This guy almost had me convinced to believe in his version of God.

April 2, 2009 | By | 4 Replies More

Really truly, this guy (“Jesusophile”) almost convinced me to believe in his version of the invisible Man in the Sky, especially with his more-than-50% likelihood argument. I hadn’t ever thought of that one before.

Now to get serious: Unwittingly, he’s teaching a class in fallacious reasoning. He’s doing it so well that many thousands of people are laughing at him on Youtube.  Maybe he should practice his routine in a mirror next time before putting it up on Youtube.

Share

Tags: , ,

Category: Humor, ignorance, Religion, snake oil, Whimsy

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Adam says:

    Oooh, that is awesome! He has opened my eyes to the power of "logic." Now I have my own "logical" argument. Invisible unicorns either exist or they don't. Therefore, as well all know, there is a 50/50 chance that they exist. By similar reasoning, there is a 50/50 chance that invisible 4-foot tall bunny rabbits exists, and a 50/50 chance that an invisible Mr. Snuffleupagus exists. Since the odds of all three of these things not existing would be 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8, that means there is a 7/8 chance that either invisible unicorns, 4-foot tall bunnies, or Mr. Snuffleupagus exist! What a wonderful world we most likely live in!!! A side benefit of this proof is that is also proves that there is a 7/8 chance that God exists, because only God can make invisible stuff.

  2. Gosh…I'm gonna have to reconsider…what magnificently persuasive arguments. I mean…

    Really, you can't see air, can you? Oh, wait, yeah…the sky is blue because light is refracting through nitrogen, which is 70 + % of air. And you can see it when it is released underwater, it bubbles. And it gets trapped in ice and forms pockets, that then refract light in particular ways…

    Well, then, if that doesn't work, then his bit about the brain, I mean, whoa, I never thought about that before! I can't see my own brain…Oh, wait, but I can see other peoples' brain, especially dead ones, but all those operating room videos where they open the skull and then insert probes that trigger memories or sensations or muscle reactions…yeah, I guess we can see brains, and then there's that guy DesCartes, what did he say? Cogito ergo sum…

    Well, but the fifty-fifty split, right? I mean, statistically speaking, when something is even up like that, you add in other factors to tip the balance one way or the other and maybe the argument about air plus the brain added to the logical comparison that a baby is born either a boy or a girl…oh, wait, but there is a significant percentage of babies born that are more or less both, and some who are born neither, so if the comparison goes both ways, then obviously there are other conditions vis-a-vis the existence of god that have to be considered, which then reduces the chances…

    Ah, but the existence of everything, the fact that there's a Here here, well, damn, what else can that be attributed to? I mean, it's a fait accompli, isn't it? I mean, how else do you explain the fact that all this stuff exists, in view of the fact that there are no other explanations…oh, wait, there are. But it doesn't matter, because they're "only theories", right? And the evidence for the alternatives is just as absent as the evidence for the existence of god…oh, wait, no, there is evidence to support some of these other theories, which I guess elevates their likelihood, and lowers the chances of the god proposition which really has no evidence, I mean, since the whole bit about air and brains and babies and what not turned out to be not exactly what he claimed.

    But, really, he nails it with the argument about evil, though, doesn't he? I mean those guys, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, they were some bad dudes, and how else do you explain that kind of evil unless it's the result of atheism? Right? I mean, they were famous atheists…oh, wait, wasn't Hitler a Catholic? And what about Osama Bin Laden, doesn't he believe in god? I know, he calls him Allah, but that's just god in a different language. And Kaiser Wilhelm, he was what? Catholic or Lutheran? He started WWI, and there was this guy Torquemada who tortured a lot of people to death because they didn't believe in god the way he did. And the Turks, they believed in Allah, and exterminated all those Armenians. And there was this Simon de Montfort who, under Pope Innocent III's orders, over saw the slaughter of a few hundred thousand Cathars in the early 13th century, again because they didn't believe in god the way the pope did, and I think he's the one who ordered women and children slain and said "Kill them all, God will know his own…" And then there was this fellow Jim Jones…

    I guess atheism isn't the determining factor, so if you just put it down to people being nasty, it doesn't much make any difference, does it?

    So when you get right down to it, none of his arguments really hold up because they're basically incomplete and based on assumptions rather than facts.

    Gosh, I was really hoping this time…

  3. TonyC says:

    another godbot demonstrates that "religion can damage your mental health".

    There should be a surgeon general's warning, or something.

    whoop. de. doo.

  4. Danny says:

    *cringe*

    It sounds like he's making it up as he goes. I guess if he wants to pin individuals' evils on their belief system, he should read Hitchens to take in a barrage of wicked religious folks.

Leave a Reply