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.