DO THE MATH

The most common fallacy I see is personal incredulity, in other words they are too damned lazy to do the work even though they always claim they did the work. Flat earth and creationist nuts are the most likely to be this dishonest.

First, odds are not calculated based on "this seems highly unlikely," they are calculated based on samples, the larger the sample size the more accurate the odds are. For example, evolution has a 1 in 1 odds of happening, every organism we encounter varies from it's parent organisms.

Creationists used a failed formula that only works for humans, and only if evolution did not happen. The value they cite is only if the DNA started from scratch each time, so no evolving, no parental traits, no biogenesis.

The result is 1 in 600+ billion, which is correct if the DNA was built from nothing by manually randomizing the order in which each chemical was introduced. In other words, the creationist cites odds of abiogenesis producing a specific species spontaneously.

They are lying, plain and simple, a strawman that isn't even their own work. Asking them where they come up with the number always results in more lies such as "I did the math myself."

Flat earth nuts are even worse about this, they will make stupid assertions like "gravity wouldn't work on a globe." Asking them to show the math results in them spamming you with nonsensical videos and strawmen.

The fact is, gravity is omnidirectional, thus clusters of rocks in space will become somewhat spherical. The only reason Terra is not a perfect sphere is because of plate tectonics, which is the result of our molten core.

Plate tectonics has actually kept the planet looking like a giant asteroid, if you remove the water from the surface. So no, Terra is not a perfect sphere, but it is spherical, or a globe to be more precise.

The discovery of Terra being spherical came long before we launched into space, one of the earliest recordings was in ancient Greece. Plato was one of the earliest to observe phenomena that could only happen on a curved surface.

It was eventually proven using shadows, by placing pillars at great distances on the same altitude, they measured the shadows at different times in the day. The only explanation for their findings was a spherical Terra.

That is what people in science call "showing your work," or more simply put "empirical evidence." These simple tests can be duplicated and they will always show the same results, that part of the process is what religious people fear most, in science it's called "peer review."

Empiricism and Religion

The religious often claim that "you'll find [god] when you're ready." That is all they're left with after we have destroyed all their fallacies and canards.

But that is precisely when you should doubt what you see, if a disembodied voice speaks to you then you are probably suffering a severe psychological trauma. Of course the voice is only the extreme sign, others are more subtle responses to chemical processes.

Under stress, or any negative emotion, the brain triggers the release of psychotropic chemicals. These will alter what you see, hear, and even feel.

This is not the time to have life changing epitomes, it is a time to doubt everything you experience. Thus we have empiricism, in spite of it's name this is not some magical force or sense, it's simply verifying your own experiences by comparing them to the facts.

One part of empiricism is to compare experiences with those who were physically present, if there is any difference between them then you know they are suspect. Have everyone write it down before talking about it to ensure that one does not influence the others.

The end result is almost always varying stories, sometimes so different that you can easily dismiss them all. Anyone who says "I meant to say that" instead of what they wrote, then you know there is a lot of cognitive dissonance in play.

You also need to examine the verifiable facts, while making no assumptions. For this, bringing a third party who lacks any investment works tl verify the facts.

That is basic empiricism, a simple method of making sure you're sane.

God's Laws or Just Observations?

Scientific laws are used fallaciously by religious people, while it is technically personal incredulity, it is also a purposeful misrepresentation of scientific laws. Often they cite a law of logic, ironically these evolved in the brain because they worked well enough for survival.

Laws of logic and laws of physics are two very different things, and neither is absolute. The word absolute does not describe scientific laws in any way, the laws always change when new information is acquired.

The laws of logic change less often because we have essentially come to understand everything about the brain, and evolution is a slow process so new laws don't appear often. But the most annoying fallacy used is applying the logical law of noncontradiction to physics.

The law of noncontradiction is a logical law that allowed the brain to maintain a more stable level of sanity. It evolved early on, prior to other social traits.

The law simply states that one thing cannot equal a contradictory term, such as 1 and -1, or 1 and 0. This helps the brain filter out what it thinks is misreported information, the brain can choose to ignore this law with conscious efforts.

For this reason, the very contradictory study of quantum physics is difficult for a brain to comprehend, which it why the theory is mostly physical laws. Physics can, and often does, contradict itself.

On the quantum level there are more contradictions than any other field of study, so we know that the laws of logic do not apply to the physical. The laws of logic are phenomena of the brain, the laws of physics are mathematical constructs describing predictable behavior of the universe.

The laws of physics are constantly being changed, updated to include new information. Gravity is the simplest example, as we saw the advent of relativity to make gravity actually work outside of our atmosphere.

Yes, the laws of gravity changed, the theory of gravity is not complete enough for us to even be close to having a comprehensive law, so this is expected to happen a lot. But a lesser known and more complex one is light speed.

Originally light was clocked at a specific speed, and after clocking it many times it was assumed that the speed of light was a constant. Notice this is not a law, this is something we mistook for a constant.

We also assumed that light speed was the fastest possible speed for any particle. Recently we discovered that the speed of light is also relative, and that many particles move faster.

Not to mention, the edges of this universe are moving apart faster than the speed of light, this means that the universe itself is moving faster than the speed of light. Ultimately it destroys the notion that scientific laws are absolute or constant.

The laws are our constructs, which we created to help predict the predictable behaviors of the universe, and that's all they really are.

Gods are the Ultimate Fallacy

Just because we talk about your delusion does not mean we share or accept your delusion. As we know, gods are egotistical delusions created by weak and impotent people as a means to feel superior.

Of these gods are useful to the con artists who utilize those delusions for profit and power over the followers. But those who speak of them do not have to agree that they exist anymore than one who speaks of Spiderman must believe he is real.

It is ironic that the theist thinks that applying logic to their beliefs also suggests that we hate their god as well. We can hate what we do not believe exists, we all hate the Hobgoblin based on his actions in the mythical universe.

Then there is the notion that we deny their god just because we want to "sin." But since we do not believe their god exists, sin is a made up notion to blame people for being people.

The fact of the matter is, atheists are a threat to their fragile mythology, simply by presenting facts and logic we shake their beliefs to their core. Education, as we know, dispels religion.

This bothers the preachers, they want to paint us atheist people as violent monsters yet we never act violently. So they have to make up stories and fallacies to scare the believer away from us, luckily the internet allows the theists to verify these claims, and many are doing that now.

Terrorism, Syrian Refugees, and the True Problem

To those saying religion didn't cause the terrorist attacks, that "moderate" Muslims are not dangerous, or that only Muslims are terrorists, you're all idiots. All religious doctrine, with a few exceptions suck as modern Wicca, demand acts of terrorism.

A terrorist act need not be violent, it only needs to use or create fear. Terrorism is a tactic of fear manipulation as a method of subjugating people.

A common example of peaceful terrorism, one that is used dogmatically in the USA, is to tell someone to obey or be subjected to intense torture. This particular method was created, and perfected, by Christianity, "obey my god or suffer for all eternity."

People in the USA tell this to kids, even the bogeyman stories are not as horrible as telling a 5 year old that if they don't eat their peas they'll be tortured forever. This is the face of terrorism that is always ignored by the masses who claim a higher morality.

So obviously Al Quaida is not the problem, Muslims are not the problem, Osama was not the problem, the problem is religion. Denying that religion fuels, encourages, and even demands terrorism is lunacy.

Paris is Stirring Up Trouble

Asking refugees to go to Saudi Arabia is essentially the same as condemning them to death, or forcing them to join the very terrorist organizations that they are fleeing from. The fact is that they have nowhere to go, so they will either flee to safety, or become potential recruits for the very organizations we want to be rid of.

Terrorists are born of desperation, this desperation causes them to prone to suggestions, such as the suggestion that other countries are their enemy. So no, turning them away just because the organizations are using them as scapegoats is not going to help.

Actually, the fact that many people miss is that the terrorists in the Middle East want us to turn away the refugees, these are their pool for recruits. So how best to convince us to do that, by telling us that they are hiding among them.

By convincing the rest of us that the bogeyman may be among the victims, we coldly turn them away out of irrational fear. Xenophobia is the greatest tool of recruitment for terrorists.

Now France claims to have bombed a recruitment center for ISIS, either they are lying or easily fooled. Muslims are recruiting through Facebook and other social media, they don't need centers like organized militaries use.

Ultimately this means all countries created the crisis faced by Paris, even their own. Let's put this all into perspective.

France announce "at least 128 people killed" in the latest attack. That is their official story thus far, now to compare before making my final point.

Nearly 1,000 people in the USA have been killed by law enforcement for 2015. 374 people in the USA were killed by mass shootings perpetrated by our own people in 2015.

Approximately 32,000 people died in 2013 from automobile accidents. More than 8,000 people have died in the Iraq war started by the USA.

The only reason people are discussing the Paris attacks is because it can be used politically. The true cause of the attacks is religion, but people are blaming everything except that.

Bombing Terrorists

War has never solved anything, ever. Adolf Hitler proved that, when his war was met violent opposition and came to a bloody end.

However, war does fuel religion, and that perpetuates the violence. The vicious cycle is obvious to those who are atheist, and is the reason so many are becoming anti-theist.

The notion is simplified in one statement: violence begets violence. This is nothing less than fact.

Religion preys on people when they are the most frustrated, beaten, and discarded. This is when people are most willing to find any way to fight back, so they turn to the local religious leaders to help them get revenge.

The cycle in the Middle East started centuries ago, when Christian forces pushed across the desert killing all who did not convert. This was all because the preachers wanted more money, land, and power.

Little has changed in that, the methods of the Christian leaders have changed to a less violent form of terrorism. But Muslims created their own religion to convince the people in that area to fight back, and of course greed was the primary concern of their leaders.

But Christians have not stopped attacking the Middle East, even today they are bombing innocent people in the ME as retaliation for the acts of the few religious people. The survivors of those attacks are forced to turn to the religious for help, and are then converted.

The religious people are easily convinced to commit atrocities against the people who bombed them when they were trying to be peaceful. Of course the religious leaders on both sides want this, as it will continue to create victims of war that they can prey on.

Thus the cycle continues, but the solution is not one that any religious leaders in any religion wants, we call this solution "education." It is a known fact that the more educated a person is, the less religious they become.

Bombing countries only harms the innocent people, the religious leaders are all hidden away, usually in the very countries that are doing the bombing. Ah, the irony, religious leaders for a region, hiding out in a foreign country convincing that foreign country to retaliate against the country that their followers hail from to stir up a new pool of believers for them to exploit.

If it was not so atrocious, I'd call it the perfect business model.

The Issues of Muslims in Paris

Know your enemy well, lest you become him.

The biggest problem with how people view the Muslim plague is the association with skin color. Many people see all Arabic people as Muslim, or worse, they think all Muslims are Arabic.

Thus they come to the whole conspiracy nonsense, fueled by a scientific fact that "white" does not even exist. The leaders of other religions milk this racism to hide the fact that Muslim is a religion.

Muslims milk this idea to remain well hidden in a population that they are working to convert. Politicians are milking the blatant racism to scare people into voting for them.

The facts are quite inconvenient to the leaders, as well as painful for the deluded racists. The Muslims, which is what Islam represents, are taking over by conversion, specifically by converting people of all races, then convincing those converts to do their dirty work.

We saw the exact same tactic employed by Christians, which took us almost a thousand years to recover from. Actually, every tactic used by Muslims to spread their hatred has come from the Christians, yes Christianity uses terrorism.

The matter is made worse when people begin to assume that any violence is because of one race, especially while conveniently ignoring the violence they commit. The Paris incidents, contrasted by the mass killings in the USA, present the best example of what happens when race is blamed for the atrocities of religion.

Chemtrails, Flat Earth, and the Religion of Facts

From conspiracy nuts to religious people, science denial is a big profit fad that has dangerous repercussions. The problem is that because of most people both lazy and ignorant, these anti-science fads are very profitable to those who perpetuate them.

Churches make insane untaxable profits because laws that were suppose to keep religion out of government have been twisted and perverted to benefit the ones selling the god concept. People prefer the easy, magical sounding excuses instead of the cold, hard, and often frightening facts.

But conspiracy nuts are the most insidious, as they have learned to imitate science, which can convince even intelligent laymen. Even religion cannot compete with sanity and reason, their leaders admit that education is dangerous to their claims.

Conspiracies have a sweeter bait though, you get to blame a faceless, evil, and unknown group of people for all your troubles. To the people buying these conspiracy this faceless organization is more believable than the faceless gods proposed by religion.

The reason is that the faceless god claims oppose indisputable facts, but faceless organizations are really close to reality, corporations fill the role. The catch is that the conspiracy nuts really don't know which corporation or organization they are afraid of, much less why the organizations would even do what they think is happening.

That is the ticket to confronting them, ask them how their bogeyman benefits from doing what they claim is being done. They will stumble as their whole story collapses.

The Reason Religion is not Science

The notion of change frightens religious people like Christians and Muslims because it always results in the status quo being upset. This shift in power weakens the religions and provides more evidence of them being scams, this is why education is their greatest enemy.

Science always changes, it works because it changes, each new fact discovered increases our understanding. This is dismissed by religious people as a bad thing, if their claim of being the ultimate truth is ever discovered to be incorrect they lose all their power and profit.

Let's say science discovers a fact, which means it has been tested and shown to be demonstrable, then a theory is formulated. Later a new fact is discovered which has an effect on the first fact, the theory is not wrong because of this new fact, but the new fact must be integrated into the theory to account for its effects.

As more facts as integrated into the theory, the theory becomes more complete, accurate, and useful to our species. We see the effects of this increased knowledge in how the theory produces beneficial results.

Through science we gain complete understandings of the universe around us, understanding which benefits every aspect of our species. But through religion you get brick walls.

Religion makes an assertion, usually an incorrect assertion, then dismisses all facts which conflict with the assertion. Religions offers no explanations, it offers no answers, and it never offers empirical evidence.

Science demands empiricism, which is a fancy word for verifiable. This harms religion because none of their claims are empirical, and the leaders know that.

Transgendered Against Psychopaths

The latest tactic of those who hate transgendered is to pretend to be gay, feminists, or even scientists. Their guises are obvious once they start talking, but this tactic has nothing to do with convince you that their position is valid.

This is known as divide and conquer, to make other groups hate each other so no one will fight together. Germaine Greer was the first, masquerading as a feminist to turn feminists and transgendered against each other.

She sold herself to the christian nuts in an attempt to keep the christian majority strongest in the USA. That's the tell of it all, on our own we are all minorities and the christian nuts are the majority.

But united we become stronger than the christian nuts, so they must keep us from being united. They know their time is coming to an end, and this is their last attempt to remain significant.

Whether the person you are facing is truly a masquerader or a paid for turncoat, you will see the exact same flaws in their stance. For one, they oppose transgendered women but not transgendered men.

The reason for this is that transgendered men are their fantasy, just like straight cismales and their lesbian fantasies. We could write an entire novel about the sick fantasies christianity breeds in people.

The fact of the matter is, we just need to shut them out by informing others who these con artists, liars, and sexual deviants are that masquerade as gay, feminist, and scientist just to smear good transgendered folks.

Christian, Islam, Muslim, Judaism... You're all Terrorists

The notion of the false dichotomy is often used when you point out the flaws of a group someone actually supports, and the reply sounds like "I know they are, but what am I?" This is most common when mentioning the flaws in Christians, such as their greed, arrogance, and terrorism.

By definition, telling someone to obey or suffer is terrorism, it is using fear to discourage dissent. Christians use this terrorist tactic to discourage doubt in their youth, which is child abuse and just as bad as what Islam does to their kids.

But when you point this put they always complain about Islam being bad, a red herring to distract from the Christian abuses. This is a false dichotomy, that by opposing one you are supporting the other, the Christians see Islam as competition for money and power so they garner complacency by convincing people that opposing christian abuses is the same as supporting Islamic abuses.

This is far from the truth, most atheist people oppose all abuses, whether Muslim, Judaic, or Christian. Many of us even oppose the delusion of a god as a whole, especially the use of terrorism to discourage kids from questioning the claims of their leaders.

It is the same thing as saying that if you don't like vanilla then you have to like chocolate. Or you could parallel it to saying that if you want guns regulated you support deregulating automobiles.

The parallel also appears in supporting political candidates. Regardless of where this false dichotomy is used, it is a dishonest attempt to avoid responsibility.