kkkiiinnnggg222 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

2:03 You believe the media

Peraj82 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Osama is CIA agentAlqade wasfounded by CIA for standing against Suviet unionAlthough 911 was an Zionist Job

aztecoutback (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

I love PAT.

CAFoster58 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Can I prove this? Absolutely. But to find out, you'll need to withdraw your refusal to debate.

CAFoster58 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Like you, these religious worthies would restate a premise or argue a point that Mencken wasn't making, and thus invoke the straw man fallacy. They would toss in Bible verses, just as you do, and therefore fail to support their arguments with anything objective, material, or verifiable. Then they would boast, as you do, that they had disposed of Mencken's arguments. They were wrong, then, just as you are wrong, now.

CAFoster58 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

In looking over the arguments against Mencken and those you make against Condell, I find that they have a basic similarity. That is all...just a basic similarity. The actual arguments that were made by these religious intellectuals of nearly a century ago were head and shoulders over yours.

CAFoster58 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

You see, I didn't study a particular theology. I studied theology, itself, as an intellectual discipline and a way to gain useful knowledge. I found it to be deficient, and I was able to make that argument compelling enough that Columbia University gave me a doctorate......in theology.

CAFoster58 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

To be sure, Mencken had no theological credentials. But I do. It has been said that theology has little utility in the real world - at least, the theology of the fundamentalists and the religious zealots. I found that to be true.

CAFoster58 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Mencken's critics behaved in much the same way that you do. Having no real evidence or substance to their arguments and generally being incapable of actually arguing the point that Mencken was making, several of them tried to turn his arguments into theological issues, where there was at least some room for interpretation and where they believed themselves to possess the expertise that Mencken lacked.

CAFoster58 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Let me clue you in.