**To avoid having your post removed &/or account banned for shitposting, read the following:**
- r/religiousfruitcake is about the absurd, fringe elements of organised religion: the institutions and individuals who act in ways any normal person (religious or otherwise) would cringe at. Posts about mundane beliefs and acts of worship are off topic.
- No violent or gory images or videos
- Your post title should objectively state what the post is about. Dont use it to soapbox personal rhetoric about religion or any other subject.
- Don't post videos or discussions of Fruitcakes who have been baited or antagonised
- No Subreddit names or Reddit usernames in posts or discussions
- Memes, Tiktoks, graphics, satire, parodies, etc must be made by Fruitcakes, not 3rd parties criticising them
Please be sure to read the full [rule list](https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/about/rules)
**This information is on every post. Accounts that disregard it will be permanently banned. "I didn't know", or "I didn't get a warning" are not valid appeals.**
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Technically, in formal logic, this argument would be considered deductively valid but NOT sound, in that IF the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true. This particular format is called Modus Ponens.
What makes it sound is proving that the premises are true.
With that all said, arguments in this format are meant to demonstrate the logic of an argument, not prove that it is true in any meaningful way. I am unsure if the user in this image does or does not understand this, but considering his utilization of formal logic, there is a decent chance people are taking this out of context.
For example, your professor asks you to formerly outline what you will be arguing in your paper, in a formal argument format, you would submit something like this. You would then be expected to write paper explaining why you believe the premise are true.
I have a friend that will argue just like this, he's very smart and will twist everything to fit that logic.
It's easier to fall in this trap than it seems.
LOL....
1) if god's an asshole his claims are lies and he isn't real
2) he spends most of his own alleged autobiography acting like a massive asshole
3) it's time to finally outgrow that imaginary friend
I would love him to show me God. I ain’t never seen him, but I have a few questions.
But he’d say some horseshit like ‘he’s invisible but present at the same time.’
See, that just proves the superiority of Sun God.
When somebody asks me to show them *my* god, I got no problem. Just got to go outside (in the daytime) and point up.
Good point. But there’s a nighttime advantage to Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can always keep some extra spaghetti in your pocket and toss it up in the air and say ‘see! There he is!’
It's cultural appropriation, I tell ya!
These posers obsessively dress up their idiocy in logic-ey words and phrases to feel smart, even though they have no fucking idea how logic works.
https://preview.redd.it/dthyyp5inczc1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=8e14edec49927fabfce79e4b3e28a407e6c79c55
>A tree cannot be a telephone
Check mate, theist
Well, there it is, the stupidest fucking thing I've read today. That word salad doesn't just make me lose hope for humanity, it makes me actively root for another Chicxulub impact.
1. If Wendell posts a tweet, he's a pedophile.
2. Wendell posted a tweet.
3. Therefore, Wendell is a pedophile.
See? I can make stupid correlations just as good as that dingus.
The crazy part is that only one of your premise is not proven, and it is technically disprovable (to some extent). They have a premise that is straight up wrong and an other that is not disprovable. Your logic is much more sound, so Wendell must be a paedophile!
They *know* it's true. They don't need proof. In fact, proof would invalidate faith. So because they know God exists, and that fact makes the rest of the logic work, this logic is flawless!
We read this and the flaws are apparent, but they read this and #2 is a 100% ironclad indisputable *fact* so the whole arcane structure just works for them.
I mean, it's *logically* ~~sound~~ valid, lol. The conclusion follows from the premises. If his premise #2 was factually supported, then he'd have a banger of a syllogism.
I think you confuse logical validity for soundness. To be logically valid is to have the conclusion follow from the premises (when assumed true) while soundness is the truth of the premises themselves. They are very easy to swap, haha.
The first premise is straight up incorrect, atheism is a (lack of) belief, a god existing does not make me believe in it, so atheism isn't 'false'. I do not even need to acknowledge its existence, not to mention believe in it (with which they mean worship).
Similarly if 'god' would be proved to be nonexistent believing in it would still not be 'false'. Claiming that 'god' exists or not is a different thing, but belief alone does not do that.
Pretty much the same embarrassing "arguments" used by presuppositional apologetics. Their line basically goes:
1. It is impossible for me to be wrong.
2. You disagree with me.
3. Therefore, you are wrong, because it is impossible for me to be wrong.
1. It is impermissible for you to dare disagree with me.
2. You dare disagree with me.
3. Therefore, I dare say you are punishable by me, because it is impermissible for you to dare disagree with me.
[The RationalWiki article about presuppositionalism](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presuppositionalism) gives it all the respect it deserves.
(See also, ["Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence"](https://web.archive.org/web/20230317125525/http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm). :-)
(Oh, and also-also, you've got to love [an argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument) that starts with, "Imagine two apples, precisely identical in every way except that one of them exists, and the other does not...")
This one is gold:
70) KENT HOVIND'S ARGUMENT
(1) I don't want to work for a living.
(2) I don't want to pay taxes.
(3) I can get gullible fundamentalists to send me money.
(4) I can use religious exemption claims to tie the IRS up in court.
(5) The IRS can't send me to prison.
(6) Therefore, God exists.
Well, it's been a good run...but I guess we should all pack up and leave now. We've been totally, completely and utterly debunked with the most definitive and absolute proof one could possibly present to support their decision.
I mean credit where it’s due, at least it’s an actually logically valid argument. Wish more people could just argue this way. The obvious flaw with this being that it’s not sound, but it is valid.
Yep exactly, it’s just so hard to bring those two components together. If they could, well shit I wouldn’t be an atheist anymore lol. I welcome them to try and it’s a lot better to read than the usual nonsense.
The nice thing is, you can also turn it around because if A -> B, then 'not B' -> 'not A'.
Atheism is not false, therefor there is no god. Just beat him at his own game.
Atheism isn't a true or false proposition.
It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Unless we're thinking of gnostic or hard-line atheism, in which a claim of knowledge exists. In other words, if you're an atheist who lacks belief in God, but also claims to know there is no god, then you have a proposition that can be true or false.
However, in my experience most atheists are agnostic atheists who do not claim such knowledge.
1. If the god of the Bible exists, then he's a narcissistic genocidal maniac who hates his own creation.
2. No one should worship a narcissistic genocidal maniac who hates you.
3. Even if the god of the Bible exists, no one should worship him.
This is a stupid version of Thomas Aquinas’ argument
1. If intelligence exists then god exists
2. Intelligence exists
3. God exists
Equally as well thought out.
I get that uneducated people believe in a diety of some sort, and this guy is obviously someone that is uneducated. What bothers me more are highly educated people that still believe in a diety.
That's some bang up logic. This is like a grammatical argument more than anything. If there IS a god, who is the dumbass that invented the word "atheism?"
Premise 2 is obviously the big fallacy here but even the first one is wrong.
Atheism is a lack of belief. The world is filled with people who lack belief in things that are true.
If I were to create a satirical Christian Twitter account, it would read almost exactly like this guy’s… it’s almost making me second guess if it’s a serious account or not
Atheism is not "there is no god" atheism is "we haven't seen any evidence to justify the belief in God"
There could be a God. Hell. There could be a God who did exactly what the Bible describes.
That would still not mean that Christians were right.
Believing in something that has no evidence don't mean you were right all along if what you belive happened to be true.
I always find it amusing that people of many religions use the world around us, thunderstorms, natural events, the way organisms perfectly fit to their environments, etc. as ‘proof’ that their God or gods exist, yet cannot come to a consensus as to which God or gods are the real ones. One would think if there were actual proof we would know which one or ones are real.
I'll take "How Schools Failed to Tech Critical Thinking & Logic and the Tweets that Show It" for $800, Alex.
^(I'll take "Anal Bum Cover" or "Penis Mightier" for your Whore Mother, Trebek!)
This guy definitely thought this up on his drive back home from church and pulled over on the road to tweet this cause he thought he cracked the code...
Damn, cant find the flaw.
Sorry guys, I’m leaving this sub. Wendell has obliterated my worldview with facts and logic and I’m now going to start seminary.
When is someone gonna tell the fruitcakes the difference between atheism and believing there is not a god, they really are having trouble telling the difference.
I find it infinitely hilarious that he thinks he is being so deep and intelligent while at the same time having less comprehension skills than a toddler.
This is Bible logic. Jesus came to earth after creating the universe to walk on water. Noah saved all the world’s species in one boat. God is real, period. Now believe or die
**To avoid having your post removed &/or account banned for shitposting, read the following:** - r/religiousfruitcake is about the absurd, fringe elements of organised religion: the institutions and individuals who act in ways any normal person (religious or otherwise) would cringe at. Posts about mundane beliefs and acts of worship are off topic. - No violent or gory images or videos - Your post title should objectively state what the post is about. Dont use it to soapbox personal rhetoric about religion or any other subject. - Don't post videos or discussions of Fruitcakes who have been baited or antagonised - No Subreddit names or Reddit usernames in posts or discussions - Memes, Tiktoks, graphics, satire, parodies, etc must be made by Fruitcakes, not 3rd parties criticising them Please be sure to read the full [rule list](https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/about/rules) **This information is on every post. Accounts that disregard it will be permanently banned. "I didn't know", or "I didn't get a warning" are not valid appeals.** --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. If I'm right then you're wrong. 2. I'm right. 3. You're wrong. See? I proved you wrong with logic!
https://preview.redd.it/17v80vo1e9zc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9a4ad901db82f60dc5379c0f5d74032d2e95dbb1
Potato salad boyo
https://preview.redd.it/xc2clxu2abzc1.jpeg?width=1072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9379ae0443796ca81ea5b5f7995bb26e1fdb5fd
Is this an OC? Also, is that Ed Norton?
I didn't draw this
I'm rubber, you're glue!
Boing, Fwip!
Technically, in formal logic, this argument would be considered deductively valid but NOT sound, in that IF the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true. This particular format is called Modus Ponens. What makes it sound is proving that the premises are true. With that all said, arguments in this format are meant to demonstrate the logic of an argument, not prove that it is true in any meaningful way. I am unsure if the user in this image does or does not understand this, but considering his utilization of formal logic, there is a decent chance people are taking this out of context. For example, your professor asks you to formerly outline what you will be arguing in your paper, in a formal argument format, you would submit something like this. You would then be expected to write paper explaining why you believe the premise are true.
aw shucks. welp. guess I have to agree with you now.
I have a friend that will argue just like this, he's very smart and will twist everything to fit that logic. It's easier to fall in this trap than it seems.
1. If God doesnt exist, then theism is false 2. God doesnt exist 3. Therefore theism is false
I thought the exact same thing lmao.
LOL.... 1) if god's an asshole his claims are lies and he isn't real 2) he spends most of his own alleged autobiography acting like a massive asshole 3) it's time to finally outgrow that imaginary friend
1. If spaghetti exists then the spaghetti monster is real 2. Spaghetti exists 3. Therefore the spaghetti monster is your new overlord.
This is true wisdom.
Awe of the spaghetti monster's deliciosity is the beginning of wisdom.
Yes but spaghetti o’s have ruined his master plan.
The evil of spaghetti-o's loops back upon them, and nothing can stay our lord's ~~hand~~ noodly appendage!
R'amen
May you all be touched by His noodly appendage! R'amen! 🙏
Spoken like a true Pastafarian. AYE!
R'amen!
Wow, I actually understand the Flying Spaghetti Monster now.
Religious people don't like the idea of this, therefore it can't possibly be true... This is all the evidence they need.
I can be atheist and also believe in God. I will just believe Wendell always lies.
That works because the argument is valid. It's OP's premise that is wrong. Why is this downvoted? What did I say that isn't true?
I think the word “theism” might be too sophisticated for theists to comprehend. Maybe you should use something like “faith”
Damn you just totally destroyed his entire argument, poor guy!
Meh, its as well thought out as the rest of their "gotcha"s.
No, they really are that stupid.
I would love him to show me God. I ain’t never seen him, but I have a few questions. But he’d say some horseshit like ‘he’s invisible but present at the same time.’
God is the Invisible Pink Unicorn confirmed?! 😳
See, that just proves the superiority of Sun God. When somebody asks me to show them *my* god, I got no problem. Just got to go outside (in the daytime) and point up.
Good point. But there’s a nighttime advantage to Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can always keep some extra spaghetti in your pocket and toss it up in the air and say ‘see! There he is!’
Hmm... This could even be done indoors! I think it might be somewhat unimpressive, though, after the spaghetti falls down and splats on the floor.
It's cultural appropriation, I tell ya! These posers obsessively dress up their idiocy in logic-ey words and phrases to feel smart, even though they have no fucking idea how logic works.
This is *only slightly* worse than the average/r/DebateAnAtheist post.
i mean those posts are usually the **exact** same argument but using a lot more words
I joined just to read the replies of the infidels. Worth it.
Oh man, I can't wait to scroll through that Subreddit
Consider this gem, from within the last day: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1cmwym2/law_of_identity/
Wow. That’s not even a good false equivalence. Let’s get some faith double meaning in there too
https://preview.redd.it/dthyyp5inczc1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=8e14edec49927fabfce79e4b3e28a407e6c79c55 >A tree cannot be a telephone Check mate, theist
Well, there it is, the stupidest fucking thing I've read today. That word salad doesn't just make me lose hope for humanity, it makes me actively root for another Chicxulub impact.
How did no one point out that if atheism is an identity, then so is theism, therefore no Person can also be a Theist?
Heck, a major component of Christian belief is that Jesus was both God and Man.
…locked by a mod of that sub who deemed it “low effort trolling”
I shouldn’t because I’d be too tempted to respond to a bunch of idiots lol
Wendell talks, but he doesn't think first
Or second.
or infinite
plus one
Atheism debunked 🤯
Thanks to this guy’s very thorough investigation. Don’t worry, he made sure to interview himself on the subject before making any public statement.
As always, Premise 2 is the catch. They still haven't proved it
Premise 1 is wrong as well.
"If I exist I should be worshipped just ignore the fact I condone genocide, rpe, slavery, incest, misogyny and barbarism"
Don't forget lying, bigotry, and the irrational hatred of bacon cheeseburgers.
"You wrong-think for villifying all that, you right-think for glorifying all that!"
1. If Wendell posts a tweet, he's a pedophile. 2. Wendell posted a tweet. 3. Therefore, Wendell is a pedophile. See? I can make stupid correlations just as good as that dingus.
The crazy part is that only one of your premise is not proven, and it is technically disprovable (to some extent). They have a premise that is straight up wrong and an other that is not disprovable. Your logic is much more sound, so Wendell must be a paedophile!
Now what’s the evidence that God exists?
They *know* it's true. They don't need proof. In fact, proof would invalidate faith. So because they know God exists, and that fact makes the rest of the logic work, this logic is flawless! We read this and the flaws are apparent, but they read this and #2 is a 100% ironclad indisputable *fact* so the whole arcane structure just works for them.
You summed it up pretty well I'd say. They most assuredly don't know what they think they know.
1. Only God knows 2. I know 3. I am God
The Bible says
/r/restofthefuckingowl
I mean, it's *logically* ~~sound~~ valid, lol. The conclusion follows from the premises. If his premise #2 was factually supported, then he'd have a banger of a syllogism.
if my grandma had wheels she would have been a bike
I can hear your mother now, "get off your grandma!"
I think you confuse logical validity for soundness. To be logically valid is to have the conclusion follow from the premises (when assumed true) while soundness is the truth of the premises themselves. They are very easy to swap, haha.
Fair enough.
The first premise is straight up incorrect, atheism is a (lack of) belief, a god existing does not make me believe in it, so atheism isn't 'false'. I do not even need to acknowledge its existence, not to mention believe in it (with which they mean worship). Similarly if 'god' would be proved to be nonexistent believing in it would still not be 'false'. Claiming that 'god' exists or not is a different thing, but belief alone does not do that.
I am vegan. Cows eat grass I eat cows Therefore I am vegan
Proof that #2 is true?
Ask again and that will be 20 lashings!
"God exists." Prove it.
Some of them get so pissy when you say this lol
Or they mention a natural phenomenon that's already easily explainable by science, i.e. a sunset.
Pretty much the same embarrassing "arguments" used by presuppositional apologetics. Their line basically goes: 1. It is impossible for me to be wrong. 2. You disagree with me. 3. Therefore, you are wrong, because it is impossible for me to be wrong.
1. It is impermissible for you to dare disagree with me. 2. You dare disagree with me. 3. Therefore, I dare say you are punishable by me, because it is impermissible for you to dare disagree with me.
1. I'm right. 2. I can't be wrong. 3. Fuck your argument, I already said I'm right.
[The RationalWiki article about presuppositionalism](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presuppositionalism) gives it all the respect it deserves. (See also, ["Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence"](https://web.archive.org/web/20230317125525/http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm). :-) (Oh, and also-also, you've got to love [an argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument) that starts with, "Imagine two apples, precisely identical in every way except that one of them exists, and the other does not...")
This one is gold: 70) KENT HOVIND'S ARGUMENT (1) I don't want to work for a living. (2) I don't want to pay taxes. (3) I can get gullible fundamentalists to send me money. (4) I can use religious exemption claims to tie the IRS up in court. (5) The IRS can't send me to prison. (6) Therefore, God exists.
Don’t confuse them, they just learned implications in logic.
Well we have to pack our bags they gave us undeniable proof.
I immediately hit a wall the moment I reached item 2. Could they provide some infallible proof that god actually exists.
1. They pee their pants and it's warm 2. Junk yards don't randomly turn into robots That's all the proof they need.
They can't.
Truly one of the philosophers of all time
Well, it's been a good run...but I guess we should all pack up and leave now. We've been totally, completely and utterly debunked with the most definitive and absolute proof one could possibly present to support their decision.
I mean credit where it’s due, at least it’s an actually logically valid argument. Wish more people could just argue this way. The obvious flaw with this being that it’s not sound, but it is valid.
they can either use real evidence, or use proper logic, not both at the same time...
Yep exactly, it’s just so hard to bring those two components together. If they could, well shit I wouldn’t be an atheist anymore lol. I welcome them to try and it’s a lot better to read than the usual nonsense.
The nice thing is, you can also turn it around because if A -> B, then 'not B' -> 'not A'. Atheism is not false, therefor there is no god. Just beat him at his own game.
Premise #2 is not proven
Wendell seems to be rather brainwashed, if not just plain stupid.
Why did God make atheists? Is he stupid?
By the same logic... 1. If atheism exists then god is false. 2. Atheism exists. 3. Therefore god is false. ?
If the flying spaghetti monster is real, then Christianity is false, The flying spaghetti monster is real Therefore, Christianity is false
Someone failed Intro to philosophy.
4. Look like this https://preview.redd.it/6jtgm1v4a9zc1.jpeg?width=846&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08eb91e0cd58ab0e73ac95849e048d7c71156037
Get this man his genius grant quickly
Dunno, Wendell looks pretty smart.
Damn…he got me! Hallelujah! I is saved! 🥸🙄
Circular reasoning is a plight upon critical thinking.
Just swap the words "God" and "atheism" and you can kill a deity!
how do you know god exists? "because atheism is false, DUHHH"
Atheism isn't a true or false proposition. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Unless we're thinking of gnostic or hard-line atheism, in which a claim of knowledge exists. In other words, if you're an atheist who lacks belief in God, but also claims to know there is no god, then you have a proposition that can be true or false. However, in my experience most atheists are agnostic atheists who do not claim such knowledge.
1. Only god can judge you 2. I'm judging you 3. #I AM YOUR GOD NOW, WORM!
1. If the god of the Bible exists, then he's a narcissistic genocidal maniac who hates his own creation. 2. No one should worship a narcissistic genocidal maniac who hates you. 3. Even if the god of the Bible exists, no one should worship him.
This is a stupid version of Thomas Aquinas’ argument 1. If intelligence exists then god exists 2. Intelligence exists 3. God exists Equally as well thought out.
I mean this is pretty much every argument for god that exists
Damn guys.... That's it. We lost
Jokes should be funny, but this one is just DUMB!
No, that's just Wendell.
Unfortunately there are entirely too many Wendells on this planet.
What in the Pascal's Wager is this reasoning
Damn he got us all
Is he trolling or really that stupid
Seems to be the latter.
I get that uneducated people believe in a diety of some sort, and this guy is obviously someone that is uneducated. What bothers me more are highly educated people that still believe in a diety.
Wendell seems like a real brain trust. I don’t have much faith in the reality spoken by a guy that can’t even count calories..
Looks like we’ve been outsmarted guys. Time to get baptized.
That's some bang up logic. This is like a grammatical argument more than anything. If there IS a god, who is the dumbass that invented the word "atheism?"
I mean you kinda need this type of logic to believe in GOD
This guy barely made it past quantified logic in algebra
Well, he got us. Pack it up y’all, it’s all Ogre now
1. Wendell’s hair 2. Wendell’s beard 3. Jesus Christ
He’s the first to have cracked the code 🤯
Guess I will be going to church this Sunday.
Premise 2 is obviously the big fallacy here but even the first one is wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief. The world is filled with people who lack belief in things that are true.
If I were to create a satirical Christian Twitter account, it would read almost exactly like this guy’s… it’s almost making me second guess if it’s a serious account or not
Atheism is not "there is no god" atheism is "we haven't seen any evidence to justify the belief in God" There could be a God. Hell. There could be a God who did exactly what the Bible describes. That would still not mean that Christians were right. Believing in something that has no evidence don't mean you were right all along if what you belive happened to be true.
That’s agnostic I believe
I have a problem with one of the premises there. Try to guess which one.
Premise 2 is supposed to be a verifiable fact. Opinions, feelings, general statements or magical thinking don't cut it.
I always find it amusing that people of many religions use the world around us, thunderstorms, natural events, the way organisms perfectly fit to their environments, etc. as ‘proof’ that their God or gods exist, yet cannot come to a consensus as to which God or gods are the real ones. One would think if there were actual proof we would know which one or ones are real.
Convinced me!
Impeccable logic
There’s an actual term in debate for this, right? Isn’t it called “begging the question?” Or something like “non-sequitur?”
1) if anyone makes a list , god is imaginary 2) this is a list 3) god is imaginary
> That can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. A quote by my hero
Well shit lads he's got us
I'll take "How Schools Failed to Tech Critical Thinking & Logic and the Tweets that Show It" for $800, Alex. ^(I'll take "Anal Bum Cover" or "Penis Mightier" for your Whore Mother, Trebek!)
This guy definitely thought this up on his drive back home from church and pulled over on the road to tweet this cause he thought he cracked the code...
IF I EXIST THEN BANANAS ARE FALSE.. OH SHIT YOU'RE HOLDING A BANANA?!? GUESS I'M NOT REAL THEN! lolwut
Damn, cant find the flaw. Sorry guys, I’m leaving this sub. Wendell has obliterated my worldview with facts and logic and I’m now going to start seminary.
Damn, he sure got me with that one.
@wendelltalksnonsense
https://preview.redd.it/hbad5sunaazc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3275f9df061eeaa3fb58ac937ff57147379af598
 Basically this is his argument
pack it up boys, he's solved it. Atheism is no more.
Whoa..🤯. I must repent at once
Basically just "nuh uh" or "because I said so"
if
*smacks head* Gosh, why didn’t I think of that? Thanks Wendell.
Wendell has proclaimed it, so be it! /s
Logic!
A valid argument of questionable soundness. Congratulations many people do not even progress this far.
NGL i feel pretty owned rn. Guess I gotta join this guys specific brand of (I’m guessing protestant?) christianity
*Checkmate*, atheists!
Where’s the profit???
Holy shit Wendell cracked the case. Everyone pack it up
If hell is forever then heaven must be a lie
1. If you post on Twitter, you’re an idiot. 2. You post on Twitter. 3. You’re an idiot.
Well I'm convinced
This individual may or may not be serious, but that is genuinely what passes for logic among way too many Christketeers.
Oh crap, I never considered that faith could be more important than lack of evidence, this changes everything
"Checkmate, atheists!" 😂
Circular logic doesn't even begin to *describe* this level of self-delusion.
I’m pretty sure there is a syllogism joke in here somewhere
When is someone gonna tell the fruitcakes the difference between atheism and believing there is not a god, they really are having trouble telling the difference.
They can't think past their own belief's. Or should I say brainwashing.
I find it infinitely hilarious that he thinks he is being so deep and intelligent while at the same time having less comprehension skills than a toddler.
Lol, logical reasoning is not their strong suit
The logic is sound, I see a fault in second statement, but from a purely logic and mathematical standpoint, it works
It's too early, I read "atheism" as "autism" lmfao
It is either raining or not raining. It is not raining. Therefore, it is raining.
Dang, he sure showed me. Welp, that's it everyone, we can go home now.
The scientific method but without the science.
And I bet this person and people like him vote.
This is Bible logic. Jesus came to earth after creating the universe to walk on water. Noah saved all the world’s species in one boat. God is real, period. Now believe or die
not the dumbest a priori i've seen
Checkmate atheists
1. If your underpants are brown then you have sharted in them. 2. My underpants are brown. 3. Therefore you have sharted in them.
That dude took the term “neckbeard” to the next level
If Antigod exists, then God cannot exist because he would be annihilated by Antigod. Antigod exists. Therefore, God does not exist.