Poe's law

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Dr. Duane Gish consistently won his debates with evolutionists.[1] Presently, leading evolutionists no longer commonly debate creation scientists.[1][2] See also: Creation vs. evolution debates

Poe’s Law is an Internet adage that inappropriately compares God's mighty handiwork during the Creation to an insipid genre of satire. The original version of this "law" was formulated by Nathan Poe on the Internet site Christian Forums in August 2005:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is [utterly] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.[3]
The adage is sometimes generalized as, "It is impossible to tell for certain the difference between genuine stupidity and a parody of stupidity."

Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists almost always win the debates.[4] In addition, the agnostic 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..."[5]

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.

See also: Atheism and mockery and Atheism and logical fallacies

Poe's law is a symptom of liberals' illogical and superstitious thinking

See also: Irreligion and superstition and Theory of evolution and liberalism and Atheism and Evolution and Evolutionary indoctrination and Atheism and deception
The Wall Street Journal reported: "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.[6]

In September 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.[6]

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 no substitute for evidence and logical thinking

See also: Atheism and logic and Liberal logic

Liberals/atheists fail to realize or conveniently ignore that mere appeals to ridicule[7] (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 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.[8]

Parody and satire have their place - Christian parody of atheism and evolution

See also: Atheism and humor and Comedy and satires concerning 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 ).

In terms of Christian satire, the Christian apologist JP Holding features a humorous Christian satire work entitled You may be a fundamentalist atheist if....[9] The biblical creationist organization Answers in Genesis has used satire to ridicule evolutionism.[10]

Common behavior of online evolutionists and atheists

See also: Militant atheism and Atheism and arrogance

In February 2010, the news organization The Daily 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'."[11] In addition, Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being abrasive.

In 2010, the Christian apologetics website True Free Thinker wrote:

Scienceblogger Chad Orzel described[12] the commentators on PZ Myers ' Scienceblogs.com site Pharyngula, and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as "screechy monkeys."[13]

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[14] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.

See also

Christian satire of atheism and evolution:

External links