Many of the atheist arguments he recites are valid arguments. He seems to feel that by placing the arguments in a list of what he considers to be stupid arguments, their invalidity will be affirmed. I suppose it saves having to actually rebut them.
Of course there are people around here who think a rolleyes smiley is an adequate rebuttal of an argument, so he’s in company.
I thought it started well, but after the numbers get into double figures, I realised it wasn’t as tounge-in-cheek as I originally thought, if at all.
They’re not joking, are they? It would have been a lot less stupid if they’d not tried quite so hard to have so many things to say.
(tangentially, is there a term describing when this happens? - when an argument is damaged by an over-eager attempt to list justifications for it?)
Actually, the saddest part of all is the last item:
The old ‘If you disagree, you’re just proving me right’ canard.
I read the first dozen or so, then started skimming. It starts out fairly reasonably and then rapidly descends into Time Cube-esque crazy talk. For example, the item about porridge and the Holocaust…