"refuting" common atheist "fallacies" part 4

[hypoelectron]

Man, this is way awesome with the captions on. I'm glad that even the Muslims got distressed by his wordplay and posted corrections. I hate theists who condemn other peoples worship. It's like a disease trying to spread itself. 

[Singebuggercat]

@hypoelectron (sry 4 being slow to answer) thx 4 the support. Don't get me started on Pisslam. Fuck me sideways, that is one fucked up religion. If you dare, read "Future Jihad" - i warn you, it's like learning that the world has cancer.

...But there is hope - moderate islam is winning in the middle east.

[calthopian]

So this guy is basically saying that if there's a plane flight, the only important part of the flight is the landing, the beginning and middle of the flight are irrelevant, just as long as he gets to the destination, that's the only part of the flight that matters...wow...

[pedazodeboludo]

There ought to be another logical fallacy called "Sounding convincing". An argument presented by a "seemingly" smooth presenter is not necessarily true.

[Hammama]

SINGEBUGGERCAT... U R MY HERO!!1 u have officially made me throw away all my unintelligent religious beliefs with ur POWERFUL, UNCOMPARABLE arguments such as "retard" and "dumbf*ck" and the unbelievably AMAZING and intellectual "dumba**" and the amusing "douche" argument. How could I not have seen it all along??

[Singebuggercat]

@Hammama While i appreciate a bit of well aimed sarcasm as much as the next man, argumentation was not my intent here. This is entertainment, by an atheist for atheists. Anyway, it was one of the american's great founding fathers who said "the only response to a nonsensical argument [such as the one presented by the fucktard in question] is ridicule" ... or words to that effect.

[jokidder]

Wow.

Just wow.

[Singebuggercat]

just wow? not wow, wtf? not wow, the stupid burns my brain? ... well, ok, it's your wow, after all. ;P

[jokidder]

I was limited by questions involving Poe's law.

He spent so much time arguing our side.

[Birdieupon]

Wow, nice refutation. You offer no arguments, you accuse Koukl of lying and being a "fucktard" and whine about little details which have no bearing on the overall substance of the argument (you did nothing to show that Hitchens wasn't being fallaciously circular in his reply to Jay Richards and you re-wrote Dawkins argument altogether)!

You are clearly an emo-atheist. Not a rational person, but someone who's angry at his dad (or something) and wants to take it out on theism. Nice one.

[Singebuggercat]

A -ha! a-ha ha ah ha! As if there wasn't enough self indicting xtian piss-antery on display already, you come along and make yourself the icing on the cake. Thanks, dude. XD

[Singebuggercat]

The argument HAS no overall substance for me to attack - this is comedy, not argumentation - Hitchens probably WAS being fallaciously circular (who gives a fuck) and I re-CONSTRUCTED the dawkins argument to its original, pre-quotemined condition.

And if i were to say that you are clearly a child-abuse victim who clings to a delusional belief system to compensate for his own deep-seated sense of inadequacy, you would have every right to laugh at me as hard as I'm no laughing at you.

[Qauzzix]

@Birdieupon This is pritty old but I could not skip pointing out your logical fallacy: "You are clearly an emo-atheist. Not a rational person, but someone who's angry at his dad (or something) and wants to take it out on theism. Nice one." This is one hell of an ad hominem argument.

[Birdieupon]

@Qauzzix

"This is one hell of an ad hominem argument."

Not ad hom, merely an observation. I'd got the arguments out of the way already so I figured best to end on a positive note ;-)

[Qauzzix]

@Birdieupon I also have to say that this is the most common defensive argument when I catch someone in an ad hom. "I am not attacking when saying he is a homicidal pedophile nazi, its just an observation". No matter what bad things you say about a person, you can justify it be this argument, and its a bad one.

[Birdieupon]

@Qauzzix

"No matter what bad things you say about a person, you can justify it be this argument, and its a bad one."

Sorry dude but you accused me of ad hominem, and I happily conceded that I had no intention of showing that his argument was false by what I called him in the first place. You do know ad hom isn't just name calling but an actual attempt to refute, right? When an atheist calls people "fucktard" etc, I'd say it justifies the observation that he's being a bit of an emo.

[ooglebydoogleby]

The real problem with this guys argument is that he is making the wrong assumption that if he disproves Dawkins that somehow validates his own delusion of deity. Taken on its own merits the beardy man in the sky theory has nothing to recomend it. The smoking gun for the god theory is not dawkins but thousands of years of making false claims which subsequently are showen to be lies, false, mistaken or simply the product of dissordered minds. The turin shroud for instance! 1400 years old

[postalgbv]

I'm a gravity apologist

[Singebuggercat]

lol me too ;D

[jokidder]

It is a weighty calling...

don't let it get you down.

[Birdieupon]

@Singebuggercat

Which is why you always fall on your arse ;-)

[tattooskin72]

Too many videos making my brain hurt today LOL.

[SofaKingLoaded]

Hehe.. "I may have gone a little fast for you there.." For that crowd, maybe..

I have to assume that the "so called" scientific community is unable to provide evidence that supports the existence of Zombies?

Guilty...

Is this psychotic drivel from that retard jazzyhap?

[Singebuggercat]

Where did my previous comment go? Ah well, what i said was " nah, this is TheismBeatsAtheism, a deluded subnormal if ever there was one.

[sp4zzer]

I got this far but i cannot finish.. projecting makes somethign start ckrackling in my head...

[Singebuggercat]

HA! XD