photo by Ken Fager
I’m sick of assholes. I’d be less colorful in my language, but I also don’t think being censored necessarily leads to a better life. Maybe I should add that to my list.
I’ve penned a few quick tips for how to stop being an idiot who makes life unpleasant for yourself and those around you. Most of this is specifically directed at the atheist/theist community. If it applies to you, you probably won’t think it does, but someone out there might be picturing your face or username right about now, so it pays to give a few of these a whirl just to say you tried. Heck, it might just help us become a better society, and wouldn’t that be just peachy?
A few months ago a reader, Roofwoofer, posted a question in response to my Love questionnaire:
Many atheists state that one of their primary objections to the existence of God is that there is no evidence for it that would stand up to the scientific method.
So the question is, are there things that are real but that reality isn’t supported by results of scientific testing.
So, in what sense is love real? Does it exist? If you believe someone loves you, what would you say if someone asked you to prove it?
I was recently asked this same question by my mother, and I’ll admit I hadn’t thought it through very well and was feeling defensive at the time, so I didn’t have a good answer for her. In fact, this comment sounds so creepily similar to the words my mother said to me that I wonder if Roofwoofer is my mother or if they get their debating points from the same source. Maybe this is a more common argument than I realized?
How would the atheist community answer questions like this one?
You can’t go wrong with hand signals! And no, I don’t see one in there for giving the middle finger—though I imagine it would signify “Your premise is bullshit. I’d rather be watching Will & Grace.”
Originally by Landon Schurtz, a graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Oklahoma
[Source]
Dealing with dimwitted debate? I decided to make something that might come in handy.
What are logical fallacies?
Here are a few helpful resources for improving your (and my!) writing.
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else’s position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It’s a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
“To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven’t, your position is indefensible.”
The above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net. If you can’t see what’s wrong with it, read the “Introduction to Atheism” document.
—”Atheism: Logic & Fallacies,” Infidels.org
Also because, as stated above, there is a tendency to start with desired conclusions and then construct arguments to support them, many people will happily draw upon logical fallacies to make their arguments. In fact, if a conclusion is not true one must either employ a false premise or a logical fallacy in order to construct an argument that leads to that conclusion. Remember, a sound argument (one with true premises and valid logic) cannot lead to a false conclusion. So in order to avoid using logical fallacies to construct invalid arguments, we need to understand how to identify fallacious logic.
—”How to Argue,” Steven Novella, MD
It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic—if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you’re more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your evidence.
—UNC “Fallacies” handout
Olin Thang on 
Cortez Frisch on 
Loading ...