My Bishop

                                                 +AJPM+

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:

Before we begin, I am aware I have not posted anything concerning Election 2016. Any point I could make about it has already been stated in the link here about Catholic voting.

Having said that, I bring it up now because within the last few days of this post's original publication, a voting event was held in my home city led by its head bishop---the first cardinal of the US Deep South---, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo.

I know a lot of Catholics say their bishop is special and unique...but I have solid proof of how special my bishop is:

-He oversees an archdiocese where on any given Sunday, Mass is performed in 14 different languages and he manages to keep it all together.
-He was the highest ranking bishop to speak out against Notre Dame giving an honorary degree to President Obama, given the president's stand on abortion
-He serves as grand prior of the Southwest Lieutenancy Order of the Holy Sepulchre.
-Under his leadership, the Personal Ordinate of the Chair of St Peter was formed, with a parish in Houston serving as its main hub.
-Starting in October of 2016, there will be a parish run by the Fraternal Society of St Peter thanks to him.
-He is no intellectual lightweight, having advanced degrees from the Catholic University of America and advanced knowledge of early Catholic Church Fathers.
-He currently serves as vice president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
-He served as co-author of the official voting guide published by the USCCB.

With all this, it comes as no surprise when news came out of him leading an event about voting, the room was so packed some people had to stand for the event.


I should know...I was there.


I wish this event was recorded--and too bad it wasn't--because his speech brought up points even I never considered. Here are some highlights:

-He made it clear he was not going to tell people who to vote for because he didn't want people to be robots.

-He did admit he didn't see the final debate, but he did say based on some parts he was disgusted by Trump's view of immigrants..but also disgusted by Clinton's take on abortion.

-He talked about parts of Catholic moral teaching to consider for all political issues, and those parts being sanctity of life, subsidiary (which he referred to as "better to do it smaller than bigger"....in other words, local than federal), the common good, and preference for the weak among us. He would further state most people put common good before subsidiarity when it should be the other way around.

-He also said most people don't seem to know what a right is anymore.

-Speaking of rights, he does not agree with the Supreme Court ruling on gay so-called "marriage." He did admit to arguing with several people on this but he also admitted he has not met any gay marriage advocate who could answer one simple question...

...what is the end goal of gay marriage?
I, too, would love to hear a good answer to this.

-He also admitted as vice president of the USCCB, he knows Catholic charities are starting to be denied permission by the US federal government to help refugees because Catholic charities refuse to provide what the government calls "reproductive services", which any thinking person knows is code for providing abortion services.

-Finally, he had good advise for anyone who still can't bring themselves to vote for either Trump or Clinton:

Still go vote but if you can get away with it, vote only for local offices or local issues related to your area and leave the presidential choice blank.


If anyone here thinks I'm lying about this happening or what Cardinal DiNardo said, feel free to email the archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, and they will confirm everything.

Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked #10

                                                       +AJPM+

"Why can't Catholics (or Christians in general) just let people live their lives the way they want to live them?"


THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:

Let's get one thing out of the way about this question: out of all the people in the world, atheists are the LAST people who should be asking this question.

Why?

Because they have the WORST and most HYPOCRITICAL track record when it comes to this issue.
Think about it. In every society or country where atheists hold the key leadership positions, have they ever at any time let Catholics or any religious group worship or preach freely?

Of course not.

From the Red Army's invasion of Tibet, to the explosion of the Christ the Redeemer Cathedral in Russia, to current attacks now against anyone who dare defy the gay agenda, secularists and atheists have NEVER allowed religious people to say what they wanted or even tolerated religious people talking back to an atheist.

All this from a group who says religious people need to "be more open-minded" and "tolerant of other views", that "we live in a multi-cultural society" and "all faiths are the same anyway" and "you shouldn't impose your beliefs on others."

Strange...atheists don't seem to have any problem forcing their beliefs on others...often by the end of a gun barrel.

But back to the question at hand...why can't Catholics or Christians leave others alone?

Simple: error should not go unanswered.

You see, all followers of Christ are called to "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48) but since man is a fallible creature, we do make errors, albeit not the same ones or even at the same time. Sure, we may make every effort possible to avoid error, but every now and again, errors do get through and we do need correction. Atheists, whether they want to admit it or not, are in the same boat as their religious counter-parts.

Perfect examples here:
Would an atheist speak out on someone who says a triangle has four sides? What about if someone places an historical event in the wrong time frame? Would an atheist say nothing about this mistake? Of course not.

"But, wait," a vocal yet misguided atheist would say. "What you're talking about here are objective, provable facts. While we can find the definite answers to those, that's not true about morals, so you Christians have no right to say someone else is wrong on their morals."

I, as well as many other Catholics, call out the atheists on that objection, since we're not the ones who claim all is relative while holding something as objectively true...otherwise, all your claims can and will be dismissed as just opinions..and ill-informed ones at that.

Whatever reasons a person can come up with as to why they would never let people keep believing these two falsehoods, those are the exact same reasons Christians would never let people continue in their error.

Here's where I think the atheist's real beef is: it's not so much atheists object to exposing error or making a mistake; they just object to people exposing atheist errors. Any sane adult would face the error and conclude all contrary views to the discovered truth must be false but atheists seem unwilling or too ill-informed to do this.

That in the end is why a) Christians can't leave people alone when the people commit error, b) we will never leave the person in their error and c) we should never expected to leave the person in their error.

Christians admit there is such a thing as an absolute; atheist idiots do not.

THAT makes all the difference in this life and the next.

Take no part in the fruits of darkness, but instead expose them. -Eph 5:11

10 Assumptions from Atheists I'm Sick of Hearing

                                                            +AJPM+

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:


1. "You must hate science."

Actually, I don't have any problems with science. I love science. I've loved it since I was little. This seems to feed into the bogus story of science and religion being at war, when no such war exists. Also, if Christians hate science, how come they keep winning Nobels in science?

2. "You must think the earth is only 6,000 years old."

I have no idea where this came from.
It can't be the Bible: it doesn't say how old the earth is, and it can't be implied either from the text.
It can't be the Catholic Church: they never issued any statement about the earth's age.
In fact, the only people I can find that use the 6,000 figure are Protestants who don't understand how to understand the time lapse in the seven days of Creation (here's a hint: there's no mentioned ending to day seven), and atheist morons who use the websites owned by said Protestants and think all Christians believe this.
Most Christians in fact DO NOT believe this. At best, only 18% might believe this, but that's about it. In other words, odds are good you'll never come across a Christian that believes this.

3. "You must be against evolution."

Yeah...I've never said I was against evolution. I've never implied it either. Again, the Catholic Church has never been against evolution but has issued a statement supporting the teaching. You'd be hard-pressed to find any Catholic school that doesn't teach evolution.

4. "You must be Republican."

Ok...this one is true but I still fail to see how they came up with it with so little evidence.

5. "You must not be that smart."

Considering I can see right through atheist garbage, can see their nonsense coming a mile away and the fact I've gone about three months without having any intelligent message from an atheist, I think it's safe to conclude I have more brains than all atheists put together.


As a perfect example, I've heard several atheists argue that Hitler must have been Catholic based solely on his claim of being one.
To that I say...so what?
I can put on a football jersey...that doesn't make me a quarterback.

6. "You must not know Christianity as much as atheists do."

On this point, atheists might have something. I don't know as much as they do...

I know a whole lot more.

For example, I know how many books are in the Bible, I know when the final list of biblical books was decided, I don't engage in alternative history theories not backed by scholars, and I don't make things up about Christian history either.

7. "You must be homophobic."

Yeah...there's no such thing as homophobia. No mental health text and no mental health governing body considers homophobia a valid fear.

As far as my view of gay people as a whole....If they had the sense to hire different bakers, and actually listened to scientific findings about sexuality and gender identity, maybe then I wouldn't have a problem with them.

At least when the Civil Rights Act passed, you didn't see black people being in your face about how black they are.

8. "You must have never questioned religion."

Actually, I did...but wound up questioning atheism more. After finding out how many things atheism got wrong or missed the point, I gave up atheism and returned to the faith my ancestors had.

9. "You must think I the atheist am going to hell."

Actually, I don't think that. That would be assuming I knew for a fact about your damnation...knowledge no human is meant to have. The truth is I am no more sure about someone's damnation than I am sure about my salvation, and I have not now nor will I ever say my salvation is a certainty.

10. "Don't you know religion will die out?"

Yeah...that's never going to happen. Atheists have been claiming that since at least the middle of the 19th century. It didn't come to pass then and it won't come to pass now or even by 2050.

No...it is atheism that will die out. Atheists aren't keeping pace with world population growth, they don't have as many kids and of the kids they do have, 7 out of 10 won't stay in atheism by the time they reach adulthood.

Just when I think atheists couldn't be more idiotic, they pull these out of nowhere.

Face It, Atheists: You LOST the Mother Teresa Fight

                                                     +AJPM+

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:


In my life, I have never seen atheists flip their lid over a canonization as much as I've seen the ire they've leveled at now St. Mother Teresa.

But what's that, you say? The Vatican made a mistake in making her a saint? She was really a monster that didn't care for anyone and this is all an elaborate marketing campaign for sainthood?
And that atheists, and atheists alone know the truth?

Given how much stock I put in conspiracy theories (which would be NONE), and given the fact NO atheist was on the canonization process, I find it impossible to believe any atheist (and one in particular, which I'll get to later) could in any way know better than the people who know the case best. In addition, since there is no reliable

So what are some of the accusations atheists have tried that never added up in the end? And why didn't they add up?

"She never performed any miracles after death."

Yeah, atheists try this after every new declared saint. The truth is the atheists giving this complaint are not on any cases concerning sainthood and are not doctors. I bring this up because most times they target medically connected miracles and are somehow not aware of the fact that no less than five doctors are asked to look into claims. When five people trained for years in medicine can't come up with a valid alternative explanation, that means whatever the atheist came up with had already been considered and dismissed.

"She accepted money from a financial scammer, and an award from a known dictator."

These are in reference to money she once received from Robert Maxwell, and the award was given to her by the Haitian dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. In the former case, no one knew at the time he was embezzling money from his company (nor could anyone prove the donation was embezzled money). In the latter case, the award was the Légion d'honneur, an award for military and civil merits that dates to Napoleon. Who presents the award has nothing to do with the person winning.

"Her religious order is a cult."

The Missionaries of Charity, like several religious orders, has a rigorous and lengthy process for accepting new members. This is a standard and acceptable practice to be sure the potential novice will fit into the order and whether they are actually called to the religious life. While a nine year trial period may seem like an eternity, the Church doesn't seem to have a problem with it and is much shorter than joining the Jesuits or becoming a doctor.

"Her order embezzled money from donors."

Once the charity gets the money, they are free to share it with another charity or a higher authority in the charity. That is a standard practice with charities, is NOT considered embezzlement, and would NEVER be considered embezzlement in a court of law.

"She didn't really believe in God."

This notion comes from one of her released diaries where she felt like God was distant from her. This spiritual phenomenon is actually called the "dark night of the soul", where the believer doesn't feel God being close to them. This has biblical basis in Psalms, some OT prophets, and of course the book of Job. 
HOWEVER...at no point should this be viewed as atheism, as the person going through this spiritual dryness never gives up their belief in God.

"The Vatican never took accusations against her seriously. If they did, they would have never made her a saint."
That's not what the people who worked on her sainthood cause said. According to Fr Peter Gumpel, an official for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the accusations were taken very seriously but in the end turned out to be nothing more than false witness from people being an anti-Catholic agenda.

"She was a hypocrite for accepting heart surgery but doing nothing for the ill under her care."

This may be a result of not understanding what the Missionaries of Charity are about. First off, they never claimed they were nurses or doctors (but to be fair, they do receive some basic medical training) so clearly they're not trained or equipped to handle skilled medical procedures. Second, they are formed to care for people society in general have long ignored (and people I know for a fact atheists don't give a flip about). 
Third, that heart surgery? It was just a pacemaker. There was nothing cutting-edge about it. Fourth, not caring for those in her order's care? That's not what witness have said...or any award committees who witnessed her care first hand.

                                                                  -------
Ok..I've put this off for long enough...what about the accusations from Christopher Hitchens?
His are, believe it or not, the easiest to refute.

Why?
He never cites any sources.
That's right: He doesn't cite a single source for any of his accusations.

That quote where she supposedly thought it was beautiful for the poor to accept their lot? No source for this quote other than Hitchen's own book.
(And before anyone tries to claim otherwise, I put the quote in a citation search, and contrary to what Hitchens claims, NO press conference came up where she said this.)

His claim of being the only person invited by the Vatican to present a case against her?
1) He was NEVER invited by the Vatican.
2) He wasn't the only person to present a case.

His claim of actually interviewing her face to face? No one can collaborate that. In fact, there is NO proof this interview ever happened, and I looked on Google, the BBC, and on YouTube. When you can find clips of David Frost's interview with Richard Nixon, but no trace of this supposed interview...

...Then something's wrong. In fact, the only source of this information is Hitchen's own book, which once again does not cite any sources.

Then again, what else do you expect from a "journalist" (and in Hitchen's case, I use that term VERY loosely) who seems to have more fun making facts up then actually stating facts?

Face it, atheists: your collective ranting and raving at her in the end didn't mean anything. She's going to be remembered long after all of you are nothing more than dead and dust.

That's the price you pay for being such idiots.

10 Things I Wish Atheists Would Stop Saying

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:

In a previous post, I looked at a few phrases I remember atheists arguing at one point, but I notice they don't anymore.

In this post, I'm going to look at phrases atheists still use and I wish they'd stop using them because they don't make any sense.

10.  "We're both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do."

If the number of gods you believe in is greater than zero, then you're not an atheist. Period. There is no way around this. I find this especially odd since atheists also say:

9. "Atheism is just not believing in God."

Is anything in all existence nothing more than its dictionary definition?
And how does this explain the fact a significant percentage of atheists actually do think God exists?

8. "Babies are atheists."

Seriously, there are atheist morons out there who think babies should count as being atheists. This of course assumes you can ask a baby on their religious stance, but you might as well ask their stand on abortion for all the sense that makes.

7. "Jesus is just a myth"

Just about every scholar disagrees with that. "Jesus as myth" is taken about as seriously as biologists take creationism.
And before anyone tries that "those scholars are biased"...that's like accusing a car mechanic of bias when they tell you you're due for an oil change.

6. "Religion will die out soon."

Not according to growth figures, it won't. Projections show by 2050, Christianity will still be dominant faith of the world and atheism will shrink as a percentage of world population. I will go further and point out atheism can only at best keep 30% of its own members.

5. "You shouldn't impose your beliefs on others."

Yet I should be fine with atheists imposing their views on me? And what about teaching kids? Does teaching them "2+2=4" count as imposing your view on them?
This notion is especially dumb since it doesn't factor in how ideas are transmitted in the first place.

4. "A quarter of the world is atheist."

No..try just 2%. The 25% figure is the amount of non-religious people; you can be non-religious yet still think God exists. How else do you explain that the non-religious figure is further broken down into groups like agnostics and atheists?

It's simple logic: all atheists are non-religious but not all non-religious people are atheists.

3. "Hitler was Catholic."

I went in depth on this topic in a previous post so I won't repeat myself, but here's a brief summery:

Any evidence atheists use to prove Hitler was Catholic (indeed, the ONLY evidence atheists use) is a handful of quotes where he claims to be Catholic, and they then think this should be good enough.

Yeah...I can claim I'm a quarterback for the Houston Texans. Does me saying it make it so?

Besides, Catholics do NOT put someone to death for refusing to take down crucifixes, or execute someone in a gas chamber after they converted to Catholicism or get called out by a Pope who in turn calls you a "crazy and insane dictator."

2. "I won't believe in God unless you present evidence."

First off, what type of evidence is this demand talking about?
Is it scientific? Christians never said God could be proven scientifically. In fact, several things are believed without need of scientific proof...the scientific method, for one.
Is it logical? What proof can the atheist give that they'd believe logical evidence?

Speaking of which, what guarantee does the believer have that the atheist isn't going to a) act like no evidence was presented when in fact it was presented, b) act like they weren't listening or c) suddenly change their mind and say they'll only accept certain evidence categories that exclude the evidence the believer just presented?

1. "The Bible is just a book of fairy tales."

This one also includes the phrase "bronze-age mythology" and belief in a "mystical sky-daddy."

If I or anyone else goes into a library or bookstore and want a copy of the Bible, guess which section it WON'T be found in.

In fact, the fairy-tale section and the religious section are NOWHERE NEAR each other, so one can be sure any thinking person (ie any non-atheist) would never even dream of putting the Bible in the fiction section.

Therefore, "Bible equals fairy tale" is a category mistake--and NOTHING MORE!

Want further proof? This is a list of all the books with ban orders from various state governments; note how none of the books listed are fairy-tale books and notice how out of all the reasons given for the ban, none of them say the book belongs under a different genre.

So, who do you think I'm going to believe: book experts who know what they're talking about, or some atheist idiot talking out of their blow-hole?

2016: The Texas Catholic Olympics

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:

In Jesus Through Mary to ya'll!

August 21, 2016 marked the end of the 2016 Rio Olympic games. While I am proud of the fact that they ended with the US still in charge, I am also proud that despite the atheist/secular attempts to showcase it as the debut of trans-gender athletes, that idea was quickly tossed in the garbage where it belongs. Instead, the focus shifted to the natural men and women who held their faith up high along with their medals.

Consider just this sample of Catholic stars that competed in Rio:

-Simone Biles
-Katie Ledecky
-Usain Bolt
-Lia Neal
-Anabell Smith
-KK Clark
-Mary Jo Fernandez
-Gaby Lopez
-Gabi Nance
-Erin Rafuse
-Denise Sheldon


I also like the fact how many athletes were from the Lone Star State; in fact, if one were to examine the winners, one will find Texas was responsible for about 1/3 of the total US medal count.

What exactly am I getting at with this?
When you give up God, you give up any notion of trying harder or bettering yourself. Is it any wonder as faith in God goes down, satisfaction with life goes down with it?

12 Things I Notice Atheists Don't Say Anymore

                                                                 +AJPM+

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:

Over the last few days, I've realized that I've argued with atheists for now over 6 years. While one is bound to hear a few arguments over and over, I've also noticed some claims atheists used to tout but no longer do. If this was a simple matter of adjusting the claim based on new information, that would be one thing, but as far as I can tell, these arguments have pretty much disappeared from atheists' Borg-like collection of tricks.

I am not saying we will never hear these arguments ever again; after all, several of the New Atheism's arguments are just repackaged old ideas that didn't work the first time they were touted and besides, "there's nothing new under the sun."(Ecc 1:9).

Having said that, here are the ones I've gone the longest without hearing with a brief reason why I think I'm not coming across them anymore.

1. "Bart Ehrman said..."
For those not familiar with the name, Bart Ehrman is a religious studies professor out of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill who in the early 2000s gained attention by writing a series of books claiming to raise skepticism towards what the Bible claims about Jesus.

Why do they not use him now? In 2012, he came out with another book that destroys one key pillar of atheism...saying Jesus is a myth or a combination of other people. In a follow-up 2013 article, Ehrman wrote:

These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.


2. "Atheists don't gather to worship nothing."

This was a lame attempt used by atheists at one point to try to show atheism isn't a religion or has nothing to do with what people associate with religion.

Why don't they use it now? Because atheist groups have held a pro-atheist rally not once but twice, the second one being in 2016.

But perhaps they were referring to atheists gathering together to not worship something. If that's the case, it's still wrong.

3. "Europe is much better than America and it's thanks to giving up religion."

The notion here centers around Europe not worshipping at the level Americans do, or going to church services as much as Americans, or having prayer practices as high as Americans.

It's obvious why atheists don't use this anymore: Europe is being overrun by Muslims, native Europeans don't have birth rates as high as immigrant populations, said Muslims keep committing terrorist acts, and even one European prime minister even admitted multiculturalism just doesn't work.

4. "Atheists don't blow up buildings."

Yeah, this is a tasteless reference to the 9-11 attacks;it stupidly associates the actions of one faith and concludes all religions are guilty by association.

Why not keep using this? Because it took no time at all to point out atheists did blow up a cathedral in Russia under Stalin...and yes, it was done out of hatred for religion.

5.  "Priests rape children."

To be fair, this did have a very brief revival around the release of the film Spotlight, and indeed some priests were found guilty of the charges...

..BUT...

this sound bite fell out of favor--I think--after statistical research found priests were LESS likely to molest children than a child's family member. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Stanford University School of Medicine and even the Department of Education all admit the problem of sexual abuse of minors is found in other places. The D of E even published a study that found child molestation in public schools is a 100 times worse than it is the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, the statement tries tricking you into thinking atheists care about children...but the reality seems to be if the molester promotes secularism, then atheists are fine with them raping as many children as they want.

6. "If atheists left America, you'd lose 0.2% of prison inmates but 93% of scientists."

The percentages vary depending on version heard but the point comes down to atheists claiming they are not in prison as much as Christians but "are super smart people and to be smart, you'll have to be atheist too."
You don't hear about this one anymore because neither one are credible figures.

In the former case, atheists claim the number came from an FBI study on inmate religious affiliation.

Big problem with that claim: the FBI DOESN'T ask inmates about religious beliefs and never has.

The latter number came from a survey given to members of the National Academy of Scientists.
Let's ignore for a moment the vast majority of scientists AREN'T members of the NAS, and let's instead focus on the fact the executive director of the National Center for Science Education once came forward and blasted the study for not being well enough designed to figure out the the religious preferences of much of anybody.

7. "Most scientists are atheists."

Again, let's ignore for a moment the person saying this probably isn't a scientist (but to be fair, the person this is directed to probably isn't either), and let's instead look at the narrative this notion feeds...that being, science and religion are in constant conflict. Surveys have now concluded the majority of scientists are religious and the majority see no conflict between science and religion.

8. "Atheists are smarter than theists."

I remember atheists using this one a few times but apart from the occasional fallacy name drop in its original Latin, I can't for the life of me recall anything an atheist said that didn't come off like they were talking out of their backside.

Why don't you hear this anymore? Because the study that serves as the claim's source came under so many attacks that there's no way to take it seriously today. The most accurate number says the rise in IQ is at best 6 points higher...not significant enough to actually matter. If you do think it matters, then answer me this:

-How come the US is considered a key exception to the study, being highly religious and highly intelligent?
-If you don't consider the US intelligent, how do you explain it getting the same IQ score as France?
-Do you consider it smart for a nation to have taxpayer funded welfare but discourage its citizens from having kids? If you do think it's smart, would you kindly in your "advanced atheist wisdom" explain to me how that would work? If you don't think it's smart, wouldn't that disqualify the majority of high IQ countries from being called smart?
- How do you answer the objection that the higher IQ scores were from having more advanced infrastructures...a trait that has nothing to do with IQ?

9. "The only difference between religion and cults are the number of adherents."

Yeah, the flaws on this one became obvious right from the start. Ignoring for a moment no set number was ever given that distinguishes a cult from a religion, cult experts were also quick to point out quite number of differences between the two.

I've found atheists use these to imply religions discourage independent thought, but anyone familiar with the Church Fathers or any given Christian philosopher knows what a crock that is.

10. Why not a flying spaghetti monster/celestial teapot/invisible unicorn/dragon in my garage?

I've decided to lump these four together because while all four have different names, they all supposedly try to prove religious claims are equally foolish because they can't be verified much like these four.
Think about it: if someone told you there was an invisible teapot or a dragon in their garage, you would either reject it or ask for proof. If you reject it, why? Mostly because it doesn't fit into your perception of those objects. If you did ask for proof, you'd ask for photos, or a way to touch it...means used to test physical objects, in other words.

That's why atheists know deep down their argument doesn't work:
-You can't use something whose existence most people don't accept to refute the existence of something most do accept.
-It tries but fails to refute God not existing by physical means...even though no one ever said God can be known by physical means.

11. "We'll let the experts decide."

Unlike the others, this one appears to make sense: after all, experts are supposed to be smarter than average people and thus their conclusion should be believed.

Why atheists don't use this all depends on whether the atheist saying this tout themselves as the expert and the plethora of questions that must be asked.

If they do tout themselves as the expert, what makes them the expert? Do they have degrees in any related field? Are their findings accepted by anyone in respective fields? Have their conclusions passed peer review? Regardless of how they answered, shouldn't we view this attempt as at best obvious bias and at the very least being self-serving?

If they are in fact not touting themselves as the expert, who are they citing as the experts? Are these so-called experts taken seriously? Are their notions widely accepted? If they're not taken seriously, why bother citing them?

Then again, this was first used because atheists were under the assumption experts agree with the atheist position, but when it later turned out the experts didn't agree, atheists touted several pathetic excuses. It didn't matter if it was saying "the person isn't a real expert", or "one person doesn't make the case for the majority view," or "that person is obviously biased".

It doesn't matter because it was the view of the person educated in the field touting a conclusion reached by mutual consensus of their respective peers. It's an exception to the "argument from authority" fallacy; any textbook on logic can confirm this exception.


12. "Religion is just wish-fulfillment."

We're going back quite a bit with this one, though in an odd twist, it seems like the same argument atheists use time and again. In fact, I doubt whether I should go too much into it, with all the mistakes being so obvious.
Instead, I will point out that since this idea originated with Freud, I submit that atheism itself is Oedipal in nature, but rather than killing the father to have relations with the mother, atheism instead wishes for the death of a heavenly father in order to have a life with no consequences.

And isn't that nothing more than a wish...and an idiotic one at that?