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.

 

argue5Observe 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.

argue6

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.

argue7

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….

Advertisements