Responding to Rex on his Defense of No True Scotsman

I made a criticism of the way atheists use the so called "no true Scotsman  fallacy." Rex writes a long defense of it so I think it deserves attention here.

Rex

One is that when a christian does something wrong, like say murdering a doctor in a church because gawd told him that the doctor was a tool of satan, then immediately all of the other Christians will say, "well he did this horrible thing, so he wasn't a true christian". That is a problem.

Meta:

This is typical of the way this guy thinks. First of all how many Christians murder doctors in chruch? this is a very rare event. It's maybe 1 in a billion? Probably more but more like 1 in 25 million. I know I have not murdered a doctor in weeks. "All the other Chrsitians say..." is that really the case. All Christians said that about the shooting of abortion doctors? I didn't. The vast overwhelming majority of Christians do not kill doctors and do not want anyone to be killed. This is the propaganda o the hate group. They have a hysterical of Christianity and they see Christians as evil stupid monsters they want every to believe that Christians are running around murdering everyone. He's right that the issue is about saying "X was not a true Y" in cases where X is used to commit the fallacy of guilt by association.

This is what Rex is doing and its' what the hate group does, they want to use the fallacy of guilt by association to connect the actions of the loonies to those of the main stream. Now in my original criticism I said that the real no true Scotsman fallacy works by appealing to some group that are not chosen voluntarily. That's why it's called "no true Scotsman" and not true dentist. Because you don't choose to be a Scotsman, that's what makes the idea that we can't predict what a true Scotsman will do. But the same token we can predict what a true membrane of a voluntary group whose membership turns upon the acceptance of the membership upon a code of behavior. You don't sign up to be a Scotsman you are born there. So you can't say "no true Scotsman would do X" because maybe they would, Scotsmen have all kinds of different views. But you can say "no true birdwatcher would knowing kill a cedar waxwing." You can say "no true member of the woman hater's club would marry a woman." They might, especially if they are one of the three stooges. But then they would cease to be members of the club. So it's still a true statement. Birdwatchers and women haters are people do these things becasue they want to so we can say a true birdwatcher would not kill birds. Christianity is also something one joins up for. So we can say "a true is one who lives up to the code of Jesus' teachings." Because that's the idea that one becomes a Christian to fulfill.


Rex:

If someone buys into the whole John 3:16 thing, and SELF IDENTIFIES as a christian, then that is how they are grouped.

Meta:

John 3:16 has noting to do with self identification. It says to enter the kingdom of God you must be born again. It's talking about a spiritual experience, not self identification. Even so Rex's argument is backwards o logic. If you join by your own desire then agree to live up to the code so it is possible to compare one's behavior to a standard and say "a true X does not do that." But the true fallacy, which atheists are misusing doesn't apply to volunteer groups or self identification it applies to where you are born: thus "Scotsman" not psychologist.


Rex:

Hitler self identified as a Catholic.

(1) he was not, he was born into a Catholic family when  he was old enough to choose his own faith he abandoned it in favor of the occult.

(2) you are doing the fallacy in reverse. 

The fallacy says you can't know what a member of a group will do so you can't say a "ture something or other" wouldn't do that. But you are trying to say that a Christian is a  murdering piece of shit looking for a Nazi party to join. So you are actually "a true Christian will X" as long as X is murder, rape, true lies, bunch of bad stuff.

Of course he will play the game they always play and deny that he's saying this. Well then what's the point of saying Hitler was a Christian? Obviously if they are thinking this guilt by association thing anyway then clearly they are associating Hitler with Christianity and then they would have to be blaming Christianity as the cause of Hitler-type behavior. Which is nothing more tan commuting the fallacy they say is a wrong idea and you can't think that way. Rex is going to say that by arguing Hitler was a Christian he's showing "true Christians" don't live up the values they claim to embrace. But he's begging the question because you hasn't given us any way to establish that Hitler was  "true" Christian Since Christianity is a volunteer outfit and it means one intends to live up to a standard of behavior then obviously there's a basis of comparison as to what a "true" Christian does so we can say Hitler was not one.

On any message board where atheists ridicule Christians, any day of the week, you can find half a dozen atheists displaying this kind of circular abarudist attempt at false logic.


Rex

When all of the members of the Hutaree Christian Militia were arrested for conspiracy to commit domestic terrorism, immediately the gawd teamers said that they were not true christians. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. These loonies were doing gawds work the best way that they could interpret it, they self identify as christians, and the outside world's opinion makes no difference.

Meta:

Yea it does work that way. Because Christians follow Jesus, Jesus said turn the other cheek, He told Peter "put away your sword." So true Christians don't go around fighting with guns becuase that's not what Jesus wanted. Again we see the circular reasoning. Why should we think those guys are Christians? Well because Rex wants me them to be. They follow Jesus' teachings, but they call themselves "Christians" they can't be hypocrites because that we be like saying Christians aren't evil. So what we find is we can committ the fallacy of no true Scotsman if by that we mean something bad bout Chrsitians, but we can't if we mean something good.

No True Scotsman Fallacy: No True Christian would murder a doctor in cold blood.

Not the No True Scotsman Fallacy but a fact: Christians are all evil and stupid and just can't waint to murder.


Rex:

Christianity has tried for centuries to take credit for every good thing in the world, and chalk up everything bad to non belief or the work of the devil.

 Meta:

The Russians did it first. Personally I am willing to admit Christians did not invent diet cola, the game "monopoly" or swizzle sticks . But I wish we had invited the latter two. I love Monopoly and swizzle sticks..


 Rex:

Sorry, but you don't get off that easy any more. You gotta take the good with the bad, and lately with the Catholic pedophiles, and with the christian leadership blaming earthquakes on sin, the bad for the gawd team is front page news.

Meta:

I think the problem he understands so little about Christianity he confesses with American citizenship and membership in NATO and other cultural identification. He doesn't seem to understand that being a Christian is a voluntary act that invovles emulation of a set of principles and the development of an inner life that fosters commitment to ideas of love and peace. He thinks one is born a Christian.

Rex:

When an atheist does something bad, we have to take it on the chin and say yep, he did it and he should be punished.

Meta

Christians would probably stop doing that if you guys would stop making this stupid guilt by association sort of thinking. That's probably half why we say such tings, to try and demonstrate to you how unfair your own stereotyping is. then of course there are the blood thirsty satanic minions who crowd the atheists meeting halls.... what?

Rex:

Besides, christianity is so splintered, with so many sects and sub sects, that they all conflict enough that there is no sorting out who is a true christian any other way than how they identify themselves. The Catholics don't consider any other sect to be true christians, nor do the protestants, or the baptists etc.

Meta:

Then if they are all different how can you blame them for the actions of the extremists? But there is still the teachings of Jesus, which is the origin of Christianity and it's what Christians are converted on the basis to follow.

Rex:

Self identification is the only real way to group them.


Meta

Self identifications provides a basis for comparison. Being  a Christian is about following Jesus. To the extent that one acts contrary to Jesus teachings one is not a true Christian. If you want to base it up on a  standard only God knows, such as the heart, then you still can't stereotype but you can say so and so is not exhibiting true Christianity. So it's not a matter of judging and saying "the guy shot the doctor is not saved, but we can say he's not living up to the idea of a true Christian at the moment." That's part of the problem is many apologists don't bother to keep things straight. It's human nature short hand things. It is an inadequate short hand to say "xi is not a true Christian" we should say "X is not living up to true Christianity in doing Y."

Rex:

Besides, you like to repeat over and over that Christians make up 80% of this country, and that number would be much smaller if the people who are not "true" Christians were removed from the list.

Meta:

yes but arguments about how many there are stem from answering the atheist augments which try to inflate their numbers and their assertions that their views are normal and their little 3% represent the normal people and the 90% who believe in God represent a bunch of crack pot idiots who can't wait to murder. If atheists would cease all of these fallacious and invalid arguments about numbers and association and bad analogies and so forth then Christians would stop worrying about such answers.

Rex:

You can't have it both ways.

Meta:

I don't. you are trying to have it both ways. you are trying to have it  where if they do something evil they are true Christians and if hey do good then they don't represent anybody.

No true atheist would reason like that. btw you have misspelled a bunch of words in this. no true atheist would do that!

no true atheist would laugh at my jokes. nor true Christians either.

Answers for Rex

 These the questions I wrote about a couple of days ago. They were put up by Dr.Pepper on CARM and I criticized hem as being loaded and rhetorical, I also showed that since then he's given answers that prove my point. But Rex (an atheist reader of this blog) became angry and wanted me to answer them. So I will so do now just for him.

I would love to be able to ask these questions in a forum where the majority of Christians might be able to read them and give answers but that is not possible. Maybe a Christian frequenting this sub forum can pass them on to others and report back.

1. Where did the words used in the bible come from? God, man or both? If both how much is God and how much is man?

This is a loaded biased question because no Christian theologian ague that God wrote the Bible in same sense that he wrote the tablets of stone wit the 10 commandments on them. We all know the Bible was written by humans (mostly men with a couple of possible female authors in Genesis, Proverbs and maybe Hebrews). Does that mean the words are from humans? It means that the expression is human but the inspiration divine. Now I think there may be instances where the words are actually prompted by God and arguably those might be where it says "thus says the Lord." Even in those cases it could be that the general idea was of God but the exact expressions used were human.

Even if God dictated letters like a business man speaking to a secretary he would still have to filter it through the secretary's understanding. That will obviously color the meaning and the way it's expressed.

The atheist is clearly missing the meaning or the point of inspiration if he/she thinks this is a big deal. The point of it is not words on paper, the point is experiencing God first hand through your own psyche. Any understanding we have is going to have to be filtered through our cultural constructs.

There are many theories of Biblical inspiration it's a great mistake to think they are all involved with inerrency. I've written about this at length. Read my essay on "The Nature of Biblical Inspiration" on Doxa.

2. If the words are primarily from god why are there contradictions and different interpretations of those words?

Because they have to be filtered through our own understanding for us to understand them. We don't always understand each other. The most "objective" "factual" human information (science? math?) has its controversies. It's always possible to have more than one interpretation of any sort of data. If you think not they are either totally ignorant of scinece or just plain dishonest. You would think Mathematics is totally objective and cut and dried right? you can't just argue about math can you? Wrong! One time I live in Albuquerque New Mexico and I was visiting my parents in Dallas for Christmas. I met up with an old friend from Austin who was traveling two other friends on their way to Albuquerque for a math conference at UNM. I offered them a ride for free so they took it. That whole ride--600 miles--was the most argumentative ride I was ever on. They did nothing but argue! They argued a lot about math. One can argue a great deal even about the most "objective" and hard wired ideas. Obviously they don't sit around gong "two plus two is not four" yet they definitely argue about math and about things hat the average person would think were rock solid. One of those guys exposed an answer on the SAT as wrong! Pretty disillusioning hu? You can't trust the answers on the SAT to be written in stone what can you trust be written in stone? Even the original 10 commandments got smashed.

There aren't that many places where the Bible says "This is what God says." There are several but it's not on every page. There are many more that don't' say it. The point of the Bilbe is not words on paper. The mode of inspiration that sees it as a memo from the boss is totally inadequacy. Read the link about about the nature of inspiration because that shows many different models other than inerrency or that "memo from the boss" mentality.

3. Are there any ORIGINAL ideas in the bible that can only be found in the Jewish culture? For example creation in a short period of time, resurrection, the golden rule, the idea of sin and sacrifice, everlasting life, honor your father and mother, etc.

Well actually mono-theism. There are people who point out that the Egyptians had a Monotheistic pharaoh but that shouldn't really count because it's not clear that he said there actually is only one god and all the others are just dead stone. He may have been saying there's only one that's worthy paying attention to. One might argue perhaps the rule of law applied to religion rather than civil jurisprudence. But be that as it may why is that necessary? You are assuming the exclusivity of the fundie view point as universal to the faith and it is not. There are many passages where the Bible says God works in all cultures. Paul says God put the moral law on the heart and gentiles can follow it and they do sometimes and when they do they show that God is working among them (see Romans 2:6-14). Paul even says their hearts may excuse them in the final judgment. He says that God put people where they live so they will seek him and find him (Acts 17:21-29). I can only assume that means God is working in all cultures.

MLK vs KKK: Answer to REX

 Rex is angry that I didn't waste a lot of time giving answers he doesn't want.

I see his 5 bullets points, and I happen to agree with them all in varying degrees. I see you rant and dodge and dissemble, and while you are exhibiting evidence of all 5 of his points in your answer, I see that you don't directly address any single one of them. That is exactly why I don't spend too much time here anymore. There is no real discussion. Someone presents you with jumbo sized holes in your delusions, and you whine and rant about how that is hate speech, and how you have a biblical education, and how ignorant we are because we haven't wasted years of our lives wallowing in the guilt and shame and judgment and irrational fear of god's word.

It's more than stupid to say that some generalized veg loaded biased crap like "how can you believe something that's 2000 years old?" or "what goes on in their stupid delusional sick little minds" (the emphasis mine but implied) more that stupid to say that that is "blowing a hole in my "delusions." Nothing that guy postures with has in any way damaged my beliefs. The things he says I have answered in my sleep every say for 12 years (and even back 40 years ago as a child and as an atheist in early manhood on and on) none of it presents any kind of challenge, you don't' want answers. If I undertook to answer it you would not listen. you didn't before when I've answered.


why didn't Martin Luther King sit down with the KKK? Because they were not worth it, they weren't going to listen to reason they were a hate groiup!

Rex complains because I don't go to the trobule to give a bunch of answers he doesn't want and wont listen to to the loaded garbage that DP postured with, why is that? I just told you.

MLK did not sit down with the Klan. why waste my time?

I have proved that atheist is hate group by quoting their hate. that's all I'm up to here. I don't need to disprove hate stuff.

What I don't see is you having a well thought out discussion about anything. You say that you have arguments and studies proving god, and yet I have never seen a single one of those things here.

The purpose of this sight is to prove that there is an atheist segment that is a hate group. The purpose of this site is not to answer atheist issues. If you want that go to my website Doxa, my message board, my other blog, find me on CARM.

What I do see is you calling everyone who you come into contact with and endless number of names. I see you calling the kettle black by talking about how stupid we all are,and how we don't know how to carry on a reasonable debate.

such a typical hate group ploy, the names they call us are understandable and wise, what's going in our sick stupid little minds? That's so prefectly fair for them to say, but answer them back and treat them as they treat us and we are total villans.

What I don't see is you taking the high road to show by example that there is a better way to live and interact. I don't see any positive results from your supposed superior moral code in your interactions. I also don't see you behaving in any way that would separate you from the actions of the "hate group" that you are always frothing about. You exhibit all of the same attributes that you despise so much.

You are certainly not on any kind of high road. You are just itching to mock and ridicule. you think mocking and ridiculing is fine. you think that's the way until it's done to you. you don't' answer answers you want a privileged position. Walt is one of the most reasonable people on CARM The things he says are never insulting and he's a nice guy. That guy just mocked and ridiculed him and didn't listen to any of his answers. Where is your sense of fair play and good discussion? If you really had any you would be able to see the good in Walt's answers.



The truth is Rex you are a hate filled minion of a brain washed sect.


It's obvious from DP's statments that he is not the least bit interested in answers. He didn't ask fact related questions. When atheists say "fact" they don't mean facts they man selling points for their ideology. That which does not agree wtiht he ideology is not an fact no matter how well it's estabished.

When you set up a set of loaded questions designed to brow beat your opponent ("are you still beating your wife" find of questions) which DP did, then it's obvious you don't want answers.


here is a link to my page on Doxa concerning the nature of Biblical revolutionary. "The Nature Biblical Inspiration"

It's been on my site for 10 years, I've posted it on CARM countless times, way over a thousand. it's been disused on my other blog.

It answers all the questions DP asked about the Bible in that Op.

if you really want answers read it!

Stupdiity of hate groups shows itself

here's a typical comment by a Dawkie that shows how ignorant they are. This comments shows they are really ignorant of the things they criticize, they don't know what a fundamentalist is they don't know what a liberal is. Little Dawkie named "Rex" says:

I am happy to read your blog for a couple of reasons. One is that, your blog lets me see how the bible thumpers roll, and as if that isn't funny enough, I get to see just how screwed up and flawed your logic always is. Maybe you should spend more time thinking about cause and effect and less about gawd, because...... dude, you're scaring the normals!

Where's the logic? I have 300 studies that say Religion is not adddiction or mental illness and that it's better for your head tahn unbelief. What logic would take these guys hate as evidence over 300 scientific studies? But I'm the one with the bad logic. They have not one single study, their idiotic foolishness about Religion being addictive is based upon flimsy arguments such as Pot leads to Heroine kind of logic of Jack Webb in Dragnet yet I'm the one with the b ad logic. He does absolutely nothing to show how any of my logic is bad. So these uneducated hicks "logic" is just another word like "cool" and "your logic is flawed" is just more name calling like "get a life." It's just something to say in place of "boo you I don't like you."

He says he wants to see how Bible thumpers "roll" (I buy machine rolled actually) he thinks I'm a fundamentalist. Anyone with half a brain would naturally try to check out the website of someone they pick a fight with. Had he looked at my site he would see articles about why I don't believe in hell, how God is working in all religions, I don't believe in the inerrancy of the bible. Of course these ideas mean nothing to him becuase he's so uneducated and unread that he doesn't' know the difference in a liberal or a fundamentalist, he doesn't know that a bible thumper is a fundie and he doesn't know a fundie form a whole in the ground. All he knows is that it makes him feel cool and powerful to insult and put people down and to mock and ridicule things that certain people like, that makes him feel good, its' a rush (like a drug). Atheist trolling is an addiction that's why know nothings keep doing it. So the atheist movement has filtered down to the lowest common denominator where it is nothing more than trolls having fun on the net. An atheist on the rationalism blog (see post on "god hates you guy has found this") says: "I’ve been blogging on atheism for years. The number one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how easy it is to get a rise out of the religious by reading their own words back to them." Yes, isn't that the definition of troll? Doing things to get a rise?

There is no reason to take atheism seriously. It's not a major tend in human thought, it's not a cultural mover or shaker, it's just a hate group, it's a tendency of a hand of intellectuals who have no real influence because the people in their movement are too uneducated to know why they are important.

But the best part I like about reading your blog is that if you are the best thinker that the gawd team has to offer, then the infidels should be able to make short work of changing the things about society that we find offensive.

You are right about me being the best, of corse you are far too stupid and uneducated to understand anything I say. If I was Enstine you would be saying the thing. You say that to Goethe or Kant or Hume or anyone because you are so uneducated you don't even know what makes a liberal or a fundie, you know absolutely nothing about the world of thought. I'm real concerned with this guy's appraisal of my logic. This is the genius who thinks argument from sign proves causality. Look at the flimsy child stupid argument for religion being addiction; drugs addicts get angry when you call them names and so do religious people." Here's an actual "reason" why the "God hates you guy" thinks religion is addcition: "4. Drug addicts often show signs of schizophrenic and delusional behavior, including talking to themselves. How is this different to prayer?" This is so brilliant. I said in that article we have 12 studies that show that religion is not mental illness. So to link prayer to mental illness on the pretense that "they both deal with talking to people who aren't there" (Never mind the reasons why would might do this could be totally different--never mind that neither case invovles actually knowing "no one is there") they have no data and no studies to back up that that's all prayer is, or to link belief to mental illness, 12 studies disprove t no study backs it up. Yet despite this total durth of evidence he is still staunchly convinced that that's what's going on.The logic he displays is a combination of argument from sign and argument from analogy (both fallacies). I'm real worried that these non thinking idiots think my loigc is bad. For these guys "bad logic" amounts to "I don't like you."

Suggestion: Be nice or all of your gawd outlets will be taxed just like every other business.

They always think they are going push the majority around. their little 3% is going to run rough shod over our 90%. Bring it man. let's go. lets barricades and get our guns and go at each other. I'll tell you what, just to be fair we will only use 10% of our guys we still outnumber you by a huge margin. Who are you going to push around when you are not on a message board? If the atheist thing doesn't work out will you shave your head and start beating up blacks and Jews?

The "God Hates you hate him back" Guy Discovered my Article

Atheist intellectual conduct seminar on religion and society


The Blog is called "Rationalist Blog" I think he's the one who did the book God Hates you, Hate Him back, but i"m not sure. But his blog has a big banner that says it. It appears to be him, C.J. Werleman.

This is such a profound intellectual book, it's on the level of some of Jack Webb's best rants on DragNet 1967, and his logic is about on a par with Webb's as well. Here are some of the most superficial reasons to think religion is addictive I've ever seen. These are up there with "90% of heroine addicts started with Pot, therefore, Pot causes heroine addiction.

your arguments are ludicrous.


Werelman

1. “Religion is the opiate of the masses” -Karl Marx

Meta:>>>proves nothing, Marx was a jerk


Werelman

2. All children are born atheists, thus religion is indoctrinated/socialized into you. Just as no children are born drug addicts. (not withstanding ‘crack babies’)

Meta:>>>that’s silly, we have innate ideas of God. that’s what the God part of the brain proves. We have the idea of God hard wired into our brains, therefore, we are not born atheists we are born believers. It doesn’t make any difference if you need socialization to teach it that doesn’t prove it’s a drug, you need socialization to become a drug addicts. that’s why addcis are a “sub culture” that’s what sub cultures are, counter socialization.


Werelman

3. Drugs help you escape from reality. Drugs dupe users into escaping the harsh realities of dealing with everyday life. Similarly religion will make its users believe they can transcend reality i.e. without wings, or as recommended by Jesus – handle snakes, and/or drink poison. I know smack addicts that have the same delusions.

Meta>>>Of course its’ just your little mad up opinion based upon ignorance that God isn’t real. Real thinkers and smart know he is. Therefore, youa re argumetn is jsut another stupid assertion.

you can’t account for the innate ideas of God that proved by the “God part of the Brain.” That is a good reason to believe there is a God. your argument is begging the question.

that has nothing to do with proving addiction anyway.


Werelman

4. Drug addicts often show signs of schizophrenic and delusional behavior, including talking to themselves. How is this different to prayer?

Meta:>>>(1) you have no study to back that up. I’ve never heard that and it’s not proved and you offer no evidence to confirm it.

(2) you are begging the question because it’s just your opinion that belief in God is tha way

(3) at leas 12 studies prove there is no relation between religious experience and mental illness.

(4) you can’t link drug addiction to mental illness anyway.

(5) if you could it would just be an argument from sign. you don’t have a causal mechanism.


Werelman

5. Drug addicts are often incoherent when high. Take a visit to any evangelical church and watch that congregation speak in tongues and thus complete babble.

>>>that is nothing but ignorant mockery. speaking in tongues is not the same as incoherence. Anyone speaking in tongues can stop doing it and talk rational instantly. Its not something that comes over you that you can’t control. I can speak in tongues and work hard math problems at the same time. It’s something one chooses to do, it’s not an epileptic fit.


Wereleman

6. Like a drug, the intoxicating effects of religion cannot last forever. Questions of faith begin to creep in. Questions regarding the suspension of natural laws begin to seep in..Thus the faithful have to increase the religious dose to stay high, to ward off contradictions, absurdities, and inconsistincies.

Meta>>>that is not a proof that it’s addictive. you can spin it that way or you could say doubt in any proposition occurs to anyone at any time and they need to re think or hear the answer. you can define haring answers as getting a fix. you are merely twisting the fact to suit a superficial case that you can’t back up with any kind of data or any kind of support. You have no studies, you haven no scientific proof of any kind that supports your raving.

you are doing nothing but mocking and ridiculing things that are over your head.


Werelman

7. Religion, like a drug, has a tendency to steal your life. A voluntary trade: accept the lies and illusions in return for mind numbing escape. Addictive traits.

Meta>>>that is clearly and obviously just your emtonal hateful opinion. 300 empirical studies say you are wrong! The stuidies done by psychologists not by preachers, not by christian, non christain shrinks, show you are wrong! Religious belief is good for you, it makes your life better, it makes your mind better. Religous believers who have experiences of God’s presence are much less likely to experience depression than are unbelievers. Religious experience people are much less likely to be mentally ill than are unbelievers, that is an established fact by 300 empirical studies..

Werelman

8. Religious fundamentalists, particularly those that convert as adults i.e new born Christians, in more instances than not – lose their old friends. Meth addicts lose their friends because of the constant requests to borrow money, and skittish behavior. Evangelicals tend to lose their old buddies because we tire of the constant evangelizing. And ultimately drug addicts prefer the company of their own, as do fundamentalists with their own flock.

Meta>>>very stupid and shallow argument from sign. you might as well said 98% of all heroin addicts drink milk as babies, therefore, milk causes heroine addiction.

you actually don’t have any data to back up your assertion about converts losing friends. some do some don’t, you are really quite shallow.

Werelman

9. Religious need their ‘hits’. Sunday Church.

Meta>>>atheist need hits by mocking Christians on message boards.

This guy is a real obvious proof of hate group atheism. His blog is on the puerile level of name calilng. He writes about things like why Obama is really an atheist (basically "I like Obama therefoer he must believe like I do). Ten reasons why Jesus sucked at sports, and so on. this is nothing moer than a third grader writing on bathroom walls.

If you hate God how do you feel about who believe in God? This guy doesn't have enough mental maturity to distinguish between hating God and hating people who believe in God.