Poe’s Law is an attempt at effective liberal internet satire and declares: “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.” The General Case of Poe's Law is "It is impossible to tell for certain the difference between genuine stupidity and a parody of stupidity." Poe's law was created by Nathan Poe in August of 2005 at the website christianforums.com website in the the section of their forum which focuses on creation vs. evolution debating. 
Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the debates. In addition, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal to debate creation scientists. The inconsistency of evolutionists and atheists concerning debating creationists was commented on by the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."
Poe's law is primarily directed toward conservative Christianity which is well supported by evidence (see: Christian apologetics ). In short, like many liberal satires, it is merely an attempt to gloss over inconvenient evidence and their own illogical thinking.
- 1 Poe's law is a symptom of liberals illogical and superstitious thinking
- 2 Poe's law is a poor substitute for evidence and logical thinking
- 3 Parody and satire have their place - Christian parody of atheism and evolution
- 4 Common behavior of online evolutionists and atheists
- 5 See also
- 6 References
Poe's law is a symptom of liberals illogical and superstitious thinking
In September of 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported:
|“|| The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.
"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.
Liberals/atheists are more likely to adhere to atheistic pseudoscience such as abiogenesis and the evolutionary paradigm. Also, in the political science realm, atheists embraced communism and rejected capitalism with disastrous results.
Poe's law is a poor substitute for evidence and logical thinking
Liberals/atheists fail to realize or conveniently ignore that mere appeals to ridicule (which is a logical fallacy) is a poor substitute for evidence and logical thinking. Atheistic thinking, which has no proof and evidence that it is correct, is reduced to attempting to dilute the definition of atheism which most encyclopedias of philosophy employ. On the the other hand, in the field of Christian apologetics, many sound arguments based on evidence have been written. For example, in the field of Christian legal apologetics, which is a subset of Christian apologetics, Simon Greenleaf, one of the early founders of the Harvard Law School and a notable author and expert on weighing evidence, wrote an excellent defense of the resurrection of Jesus Christ entitled Testimony of the Evangelists.
Parody and satire have their place - Christian parody of atheism and evolution
Although mere appeals to ridicule is a logical fallacy, parody and satire certainly have their place. Because Christianity is so well attested to via evidence and sound argumentation such as the work of Simon Greenleaf and other Christian apologists, Christians certainly have liberty to use parody and satire. For example, there are certainly many parodies and satires of atheism and evolution (see: Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution ).
Common behavior of online evolutionists and atheists
In February of 2010, the news organization The Telegraph reported that atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'." In addition, Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being abrasive.
|“||Scienceblogger Chad Orzel described the commentators on PZ Myers ' Scienceblogs.com site Pharyngula, and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as "screechy monkeys."||”|
In addition, there is a widespread problem with atheist cyberbullying on YouTube toward Christian and creationist YouTube channels. CreationWiki has developed a web page entitled Creationist YouTube video designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.
- Murphy's law
- Godwin's law
- Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates
- Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists
- Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates
- Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution (large collection of comedy/satire concerning atheism and evolution)