Thu 24th Jul 2014 | Last updated: Thu 24th Jul 2014 at 14:52pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Features

Five ways to lose the argument with atheists

Next time you find yourself sucked into a debate with secularists be careful not to make these five classic mistakes, says Peter D Williams

By on Thursday, 17 May 2012

Don’t stop to think what Pope Benedict might say if he were in your position (Photo: PA)

Don’t stop to think what Pope Benedict might say if he were in your position (Photo: PA)

It is not an uncommon situation. You are reading an interesting article online about some matter of recent religious controversy, but upon reaching the end of the piece you meet the comments area, and try to resist the temptation to scroll further down the page. How many times have you perused such sections before finding yourself infuriated by the base anti-Catholic bigotry you find there?

Still worse, how often have you found your time irretrievably wasted, as you are sucked into futile disputation with secularist trolls who, in the famous words of Churchill, “can’t change their minds, and won’t change the subject”? Like glancing at a car-crash, however, the curiosity can be too great to resist, and you begin to read on…

This experience is hardly atypical for the average Catholic reading online, but it has even become unsurprising to experience similar situations when having a drink in the pub, or while at an otherwise genteel dinner party. Where we are called to defend and expound our Faith in these situations however, we must do so in a constructive way that raises the standard and tone of discussion.
It is regrettable, then, that experience shows us how often Catholics fail to do this effectively. As an illustrative remedy for some of the more common mistakes in this endeavour, here are five brief tips on how not to argue with atheists.

1) Cynically assume the worst in people. Before speaking, or touching that keyboard, imagine your opponent to be an irredeemable ogre, whatever they may have said. Don’t charitably assume they are simply misinformed, or look for the good motivations they may have in arguing as they do. At a false accusation of “homophobia”, don’t try to understand the positive impetus behind this error (genuine concern about abuse and hatred), and refrain from showing how the Church teaches compassion and care for those who experience same-sex attraction – you may help to defuse anger rather than fuel it!

2) Argue as a means of venting emotion. When someone says or writes something shocking or offensive to Catholic piety, our natural reaction is to get angry. Indulge that. Try to forget any Christian goal of defending or expounding the Faith. That will only get in the way of fun. Instead, be determined to show how stupid your opponent is, and punish their ignorance and prejudice with counter-abuse. To be scrupulously gentle and reverent at all times is just far too hard. Of course it could be that, even if someone does not remember your arguments, they may remember what a model of virtue and decency you were in arguing, which might be a good witness that may help them later on – but such considerations should not get in the way of a good bout of rock throwing.

3) Don’t call out bad behaviour, mirror it! If someone is unnecessarily rude or vulgar, feel justified in returning like with like. That “turn the other cheek” stuff is far too high a standard. Simply pointing out your interlocutor’s unkindness (and how it hinders discussion) would be too laborious. And sticking to the substantive arguments that have been produced? What are you,
a robot? Think of our Lord’s response to the liars who accused Him, and the guard who hit Him, in front of the Sanhedrin. What was His answer to calumny and abuse? Well, we all know how that worked out.

It might be that following His example would accentuate the irrational meanness of the person you are engaging with (to themselves and anyone around watching your discourse) and even shame them into changing their behaviour. Don’t worry about all that, though.

4) Adopt the martyr complex. Few things are as convincing as arguing with someone who thinks your ideas will lead inexorably to a new totalitarian regime, or who believe themselves to be “persecuted”. Does this come across as hysterical, and make that person look silly? Of course not. So don’t forget to break out the comparisons with Hitler or Stalin, and be sure to moan about how hard done by Christians are (especially with comparison to Muslims). This is bound to win you lots of sympathy, and isn’t at all clichéd. Not even a bit. No.

5) For heaven’s sake, don’t Pray. Surely an obvious point. Praying before you interact with people, and asking God to give you the words He would have you say, and the sharp but loving mindset He would have you adopt, is just a massive spoiler. So, indeed, is praying for your opponent, that their minds and hearts might be opened, and that your conversation with them might be helpful. Prayer is lethal to good squabbling – so cut it out!

In reality, tailoring our words and our tone to the highest common denominator of human sentiment may not convince the people with whom we are immediately interacting, but may at least begin to win the hearts and minds of any bystanders who are watching. Focusing on how we can best practise the spiritual works of mercy (especially instructing the uninformed, counselling the doubtful, and bearing wrongs patiently) in our arguments with atheists will help us minister to our opponents in the most effective way. In doing so, and in witnessing to the truth of our Faith, humbly, gently and respectfully, we may truly witness to the virtue, as well as the rationality, of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Peter D Williams is a Catholic apologist and speaker for Catholic Voices

  • Jonathan West

    Since I was never a catholic, you needn’t worry about that with regard to me and catholicism.

    Your beliefs are not irrational because they differ from mine, I would never be so arrogant as to claim that. They are irrational because by your own statement, you have no reason for holding them, no evidence on which to base them.

    One thing you have much to learn about atheists of a scientific mindset is that they are about as far from being absolutist as it is possible to be. My atheism is not a faith position, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence. If new evidence for God were to appear tomorrow, then I would change my mind. That is what scientists do, they learn new things, and when the circumstances require it, they change their minds.

    In principle, all scientific knowledge is tentative and contingent, subject to revision in the light of new evidence. That said, there are some things that are more certain than others. Archimedes is never going to be found to be wrong as to why things float in water. Copernicus is never going to be contradicted concerning the fact that the planets revolve around the sun, not the earth. Newton’s laws are forever going to accurately describe the motions of billiard balls, Benjamin Franklin’s understanding that lightning is an electrical phenomenon is never going to be reversed, Darwin’s theory of evolution is not going to be contradicted, and the structure of DNA is always going to be as Watson and Crick discovered it.

    This is not because these things have been solidified into dogma, it is because the explanations are backed by an overwhelming quantity and quality of evidence. You might care to reflect on how slow the church has been to accept some of these facts.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    > “Your beliefs are not irrational because they differ from mine, I
    would never be so arrogant as to claim that.”

    It is possible for an atheist to be a nice, social person, but the brand that currently gets the most attention – the followers of Richard Dawkins – think very low of religious people, are arrogant enough to call themselves “Brights”, and are willing to offend religious people and even campaign against their right to political participation, their right to educate their children, etc.

    > “They are irrational because
    by your own statement, you have no reason for holding them, no evidence
    on which to base them.”
    The problem is that atheists demand empirical evidence for proving that God exists, which is like demanding empirical evidence for the fact that Pi is a transcendental number. Such evidence does not exist.
    > “You might care to reflect on how slow the church
    has been to accept some of these facts.”

    If you are speaking about Galileo, please know that:

    1) Galileo claimed that the Sun was the center of the _entire universe_. He was wrong.
    2) While Galileo correctly claimed that the known planets revolve around the Sun, he did not have sufficient reason to convince anyone of that. He claimed that tides proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun, but, given our current understanding of Physics, that implication does _not_ hold (actually tides are caused by the Moon). Again, Galileo was wrong.
    3) Opponents of Galileo challenged him to explain how there was no parallax (which would have to exist if the Earth revolved around the Sun). Galileo did not have an explanation for that (now we know that parallax in fact exists, but it is so small – due to the fact that the stars are so far away – that they couldn’t see it.
    4) Some of the Opponents of Galileo  started claiming that he was heretical, saying that the Bible proved that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Galileo, instead of noting that the Bible is not a scientific book, started to do the opposite – he searched the Bible for verses that “proved” the Earth to orbit the Sun, and started claiming that his theory (which, remember, was wrong) was a Dogma of faith.
    5) The Church forbid Galileo to present his theory as a Dogma.
    6) He tried to get around the prohibition by committing fraud – he forged a signature to provide a fake authorization to publish his book.
    7) He was tried, and sentenced to prison. He served some 8 months in house arrest, at the house of a big supporter of him – who, by the way, was a Cardinal.
    8) He died a good Catholic.
    9) Copernicus, who by the way was also a Catholic, defended Heliocentrism much before Galileo, and faced no problem because he did not present Heliocentrism as a dogma.

    I bet these facts are radically different from what you were told by your secularist teacher.

  • julianzzz

    All very well, but what is the truth? Of course opponents might genuinely have had bad experiences within Catholicism as a child, but also may quite righteously believe that the Catholic church is a great force for evil. It could be argued that the Church’s obession with sexuality masks a deep problem, that having lost the plot in regard to science it is now lost in a fundumentalist programme of control and strength by out-breeding the opposition. Both strategies being very far from the teachings of Christ!

    It could be that the greatest crime that humanity will ever commit, the wholesale destruction of the plant and animal kingdom, the destruction and mass extinction of species, is being accelerated by the actions of a corrupted church. That argument holds water and is logical in terms of current Catholic preoccupations with sex and birth control. A lot of people would feel very justified in castigating the church in regard to that catastrophy!

  • TreenonPoet

     ”One of the key tenets (“if not _the_ tenet) of materialism is saying that there is nothing special with the human mind. See http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism
    and then richarddawkins.net/articles/49…

    Neither of those links are to what Dawkins has written. (The second is to an opinion piece on richarddawkins.net but does not imply approval by Dawkins.) I cannot see the relevance to my response ”that is not the sort of reality that Dawkins is referring to in tenet 1”.

    Let me write again: “and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.””
    What Dawkins bigoted acolytes want is to violate a clear, universally recognized human right.

    I have already indicated that this is not a fundamental right. Neither is it universally recognised, as you admit by identifying opposition.

  • Jonathan West

    Atheists do not campaign against political participation on the part of the religious. What they do campaign against is that religious ideas should be accorded exaggerated respect merely because they are religious. You are perfectly welcome to put whatever ideas you want into the political arena, but I also have the right to ignore or oppose you, and to point out that your idea is based on a belief in God which is without evidence.

    Christians have been claiming persecution in Britain in recent years. It is not so. What in fact is happening is that their privileges and disproportionate influence are being cut down to size.

    There’s not merely evidence that pi is a transcendental number, there is  a mathematical proof of it. Take a look here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindemann%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem

    1. Galileo was more right than those who opposed heliocentrism. He was right about the earth oribiting the sun.

    2. Galileo did have evidence of the fact that the earth moved around the sun. The decisive proof was his observation of sunspots and their passage across the face of the sun.

    3. In defending heliocentrism, Galileo took Augustine’s position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. He believed that the writers of the Scripture merely wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, from that vantage point that the sun does rise and set. Another way to put this is that the writers would have been writing from a phenomenological point of view, or style. So Galileo claimed that science did not contradict Scripture, as Scripture was discussing a different kind of “movement” of the earth, and not rotations.

    4. His house arrest lasted the rest of his life not just 8 months.

    There are various other inaccuracies in your account. Has your catholic teacher been telling you porkies?

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    Do you actually believe what you wrote above, or you were simply joking?

    Many countries (Japan, Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, PRC, and others) around the world already have sub-replacement level fertility, and are facing economic problems because of that.
    Fertility rates are falling all over the world and it is projected that the human population will reach
    9B at 2050 and then start falling.

    Meanwhile, “wholesale destruction of the plant and animal kingdom, the destruction and mass extinction of species,”
    is only happening in your wild imagination.

    An honest question: were you drunk when you wrote that?

  • julianzzz

    Take care, you are already losing the argument with a confirmed agnostic! You obviously need to catch up with the news, I’ve been following New Scientist and Scientific American for decades, which is a good start. Try googling habitat destruction, population pressure, rain forest destruction, acidification of the oceans, and extinction events for a start! That is enough even without global warming, desertification and resource and water shortage wars.

    If you really wanted to put the Catholic case, you should have put the orthodox case forward that our “culture of death”, unrestrained greed and unnatural sexual appetites are the cause of destruction and that restraint and abstinence combined with Christian living provides the answer! Which of course I don’t accept as patently from the example of both priesthood and laity, current Catholic dogma and principles are not working!

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    It is a human right according to the 18th century American Constitution,
    and was duly recognised by the 20th century Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    The fact that some atheist bigots reject it does not change its nature as a human right; atheist Stalin also rejected plenty of human rights, but it did not make them false.

  • TreenonPoet

     Even if nearly everone in the world thinks that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights looks good, it only takes one person with one valid argument to show otherwise.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

     Oh, please.

    I know very well about the ecological problems you mention.

    My point is that

    1) The population is already progressing towards stabilization and, in fact, many countries are facing economic problems due to demographic aging.

    2) Ecological problems are already being addressed, with heavy investment in solar/wind energy, biofuels, next-generation nuclear, emission regulations, and more. It is predicted that photovoltaic energy will start to become economic viable without subsidies by 2015. Photovoltaic production growth has averaged 40% per year since 2000.

    3) You exaggerate the ecological problems by multiple orders of magnitude.
    Going from the IPCC report of “the world might heat slightly if nothing is done” (when we all know that action _is_ being done) to “greatest crime that humanity will ever commit” and “wholesale destruction of the plant and animal kingdom” is so ridiculous, so grossly alarmist, that it is not even funny.

    If you want to be convincing, then don’t grossly misrepresent the situation.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

     Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

    To attack the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you would need far better reasoning than you have showed.

  • julianzzz

    OK so you know something of the dangers we face! So where’s the church leadership on these issues? Doing anything to help? A little word in the ear of good Catholic Brazilian ranchers might help, a little something about the decimation of the great mammals, whales and dolphins perhaps? Perhaps something on the need to restrain population growth in overcrowded areas? Perhaps some work toward helping with the growing obesity problem and the obscenity of American over consumption, a rule binding, on the bankers excesses perhaps? Excommunication for practitioners of genocide perhaps? A ruling on the eating of Bush-meat, implicated in the transmission of animal-human diseases including HIV? Nope nothing, zilch, a few pious mutterings, a few press releases.
     
    The church elite seem obsessed with the control of sexuality, a position perhaps understandable for imperfect practitioners of abstinance, but also indicative of the classic response of male dominated closed societies to external change. Unable to control a new reality they grudgingly respond to technological change whilst attempting to enforce symbolic rigor in the cultural arena.
     
    No, the Vatican has lost the plot, and is self-absorbed in the squabbles of Cardinals with occasional stabs at pulling back change in the outside world. Having lost the argument in the advanced economies of the world, it’s strategy for survival lies simply in out-breeding the opposition, atheist or Muslim, whatever the consequences for creation on earth.

  • julianzzz

    There’s no “just” about a mass of chemical and electrical signals, chemistry and electricity are quite as sacred and magical as any number of dusty constructions in musty manuscripts! Furthermore do we not have eyes to see, ears to hear and brains to think? Our conciousness is a source of revelation, quite as sacred as any pronoucements from the long dead.

  • John B.

    Well Mrs. Fides, do you have any original thoughts of your own or do you just quote what others have said in an attempt to appear intelligent? Materialism is a Marxist concept? You are typical of religious pseudo intellectual’s who stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the atrocities committed in the name of God. You claim 100,000,000 deaths due to Marxism, a failed political system, and that could be true, but how do you come to that figure? Have you ever heard the quote “Please Lord, protect me from your followers”?

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    It looks like your knowledge of Catholicism is really, really superficial.

    In Brazil, the 2011 40-day “Campaign of Fraternity” was about the environment.
    Many (probably most) priests are left-leaning in economical matters.
    They heavily criticize huge farmers and agribusiness.
    They lobby the government for land reform.
    In fact, some priests actually support direct action against big farmers (which is not good, but it shows how left-leaning they are).

    And your allegation that the Church is “obsessed with sex” is laughable.
    In my decades of life, I have witnessed Catholic priests condemn homosexualism twice, contraception never, divorce twice. On the other hand, journalists speak of homosexualism every couple of weeks. It is amusing that someone has the gal to claim that the Church, and not the media, is obsessed about sex.
    If you actually knew Catholic priests, you would know that their homilies focus on condeming greed and selfishness, and on promotng love, forgiveness and family bonds.

    It amuses me how you can hate so much an institution of which you know so little. Decent people don’t judge a person or institution they don’t know about.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    First: when a person changes the subject and engages in sarcasm and personal offenses you know they are wrong.

    And,
    > “Materialism is a Marxist concept?”

    I didn’t say that materialism was created or discovered by Marx. I merely said that materialism is at the core of Marxism. I also said that the “materialistic conception of History” is the root of Marxism.

    > “You claim 100,000,000 deaths
    due to Marxism, a failed political system, and that could be true, but
    how do you come to that figure?”

    Through the book “The Black Book of Communism”, written by 6 French intellectuals, headed by Stéphane Courtois, an internationally recognized expert on Communism.

  • John B.

    Materialism is at the “core” of all human activity, be it organized religion, political or otherwise, you don’t need to look it up in a book to figure that out. And sarcasm cuts both ways, your posts brim with them, yet you take offense when it is returned to you, which makes you a hypocrite as well as a pontificating blowhard.

  • Jonathan West

    If Fides is a pontificating blowhard, then it is much better to let people recognise that for themselves without any commentary from you.

    Don’t allow yourself to be dragged down to his level.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    I don’t employ as much sarcasm as you.

    And you still don’t understand what materialism is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    You must be kidding if you think I am the most arrogant side in this discussion.

  • Jonathan West

    I’m content to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    No, you accused me when you said “don’t descend to his level”.
    That offense was uncalled for, and, by the way, extremely ironic
    given the subject of your complaint.

  • Jonathan West

    As I said, I’m content for people to draw their own conclusions.

  • John B.

    Well excuse me for stating the obvious, but it’s funny how people with a little bit of knowledge, like Fides here can become transformed into an all-knowing pompous blowhard, and a thin skinned one at that. Sir, with such *towering intellectual giants* as yourself defending Catholicism who needs Atheists?

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    How old are you?
    The behavior in the post above is not exactly adult.
    When your arguments fail you simply change the subject and start calling names.
    That does not help the image of neo-atheists at all.

  • John B.

    I have no need to argue, your talking points  fall flat on their face with no help from me or anyone else. You don’t want honest discussion you want agreement, and when you don’t get it you complain like a child who hasn’t gotten his way. You speak sarcastically to others, yet cry foul when it is done to you, making you a hypocrite. You need to wake up and smell what your shoveling.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    > “I have no need to argue, your talking points  fall flat on their face with no help from me or anyone else”

    And you cannot show how…

    It is clear that you want no debate. Please go troll somewhere else.

  • John B.

    Classic response Fides, you are exactly the type of closed minded stogy old Catholic that drives people away from the church, as a matter of fact as a Catholic myself I would prefer the company of Atheists, at least with them you can count on civil, honest discourse without the hypocrisy. Keep on shoveling your manure to the uninformed and pretend that you know what your talking about. Good day sir!  

  • John B.

    Classic response Fides, you feign indignation when people tell you that your full of shyte, which you know that you are, don’t you? Fides you are exactly the type of closed minded, intolerant  stogy
    old  Catholic that drives people away from the church, as a matter of
    fact as a Catholic myself I would prefer the company of Atheists, at
    least with them you can count on civil, honest discourse without the
    hypocrisy. Keep on shoveling your manure to the uninformed and pretend
    that you know what your talking about. Good day sir!  

  • the devils advocate

    After reading your posts, where you make pitiful attempts to sound intellectual, and the unsolicited responses where you inject yourself into other peoples conversations it is clear that all you can do is quote the thoughts of others, as you evidently can not formulate an original thought on your own, and spew insults to those who disagree with you. You should do Catholics the world over a great service and convert to  Scientology, where you would fit in nicely.

  • julianzzz

    Your logic is entirely flawed, a belief in the non-existence of God even positively asserted does not lead to Marxism! The ungodly behaviour of our banking community is testament to that!

  • julianzzz

    Just as the crusades were an expression of the crusaders faith. The main difference being that the more recent genocides were more destructive due to advances in the technology of murder!

  • julianzzz

    Absolutely, and there are many scientists that would consider that proving the non-existence of all types of God and gods to be logically impossible! However it is obvious that recent discovery makes it entirely possible to consider a creation without a first cause. Observation has also shown that the universe is far,far,bigger than anything any scriptural writer could conceive of. Biological science also points to the origin and mechanics of love and emotion, consciousness and belief! These insights obviously are a source of revelation, as valid as anything in historical scripture. It is obvious to me that the current church is dangerously lagging in its response to our new knowledge.

  • julianzzz

    I must also remind you that Communist atheists were also rounded up and killed in those same death camps, and that their persecutors were often Catholics who went to church on Sunday! Our current pope must be aware of this, as he is of course German and lived through that era!

  • julianzzz

    The facist murder Franco was a Catholic and was supported in his actions by the church!

  • julianzzz

    People are often aggressive when they are threatened, given the experience of many who have arrived at their current state through a fight against oppression and indoctrination of all kinds it’s not surprising that world views are aggressively promoted! A moments reflection would show that a charitable respect is due all, atheists or Christian who hold passioante beliefs, tempered by an equal determination that those beliefs be denied the right to oppress non-believers in return! Respect and tolerance, equlaity and humanity is at the root of justice and all sustainable faith

    g

  • julianzzz

    “never seen so much ill-informed hate! – decent people” etc. your fatuous hyperbole is losing you the argument, you need to take the advice of the Herald if you wish to convince anyone!

    Anyway I wasn’t criticising the work of the body of the church it’s loyal followers and hard workers, I was criticising the negative polemic of its feeble bureaucracy, the modern day Pharisees, complete with Money changers and gilded temple!

    As for a lack of Catholic knowledge, I know too well the ins and outs of Catholicism complete with regular beatings as a childhood believer at a Catholic school!

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    > never
    seen so much ill-informed hate! – decent people” etc. your fatuous
    hyperbole is losing you the argument, you need to take the advice of the
    Herald if you wish to convince anyone!

    See what you wrote in http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2012/05/17/five-ways-to-lose-the-argument-with-atheists/#comment-545504080
    Can it possibly be described as polite?

    > “Anyway I wasn’t criticising the work of the body of the church it’s
    loyal followers and hard workers, I was criticising the negative polemic
    of its feeble bureaucracy”

    Many of the actions I described in my last post were conducted by the hierarchy – which you call “bureaucracy”.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    False; exceptions do not disprove the rule. I didn’t say that every single atheists is Marxist; just that being an atheist increases your change of being a Marxist.

  • julianzzz

    Both Catholic and atheist nazis were involved in the death camps which killed communist, atheist, Jewish and Catholic minorities alike!

  • julianzzz

    Quite right, religions that claim priveilge in the public arena invite persecution and conflict

  • julianzzz

    You implied that believing Dawkins argument would lead to believing in Marxism. Which is ridiculous! Marxism is a critique of capitalism and has much in common with Christ’s criticism of the corrupting effect of power and wealth!

  • julianzzz

    I suspect that the truth of my contention that the church’s promotion of unlimited human reproduction is having an evil effect on the natural kingdom has struck home, your response is so unhinged! A point of view that the unrestrained growth of our human population is an entirely acceptable view with moral implications and quite reasonably it could lead to disquiet and revulsion over church policy and dogma.

    It is quite instructive to read the responses to this article giving advice to the faithful on dealing with opposing views. It appears that the spirit of the inquisition is alive and well, with numerous grudge bearing self appointed Christian soldiers leap to conquer in an arena where winning is not the name of the game! Truly amazing how the Christian virtues of humility and charity have been so readily abondoned in the quest for ideological purity. I suspect that many of the protagonists are more conservative than Christian in their stance, more concerned to control and defend than convince or support.

  • Fides_et_Ratio
  • julianzzz

    Well if you read Brian Cox, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkin you will be aware how it can be perfectly possible for everything could have evolved from nothing and in fact that the true state of nothing is an abstraction that never can exist.

    In short if God created everything them what created God?

  • julianzzz

    Thanks, wonderful you have truly exposed yourself as a conservative Troll masquerading as Catholic. It took me 30 seconds to google the population research institute and find that it is a privately funded conservative organisation dedicated to promoting the right wing views of Lynde and Harry Bradley founded in 1942 and dedicated to the promotion of its extremely prejudiced founder’s views!

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    It doesn’t seem you want debate. Your writing consists
    primarily of personal attacks. Shameful.

    You don’t even try to respond arguments with counter-arguments.
    You simply call the other person names.

    For me, this is proof that you don’t have reasons to have confidence
    in your own views.
     

  • liulan991

    tinyurl.com/73huk6r

  • John B.

    When you disagree with this clown his stock answers are: “you don’t want honest debate” or “you change the subject” or “you resort to personal attacks” rather than attempt to back up his statements he cries that he is being personally attacked. Like I said before Mrs. Fides you are a lazy pontificating blowhard. Shameful.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    Lie. I do back up my statements.

    The problem is that, when I show your statements to be lacking in logic, you and JulianZZ resort to personal attacks.

    The post above is a clear example of this.