House Cleaning Time...

Folks, I am about to clean house here, removing the trolls yet again. Seems like every six months or so, a good pest removal is in order. This time it is a troll calling itself Choices, which person refuses to address the arguments given him, claiming there are none (typical Atheist move to avoid demonstrating their intellectual inability to support their own worldview rationally); engaging in blatant childish mimicry Tu Quoques; failing to accept its failure of logic by ignoring it; and generally displaying its emotional response rather than even attempting a rational discussion of the charges against it.

This has been tolerated up to the point of the troll demonstrating its mindless childishness, which is a waste of my time. This troll has one last chance to address the arguments made against it, and to address them in a logical straight forward manner without dissembly or deviation. If it fails to do so, then the blog will be put back on moderation for a while.

There are some other trolls here which are on the hairy edge as well. It would do them well to view the Rules of the Blog.

An Actual Man

In my reading various sources on the subject of today's child-man epidemic, I came across the story of a real man, a man anyone, well most anyone, would be proud to know: Rick Rescorla.

Col. Rescorla, I didn't know you, but rest in peace.

A Real Science

The biological realm will likely dominate the 21st century sciences or so we are told. I think that is true, especially with stem cells, and now this: the science of embryonic generation might lead to a field of artificial regeneration. It's already had some success. And it is experimentally validatable and not dependent on evolution or inference nor does it consist of equations with no way to check their validity in the material world. This science is real, in the sense that it will generate objective knowledge.

One of the outstanding findings is that there is yet another language within the embryo, electrically spoken, and controlled by forces unknown.

Academic Hatred of Israel

Legal Insurrection has investigated the academic movement against Israel as was personified in the ASA boycott:

"Researching the numerous articles I have written this past month has been an eye-opener — and that from someone whose eyes were already wide open as to the nature of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement. The hatred of Israel among the academic boycotters is beyond anything you can imagine.

The hatred of Israel is visceral, and beyond reason. Everything good about Israel is turned into a negative.

These academics hold “Homonationalism and Pinkwashing” conferences to denounce Israel for making known that it treats its LGBT citizens fairly and humanely, unlike most countries in the world. Yet the Pinkwashing anti-Israel movement is led by LGBT and “Queer” (their word) activists who would be persecuted or worse anywhere in the Middle East other than Israel. You will hear next to nothing from them about how gays in Palestinian controlled areas are abused and flee … to Israel for protection.

There is nothing good that Israel can do in their eyes. The existence of Israel is their problem, not where borders are drawn.

As I have learned more about these academic boycotters, it is obvious that Israel is just the object of a deep-seated anti-Western anger expressed as “anti-Colonial” or “post-Colonial” or solidarity with “indigenous peoples.” Of course, they deny the Jewish people, whose indigenous presence for millennia in the land of Israel is beyond historical doubt, any indigenous status.

Indeed, you can add to “Pinkwashing” other conferences on “Redwashing” — the supposed injustice of Israeli Jews expressing solidarity with other indigenous peoples. [Added – See this article at Indian Country Today taking the ASA boycotters to task, Don’t Mix Indigenous Fight With Palestinian Rights

It should not surprise you that two of the Brown University professors (here and here) supporting the shout-down protest against Ray Kelly also were anti-Israel BDS supporters.

The connection between the radical left (I’m not talking about mere ”liberals”) and the BDS movement is deep and feeds off each other. That is why you will often find avowed international socialist groups teaming up with BDS on campuses, along with Islamists.

Just read the excellent Forbes article by Richard Behar about the people on the National Council of ASA, including its incoming President from NYU. It would be a parody of what some segments of academia have become, except that no parody is needed, just the facts.

Victor Davis Hanson correctly puts it in context:

Nazis and racists used to spearhead Jewish hatred using ancient crackpot defamations that date back to the Jewish diaspora into Europe after the Roman destruction of Judea. But lately, anti-Semitism has become more a left-wing pathology. It is driven by the cheap multicultural trashing of the West. Jewish people here and abroad have become convenient targets for those angry with supposedly undeserved Western success and privilege.

The academics behind the boycott do not represent all or even a majority of academia. If anything, the ASA boycott will spur even greater cooperation among American and Israeli academic institutions, both because it makes educational sense and because all well-meaning academics know what is at stake.

To their credit, many universities have rejected the ASA and it's boycott; it is rightfully being denounced.

Rhetoric and Dialectic: Persuasion With Falseness v.s. Demonstration of Validity

Vox Day gives a good explanation of rhetoric v.s. dialectic today. We have recently seen the use of rhetoric-only as arguments for defense of the killing abbatoirs of abortion in the comments here on this blog.

There are many logic books and there are many rhetoric books. One of my favorite summaries of rhetorical devices is "The Art Of Controversy", by Arthur Schopenhauer (This same book is ffound under other titles, but they are still translations of the same work by Schopenhauer).

An excellent use of dialectic and refutation of false rhetoric is found in one of my favorite works: "Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science" by Angus Menuge.

Rhetorical fallacies can also be found at fallacyfiles.org.

Last Year It Was Racist To Criticise ObamaCare; This Year...

...it's patriotic.

Democrats joining GOP efforts to alter troubled Obamacare

Who Knew?

Incest porn is a real thing...

Well, I suppose no perversion is a perversion any more, unless the AtheoLeft says it is.

The Drive to Redistribute

The Financial Times hits Obama's war on the productive class:

"Critics charge that President Obama’s budget and tax policies target wealth redistribution – social engineering – rather than boosting the economy. His proposal to limit contributions to tax-deferred savings accounts strengthens their case.

In his budget released earlier this month, Obama proposed capping lifetime contributions to 401(k)s or Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) at “about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013,” in order to prevent “wealthy individuals” from accumulating “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings.”

This is the same president who said last year, “If you work hard your whole life, you ought to have every opportunity to retire with dignity and financial security….” Obama would like to decide what constitutes dignity and financial security for you.

This particular effort to “level the playing field,” as Obama is so fond of saying, will hit those who work hard, reap the rewards, and save aggressively. It especially sends the wrong message to young people. An analysis by the Employee Benefit Research Analysis suggests that anywhere from 1 percent to 6 percent of workers age 26 to 35 might ultimately hit the cap, depending on investment returns, asset allocation decisions and other variables.

What is the point? The proposal is expected to save the government only $9 billion over the next 10 years – a drop in the budget bucket. This suggestion is not aimed at balancing our books, but at preventing the industrious from getting ahead. This, at a moment when it is clear that the nation should be promoting, and not discouraging savings, when Social Security looks likely to become another welfare program rather than a broad-based retirement account, and when the government boasts about reducing – not adding -- red tape. And when, by the way, young people have been scorched by the financial crisis and are skittish about investing. Young people who live in a time that celebrates conspicuous consumption and not thrift."

It is sometimes claimed that it was the young people who put Obama in office (when it's not claimed that it was the blacks, or the guilt-ridden whites trying to make up for racism). The young will suffer disproportionately from Obama's economic attack on the USA. They will rue the day they made that vote, even more than I rue the day they made that vote.

The Argument For Killing The Preborn

The AtheoLeftist abortionistas have just one tactic, even though they fill that tactic with a variety of fallacies and logic deviations. The tactic is to (a) deny that a certain class of humans is actually human; then (b) define that class as a Kill Class, which allows the inhabitants of that class to be killed at will.

The second part of the tactic, part (b) is all that they want to discuss, and they attempt to use the first part, part (a), to justify the second part. And they refuse to admit that they have actually performed the devaluation upon which they depend, and they do that by pretending that (a) is obviously true, regardless of their inability to provide empirical evidence to support their claim.

There are numerous logical defects in this anti-rational process, one of which stands out above and beyond the rest. That defect is that by defining certain natural human states to be non-human, they have automatically brought upon themselves the task of deciding for that non-human class exactly what point in the human development the non-human becomes human, and escapes the tacit death sentence which the AtheoLeft has visited upon him/her.

It actually makes no difference, zero, what point they choose to elevate the non-human to human. What matters is that they must make an arbitrary decision, and that decision proves that they did in fact devalue the humans arbitrarily into a select class of “non-humanity” in order that they be designated a Killable Class. It is not possible to deny that the selection of the boundary between non-human-Killable, and human-non-killable is purely arbitrary based on nothing whatsoever but the desire of the particular AtheoLeftist in the discussion to include ages 0–X, where the AtheoLeftist gets to define the value of X. But there is no empirical boundary at which X is found; it is merely the opinion of the AtheoLeftist; i.e. it is purely arbitrary.

The Kill Category of humans [0-X] then is merely an artifact of the imagination of the AtheoLeftist who chooses a non-zero value. This renders the entire process to be, not empirical in even the wildest sense, but ideological.

When asked what enables their right to determine a non-zero value for X, the AtheoLeftist ignores the question, despite having the question thrust upon him repeatedly. This question is, of course, fatal to the presumption of rationality on the one hand, and to the issue of the AtheoLeftist’s actual lack of moral eliteness and Right To Kill, on the other. The AtheoLeftist cannot answer that question without revealing the reality of his motivation for developing the Kill Class of humans [0-X].

So the response, if any, is to either repeat the arguments (note 1) for the actual material existence of X, for which they never produce empirical evidence, or they attempt the Tu Quoque response by attacking the questioners Right to question their moral eliteness.

But although the particulars change in each discussion, the fundamentals are the same: (a) devalue human life and put it into a Killable Class; (b) declare the Killable Class to be killable at will.

The justifications never pass any logic test; the resulting attacks on the questioner of their moral right always are both false Tu Quoques and Ad Hominems.

Abortion is killing. It is sanctioned by the false claims which are used to devalue a certain class of humans. It is implemented by declaring the Killable Class of humans to be killable at will. That’s all that abortion is.

Notes
Note 1: The most illustrative arguments are those which puport to be increasing the "goods" for the woman, or her family, or society. This argument goes thus:

If [party Y is killed], THEN [life will be better for A, B, and C; (the "goods" have been increased)].
Where Y = Killable Class of Humans [0-X].

Obviously, y may be defined however the AtheoLeft wishes, since it already is.

The Case For Homeschooling

Glenn Reynolds refers to government schools as "child abuse". With the persisting war on boys that exist in government schools, there is also a war on all children, including girls.

When Obama placed a known sexual activist in charge of education, the purpose became obvious.

Why Is This Wrong?

A woman in Texas killed her offspring. It is called murder. Why? Abortionists kill offspring and throw them in the trash every day, and it is legal. Yet this is differentiated from abortion somehow.

Why is this elimination of an inconveneint offspring not the exact same thing as aborting an inconvenient preborn? The only reason is that the AtheoLeft has not yet redefined the post-nate not to be a complete human being, not a person, and legally sacrificable for the personal comfort/health/finances/whatever of the female parent.

Mark Dice Demonstrates Again The Mental Acuity Of Voting Age Americans

How Atheists Think

On another thread, below, an Atheist takes issue with the parody on Atheist arguments. It's amazing how many Atheists are literalists despite their hatred of literalism. Nonetheless, I have responded with the following list regarding the Atheist thought process:

1. Denial of intellectual responsibility for saying why they reject theist arguments.

2. Constant and consistent use of rationalization to backfill their emotional conclusion which has no intellectual or evidentiary content.

3. Backfill the intellectual and moral void they have created for themselves with visions of their own self-endowed elitism.

4. Live a life of arrogance despite also living a life dependent upon logical fallacy, which is now deeply embedded in the worldview.

5. Claim logic and evidence as the basis of their worldview, despite being based totally on emotional rejectionism and neediness.

6. Evangelize, claiming that critical thinking means being a critical person, who criticizes everything except Materialism and Scientism and Leftism.

7. Demand that government be beholden to their views, and only their views, exclusively (because they are so tolerant).

8. Be vociferously offended at the mere sight of religious artifacts and activities which are not yet underground and are thus visually offensive. The FFRF has claimed to be made physically ill at the sight. BUT:

9. Demand total tolerance for any possible amoral activity engaged in by the amoral/immoral. That's because those activities are now morally acceptable, and religion is the only remaining immorality and cannot be tolerated unless it is underground and not available to be seen by impressionable children who might be corrupted. Media tolerance for sex and violence is fine; media attachment to the offensive morality of the Other cannot be tolerated, and is purged by consensus.

10. Form and fund large organizations which attack small entities which display religious symbology, especially very small towns and school districts. Do not attack Los Angeles, it might win, and that would destroy the ability for future attacks on the Other.

11. Claim that no one but an Atheist can understand Atheism.

12. Claim that other Atheists are wrong; only you personally understand Atheism.

13. Claim Atheism is not a religion.

14. Form churches.

15. Split into denominations due to dogma differences.

16. Create an individual morality which fits the individual Atheist's proclivity and thus is also volatile.

17. Insist that Atheists are Good without God.

18. Campaign against theism with billboard and bus sign attacks, claiming that the presence of religion is an attack on themselves, the Victims.

19. Become the Saviors of mankind, as well as Victims. Classism is thus natural to the Atheist.

20. Being the Saviors/Messiahs requires the designation of classes of Victims and Oppressors; the government is the perfect place to apply Messiahism, since it has the ability to attack the Oppressors and keep the Victims on the plantations.

Updated for grammar.

Innoculating Youth Against The Irrational Leftist Professors

The following short list of self-refuting statements made by professors is compiled by a researcher in the pursuit of helping innoculate young people against the irrationality being put forth in colleges and universities by Leftist professors. This is an invaluable service, it seems to me. The approach of simply using logical analysis on the Leftist assertions reveals their falseness, but how many young people have that capability? The worst part is that what ideology Leftists spew, they claim to be both rational and moral, and also based on "critical thinking". These claims are false, false and false. To a Leftist, critical thinking means being critical of opposing viewpoints (see "tolerance", below).

“There is no objective truth” / “Objective truth does not exist”
Perhaps the most obviously self-refuting, this claim (or something similar to it) is still uttered in many university settings according to the students I train. Like all self-refuting claims, it can be cross-checked by simply turning the statement on itself. By asking, “Is that statement objectively true?” we can quickly see that the person making the claim believes in at least one objective truth: that there is no objective truth. See the problem?

“If objective truth does exist, no one could ever know with confidence what it is” / “It’s arrogant to assume you know the truth with certainty”
Once again, the professor who makes such a claim appears to be confident and certain of one truth: that no one can be confident or certain of the truth! The statement falls on its own sword the moment it is uttered.

“Science is the only way to determine truth” / “I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process”
University students report this statement often, and it may take a little more thought to recognize as self-refuting. When a professor makes this claim, we simply need to ask, “Can science determine if that statement (about science) is true?” or “What scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?” It turns out that there is no scientific process or procedure can be employed to validate this claim. It is a presumptive philosophical statement that is outside the analysis of science
.
“It’s intolerant to presume that your view is better than someone else’s’” / “Tolerance requires us to accept all views equally”
An even more hidden self-refuting statement lurks here in this common errant definition of tolerance. Folks who hold to this corrupted view say they accept all views as equally true. But if you make the claim that some ideas are patently false and have less value than others, they will quickly reject your statement. In other words, they will accept any view as equally valuable except your claim that some views are not equally valuable. See the inconsistency? People who embrace this definition of tolerance cannot consistently implement their own view of tolerance.

Youth need to be fluent in the tactics of false rhetoric, the nature of fallacies, and the disciplined analysis using deduction.

They should be able to detect the difference between education and indoctrination.

Watching A-Bombs in the 50's

These photos remind me of my own experience with the A-bomb testing in Nevada. We lived for a time in Henderson, NV, just south of Las Vegas. My parents would wake us up in the very dark pre-dawn hours to see the blast some 90 miles away. At the prescribed time the entire sky would light up and stay bright for what seemed to be minutes. Then it dropped to a duller red glow for quite awhile. We waited outside until the shock wave came through, turning the stillness of the desert night into a brief but strong windstorm. And quite the boom. And that was it.

I asked my dad later in life how he knew when to get us up to see the explosion. He said that the truckers all knew when it was going to be, because the road closings were announced well in advance. My two uncles ran the AEC com link from a mountain top where they could have seen the blast directly but they couldn't look at it and had to face away. And they didn't give away the blast time, because it was "classified". Go figure.

The Antidote For Street Atheism

Vox Day is starting a series dedicated to dismembering Boghossian's Atheist street evangelism guide, "A Manual For Creating Atheists". I have little doubt that the takedown will be complete and devastating, since Boghossian is no intellectual and presents fallacious information at will and without embellishment. I wrote the book off after seeing that it presented nothing new, but Vox apparently considers Boghossian to be the Fifth Horseman - i.e., influential but not rational. There is a considerable market for that type of Atheist irrationality. So Vox is presenting an "innoculation" to the toxic contents of Boghossian's manual. Check it out if you are interested.

Addendum:
The response to Vox's book "The Irrational Atheist" was hysterical. Several pompous Atheists started a chapter by chapter take down of TIA, and not one of them got all the way through chapter 3. They just stopped and changed the subject. Another empirical view into Atheist intellect and intellectual honesty.

A Look At "Hundreds of Atheist Arguments"

OK these are mostly satire, yet I have had some of these arguments made here. I rearranged a few of them into an order I think fits.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE (I)
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Christians; it's too complicated for you to understand. God doesn't exist whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MATTER AND ENERGY
(1) Existence is defined by matter or energy.
(2) (No one is allowed to disagree with that.)
(2) God is not composed of matter or energy.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION (I)
(1) If you cannot agree on a definition of a thing, then it does not exist.
(2) People cannot agree on a definition of God.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM REALITY (I)
(1) Reality is that which I understand as demonstrably true.
(2) I do not understand how the demonstrations that God exists are true.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM REALITY (II), a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM ANTARCTICA
(1) Reality is that which I understand as demonstrably true.
(2) For example, before Antarctica was discovered, its existence was not demonstratable.
(3) Therefore, Antarctica was not real at that point.
(4) Kind of like how God is not real until I believe He is.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION WITHOUT USING PREMISES (I)
(1) I cannot actually prove God does not exist.
(2) But that won't stop me from drawing the following, unexpected conclusion:
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION WITHOUT USING PREMISES (II)
(1) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM UNBELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) But, look, I choose not to believe in Him.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM THOMAS EDISON
(1) Thomas Edison was an atheist.
(2) He invented the lightbulb.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM THE INABILITY TO BELIEVE
(1) I admit there are proofs that God does in fact exist.
(2) But in all honesty, I still can't see how God exists.
(3) This has nothing to do with my bastard father who was never there for me.
(4) So, I'm being rational and yet unable to accept rational arguments that have to do with God.
(5) And until someone explains to me how I'm pulling that off, I'm afraid it's going to be atheism for me.
(6) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION (II)
(1) No one can agree what the definition of "God" is.
(2) But whatever definitions they come up with, none of them will ever work.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION (III)
(1) The philosopher Baruch Spinoza defines God as nature.
(2) Therefore, nature does not exist.
(3) Well, nature exists.
(4) But God does not exist (even if you equate the term "God" with something I believe in).
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION (IV)
(1) The previous argument is ridiculous.
(2) If God is "nature," then of course I believe in "God."
(3) But I'm scared of the word "God."
(4) So, let's just drop the subject.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM SEMANTICS
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "That's just semantics."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM NIT-PICKINESS
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "You're just being nit-picky."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM DISINGENUOUSNESS
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "Now you're being disingenuous."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM WINNING THE ARGUMENT
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "Oh, you're just trying to win the argument."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM LITERALISM
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "Oh, you're just taking what I say too literally."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS (I)
(1) God only exists if Christians agree with each other.
(2) Christians do not always agree with each other.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS (II)
(1) Unlike Christians, atheists always agree with each other.
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS (III)
(1) Actually, atheists don't agree on a lot of things.
(2) Atheists don't agree on whether objective morality exists.
(3) Atheists don't agree on whether absolute truth exists.
(4) Atheists don't agree on whether the universe even exists.
(5) Atheists don't agree on whether God exists.
(6) But they all agree on what the atheism is.
(7) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS (IV)
(1) Actually, atheists can't even agree on what atheism is.
(2) "Broad" Atheists disbelieve in all god(s).
(3) "Narrow" Atheists disbelieve in certain god(s).
(4) "Strong" or "Positive" or "Explicit" Atheists claim that there are no god(s).
(5) "Weak" or "Positive" or "Implicit" Atheists merely lack belief that there are god(s).
(6) "Gnostic" Atheists say it's certain that god(s) do not exist.
(7) "Strong" Agnostic Atheists say it's impossible to know if god(s) exist.
(8) "Weak" Agnostic Atheists say it someday might be possible to know if god(s) exist (but not right now).
(9) "Ignostic" or "Igtheistic" Atheists say the term "God" is simply devoid of meaning.
(11) "Pragmatic" Atheists say it's just not important whether God exists.
(11) "Deistic" Atheists say that God exists (but He doesn't do much).
(12) Some atheists think atheism is an opinion.
(13) Some atheists think it's a lack of an opinion.
(14) Some atheists claim that all, some, or none of these qualify as Atheism.
(15) But at least they all call themselves Atheists, and that's what really matters.
(16) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM THE SPANISH INQUISITION
(1) The Spanish Inquisition killed pretty much everybody.
(2) That's right. It killed everybody.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM THE SAGAN STANDARD (I)
(1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
(2) The claim that God exists is extraordinary.
(3) Therefore, any evidence supporting it ought to be extraordinary as well.
(4) I'm not sure what I mean by "extraordinary."
(5) But whatever you come up with, it's not going to work.
(6) Therefore, God does not exist.

SIGMUND FREUD'S ARGUMENT FROM OEDIPUS
(1) The belief in God arises from the unconscious fear that your father is going to castrate you when he finds out you have a desire to sleep with your own mother.
(2) Obviously, only a crazy person would think that.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM INFANTILE INTELLIGENCE (I)
(1) Everyone is born an atheist.
(2) Therefore, we should think like that.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

SAM HARRIS'S IMAGINARY ARGUMENT
(1) Bad things happen.
(2) This means God is impotent, evil, or imaginary.
(3) If God is impotent, then He's not powerful and thus doesn't exist.
(4) If God is evil, then He's not good and thus doesn't exist.
(5) If God is imaginary, then God doesn't exist.
(6) Now some theists claim God allows bad things to happen to bring about a greater good.
(7) This would mean God might still be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and real.
(8) I don't know any rational argument to disprove that.
(9) So, I'll make this appeal to emotion: it's callous to tell people that their suffering is meaningful.
(10) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MODAL LOGIC (II)
(1) I am an atheist.
(2) I do not know what modal logic is.
(3) Any proof for God's existence that uses modal logic is not understood by me.
(4) If I don't understand something, then I can make fun of it.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.

PARENTAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) My daddy told me that God exists.
(2) I hate my daddy.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) There are a lot of false miracles.
(2) Therefore, all miracles could be false.
(3) In fact, yeah, all miracles are false.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (II)
(1) If there is no evidence for God, God does not exist.
(2) {Christian apologist offers the millions of accounts of miracles reported throughout history}
(3) No, even though I obviously haven't investigated all those stories, I know they're all false.
(4) Therefore, there is no evidence for God.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (III)
(1) A person claimed he saw a miracle.
(2) I didn't see the miracle.
(3) Therefore, that person was lying, hallucinating, or is just an frickin' idiot.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (IV)
(1) I saw a miracle.
(2) However, maybe it really wasn't a miracle.
(3) Therefore, I will firmly deny that it was a miracle.
(4) Therefore, all other miracles are also not miracles.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (V)
(1) There is no evidence for miracles.
(2) The millions of reports of supposed miracles are not evidence.
(3) This is because I'm assuming miracles are impossible.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (VI)
(1) There is lots of evidence for miracles.
(2) But there is no evidence that they were caused by the one true God who created the universe.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (VII)
(1) There is lots of evidence for miracles that involve alleged visions of the one true God who created the universe.
(2) Still, it could all be crap.
(3) Therefore, there is no evidence that God exists.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (VIII)
(1) Miracles cannot exist because they would, by definition, violate the laws of physics.
(2) But the laws of physics cannot be violated.
(3) I did experiments that proved this.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (IX)
(1) Atheist: "It's interesting that miracles conveniently never happen around skeptics."
(2) Theist: "Well, I had a friend who used to be a skeptic until a miracle in his life happened."
(3) Atheist: "That doesn't count. He's not a skeptic anymore. I'm talking about real skeptics. The ones who stay skeptics even if they see a miracle."
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

HT to Vox Day...