What's wrong with this argument?

"1. My beliefs imply that rationalists cannot marry and raise families.

2. But I know rationalists who claim to have married and raised families.

3A. They must be lying."

What about 3B, Peter? -- "My beliefs are wrong."

This little piece of delusion follows exactly the same MO as all your others: find something that some Christians are good at and go on from there to claim that no non-Christians can possibly be good at it. It's a pretty obvious fallacy and by now you have well and truly done it to death.

You are losing it, Peter. Each new article is more and more offensive to all thinking people, and bushbasher's comment about allying yourself with fundamentalists like runner is spot on target. Get a grip, or in a few years' time you'll be picketing abortion clinics and writing threatening letters to Gay Pride organisers.

Do you really think OO views your work as a valuable contribution to a meaningful debate? Or have you become their decoy duck, set up to attract turnover in the form of potshots from people who see how easy it is to blow your pathetic arguments to pieces?

I found this to be a very disappointing article. For some reason, I thought it might be about defining Humanity; an admittedly dangerous discussion, but one long overdue.
I remember back in the 70's, all the fascination and wonder at the enormous brains of dolphins and whales. Was it possible they might be sentient? What thoughts would they have, without hands, without opposable thumbs, without fire? Were the songs of humpbacks epic poems to rival the Iliad?
I remember being deeply disappointed to see a video of killer whales, throwing themselves onto a beach to feed on seals. That part was great cinema, but watching the whales throw the seals in the air and play with them the way a cat plays with a mouse convinced me killer whales at least belong in the animal kingdom, and not in sentient society.
I would suggest the one characteristic that separates humans from the animal kingdom is the ability to empathise; to feel or at least imagine what it feels like to be in another's situation; even the situation of prey.
By this definition there are a number of critters out there who just don't cut it, and unfortunately a number of them in my experience call themselves Christian. I don't mean to imply all Christians are inhuman, just that being Christian doesn't appear to guarantee Humanity.
For instance, I keep getting a mental image of Runner standing just inside the pearly gates, looking out at us sinners, and going "nyah nyah na nyah nyah!"
And then getting kicked out.

What bushbasher said.

Sells: << My biggest support comes from people who do not write on these pages and they constantly assure me that I am on the right track and that the trolls who inhabit these pages are unbelievable. >>

No, Peter. It's you that's unbelievable.

Pete.

What concerns me is how you are prepared to degrade your reputation as a scientist by trying to link your current irrational opinion with that of real science.

Pericles is spot on.

It's a pity you don't apply the same scientific rigour to your current endeavours. I think it goes Measurability,Testability, Repeatability and Predictability.
Good luck with your new career at Hanger 19 anyway.

Hi George,

You've done it again! Well stated. You are the wisest amongst this bunch of crackers who are in need of psychotherapy.

Kind regards,

Constance

PS. Do you really live in Cologne?

Christians say the nicest things:

Runner: << The acceptance of Christ is not an intellectual problem as history proves His death and Resurrection. The problem is hard, proud lustful hearts that refuse to acknowledge their own filth. >>

Constance: << You [George] are the wisest amongst this bunch of crackers who are in need of psychotherapy >>

The esteemed scientist, Peter Sellick:

<< ...the trolls who inhabit these pages are unbelievable...DUUUUR! >>

and his judgement on those who prefer reason over faith:

<< ...How can they understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family? >>

And yet we do all of the latter and more, weep at the smile of a child, lose ourselves in a sunset, dream to the sublime sound of Mozart, create great art and architecture - all without a belief in any religion - even Christianity.

Finally Sellick claims:

<<... return us to pre Christian paganism but this time with a narrow rationality at its heart. In short, we are in danger of losing the human. >>

Peter are you claiming that before Christ not a single human being created, wept and loved? For 100's of thousands of years?

With every article you publish, your bitterness grows, your judgement more unbalanced with any compassion for those who do not subscribe to your beliefs.

Look to yourself, Deacon, you are in danger of losing your humanity.