around!
people are born without a religious belief, it's taught. but morality? humanity? that's intrinsic. animals take care of their own without religion, as did the very first humans. only killed to eat or in self defence. humans are the only animals who kill for hate, for fun. it's in our blood, our genes to survive and seek happiness. hatred, bigotry and prejudice are taught mostly through religion. if being an atheist is immoral and disgusting, i'd take that ANY day over being a MORAL, hate filled, ignorant, insecure theist.
reply to thatonedude
OK, I'm new to this and won't even try to mess with the quote tags. But, I'll try to reference the points in a way that's easy to follow.
Is paying your taxes being charitable?
Let's suppose you do think that's your charity. Unless the religious fundies are cheating on their taxes, they are paying the same taxes and still giving more of their net income. Plus, your taxes excuse has no bearing on blood donations.
Was it a cheap shot to mention the Iyengar study on racism?
Mentioning Democratic racism was not a cheap shot. It was an indirect evidence that religious people are better people than secularists. I noted that the relationship was indirect so as not to make the absurd "invariably" generalization that Stein is said to have made. Democrats are generally more secular; Republicans are generally more religious. Obama can say all he wants about how people in the blue states worship an awesome God, but you don't agree, I bet. And the evidence that Democrats are generally more racist than Republicans therefore leads to a reasonable conclusion (although indirect and inconclusive) that secularists are more racist.
Who said any thing about Christianity?
If you remember, I began my post by stating I received an email from rational responders saying this blog was a great attack on Christianity. Plus, part 1 of the blog mentioned "a religion that hasn't come up with a new argument in 2000 years." Am I reading too much into that to see Christianity? I doubt it.
Has their been any new Christian philosophy?
You mentioned that "From an atheistic point of view, there hasn't been any." Well, it's difficult to argue with the conclusion that comes from an atheistic view. Of course, you are not going to see anything new. You're likely to see everything as "that God stuff" again.; it's all the same to you. Your comments about rehashing Greek mythology is too complex to deal with significantly here. I'll admit that it is a common liberal (academically) interpretation to see everything in religion as rehashing. But, that's because any similarity is used to justify the view. It's like when they claim Jesus rising from the dead is based on prior pagan beliefs of spring fertility and new birth. That's a stretch, but it comes from the liberal view that everything is recycled, therefore any similarity is the proof of recycling.
Still, there is much to consider. It was the Puritans who first developed the Western idea that the wife should be the closest friend of the man. The ancient Greeks even thought men's best relationships would be with other men. And it was Baptist theology that led to the separation of church and state. Roger Williams, a Baptist minister and founder of Rhode Island, created the first government to ever establish absolute freedom of religion. And it was the Virginia Baptists that refused to support the Bill of Rights unless it contained freedom of religion. Those are some new ideas I bet you appreciate.
What about John Locke?
Yes, Locke had some screwed up theology. But, he always considered himself a Christian, even though he denied the trinity. The point was that he built his ideas from theology.
How did Kohlberg define the highest levels of morality?
Kohlberg's theory of moral development was based on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (who hated Christians) and John Rawls (who was nonreligious). Kohlberg also built those philosophies onto the psychological research of Jean Piaget. Kohlberg's theory is the most widely accepted and researched theory of moral development in the world.
We're not all this insane!!!!
Hi all it's been a while, it's Joe Moe, theist at large here and I want you all to know that these idiots( allthough they think that they do) Absolutely do not represent all of those out there who have faith in something.
All theists are not completely insane, and don't insist that others believe what they believe. A person calling themself a Christian shouldn't be judging anyone, or putting them down.
Some people abuse the power of their positions, or their access to the media just to try to make others look bad, it is an injustice.
Joe Moe
Splainy?
does anyone else love his comment on his own rant:
"To follow his logic, when God tells me Himself He does not exist, I will believe Him. Until then, I don't want to hear anything from anyone else. I am "up to here" with Science."
what the hell kind of logic is that?
Well... I'm really sorry
Well... I'm really sorry you have to deal with people ogf that sort across the pond. Their rants, however, clearly show how indoctrination and credulity can thwart a mind.
I'td be fun to ask these vacuum-skulls why we in Norway, with our 64% - and still incereasing percentage - of unbelievers still exist and quite happy and prosperously at that. The expected response would be totally blighted, though amusing and painfull at the same time I guess.
But hey, 2009 might prove to be a really positive thing given Obama is elected. He's by far the most reasonable candidate the US has had for a long time
Keep spreading the rational way of thinking
If any christian is sure that rapture is imminient, I'll be happy to receive their worldly goods, thus ensuring that said theist don't have trouble with the camel, rich man and eye of a needle problem.
That's another hole I
That's another hole I punched in their arguments later, and so have Kelly and Brian and many others around here: if atheists were debauched immoral scum, then explain why Denmark, Norway, and Sweden not only prosper, but have the lowest crime rates all around.
Read his response in my above post - straight from my gmail acount!
Bravah!!! And let me just
Bravah!!! And let me just say, I've given thought to my position. I can't as yet claim the title "atheist" as I've really had little time to express a belief or disbelief in any deity, since I've been too full in the bullshit of the religions and the religious that I've battled to even give thought to that. I though I had, but really, I've just been battling stupidity.
I've recently met a group of people filled with believers and disbelievers who, like me, are sick as hell of all this and love to get together over coffee and discuss the stupid of the day. Believers are often ashamed of what they're seeing, and, like the FSM's *8 I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts*, claim that their God as they believe in him isn't that vain and doesn't give a rat's ass if you believe in him... or okay, some of them say "her". I think if I took on a belief, I'd faster listen to these guys. But I'm too busy (as they are) fighting for the animal and plant life and the environment that this religion-driven culture is killing thoughtlessly, to even care right now about that issue.
I'll say this... atheists are on the rise, and not enough of them are nypmhomaniacs for my taste. Or at least not the handsome furry gay male ones. Dammit.
Ray, the PaganBear
thepaganbear@yahoo.com
http://www.thestumblingblock.com
Anti-Theists and Rebel Monkeys UNITE!
paganbear wrote: I'll say
That must be the funniest retort ever!
great article
Excellent articles Kelly! I find it very ironic that atheists get called "intellectually inept" and at the same time "philosophical dilettante's." Aren't they mutually exclusive or does the author think philosophy isn't an intellectual study?
As someone who does consider himself an intellectual I appreciate your vocabulary which required me to occassionaly have to look up because it expands my own. I wonder if that makes me intellectually inept or a philosophical dillettante?
Seriously though, the sad thing is that rather than address the argument of the atheist authors mentioned he chose to attack the author instead (argument to the man?). I recognize that style of rhetoric in christians from when I was one. It only serves to try to keep the faithful from reading the subject material themselves. It's an attempt at self-preservation, an act of desperation. Even when I was a christian that argument style ticked me off which I suppose contributed to my freedom from religion.
keep up the good work!
Rob
I would guess that this
I would guess that this individual is well aware that his insults, insinuations and claims are bogus. Perhaps he is hoping to hurl enough crap at the dart board in hopes that something will stick. His article is truly desperate. I appreciate your well written response Kelly. I couldn't have said it better.
Trillian: No... just very, very improbable!
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy