How does one win an argument with another that doesn’t accept the basic tenets of reality. Recently over at Violet Wisp’s blog the religious element was once again taking the moral low road on abortion and left with trying to explain how their religion was explicitly “pro-life” when in fact their magic book is, in fact, pro-abortion. You can go over and read the thread yourself here, but I’ve screen captured the parts that I want to talk about.
Observe what is going on here. JZ is attempting to establish a coherence in what christian dogma demands and what its believers actually say. This of course won’t be pretty.
The hell? Just answer the damn the question. I mean this should be a slam dunk for a true believer – the bible is god’s word – this should be elementary stuff.
Oh, I see. Rather than admit your book is wrong, you obfuscate. Why all the smoke and mirrors? Here is my theory:once you admit one tenet of your religion is invalid the rest of the contradictory bullshit that you conveniently look past, will hit you squarely in the brainpan. Religious world view destroyed – welcome to atheism.
But it looks like CS has chosen Plan B: Evasively confabulate until you have to flounce from the thread because no one is accepting the rhetorical squirrel-farts that serve as the basis for your defence of your contradictory and indefensible arguments.
I think we can let John Stewart summarize the results….
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
9 comments
August 23, 2015 at 8:41 am
roughseasinthemed
Of course one could just take the easy road and say that all these fundagelicals want to control women. They’ve got to get some kicks out of life.
LikeLike
August 23, 2015 at 8:43 am
The Arbourist
@RSITM
Well yes. :) Religion and patriarchy are like BFF’s. It’s hard to have one without the other.
LikeLike
August 23, 2015 at 8:45 am
roughseasinthemed
Ojala we could have neither huh?
LikeLike
August 23, 2015 at 8:48 am
The Arbourist
@RSITM
Wouldn’t that be nice. Seems kinda weird though, women being treated as full human beings and what not.
Plus, we would lose a whole method of sanctifying really terrible ideas.
I’m not sure we’re ready for such a revolution….
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 23, 2015 at 10:50 am
john zande
Here is my theory:once you admit one tenet of your religion is invalid the rest of the contradictory bullshit that you conveniently look past, will hit you squarely in the brainpan.
You win a prize for that sentence, Arb.
Colourstorm is a special kind of apologist. Can’t even understand what he’s saying half the time, and the other half just sounds like “Nah, nah, nah, nah, I can’t hear you! Nah, nah, nah, naaaaah”
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 23, 2015 at 10:56 am
The Arbourist
@JZ
Thanks for being dogged in the pursuit of truth while engaged in arguments with the religiously addled. :)
It is that sort of tenacity that is required to quell the tide of BS that regularly oozes from the religious.
CS reminds me a little of SOM, but with less obdurate-trollishness and more risible stupidity.
LikeLike
August 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
john zande
That little exchange with CS was pretty tame to to the other threads I’ve been on these last 2 weeks, all regarding abortion. It started with David, of course.
LikeLike
August 23, 2015 at 11:03 am
The Arbourist
@JZ
That is true, but sometimes a less heated example is more…instructive.
The saga of stupid that is David is the long form example of why talking to the religious can be so taxing. Also as mentioned, a case study on the amount of rhetorical wiggling, obfuscation, and idiocy necessary to defend christian faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 23, 2015 at 11:21 am
john zande
You should write speeches and copy for your favourite local politician, Arb :) Your wordsmittery is cosmological in scale.
LikeLiked by 1 person