Wherein Steve Gets a Fallacy Wrong

Well, Steve’s back over at Friendly Atheist post “What Does the Bible Say About Abortion” and this is my response to him (hint: he’s still being intellectually dishonest and his English comprehension is in the toilet yet again):

Psst. Future readers, Steve’s back and still trying to push his intellectual dishonesty away by not admitting it.

Let’s see where he goes with it:

Argumentum ad populum fallacy-

Ah, yes, Steve references a fallacy that demonstrates his lack of understanding.

But you, dear readers, know exactly what Argumentum ad populum actually means:

“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”

Now, future readers, writing to you is not an Argumentum ad populum because the appeal in “appeal to the people” isn’t about directly conversing with you, but making an argument based on many people’s beliefs.

For example, saying “many people believe Elvis is alive, so Elvis must be alive” is an Argumentum ad populum. So the “appeal to the people” should be viewed as “appeal to the people’s beliefs”

Now, Steve doesn’t understand that. He thinks that writing to some future readers is appealing to them, but he just continues to demonstrate his lack of English comprehension.

Steve, however, still won’t admit that his words apply to him and is still being intellectually dishonest.

now how intellectually honest is that?

Hey, future readers, Steve thinks you’re dumb and can’t recognize that he’s the “pot calling the kettle black,” claiming that I’m being intellectually dishonest when he’s amply demonstrated his own dishonesty. It’s too bad the bible never mentions something similar (*ahem* Matthew 7:3).

Let’s recap: Steve won’t be held to his own words but expects me to be held to mine. What is that? Well, that’s intellectual dishonesty!

We are on your stomping grounds and you want others to prop you up.

And here, dear future readers, is where Steve continues his intellectual dishonesty:

Remember Steve said: “Discussing Biblical topics on an atheistic site is like asking a man, blind from birth, to describe what colors are around him”

And I turned it back around on Steve since we can sub in any other religion or philosophy to get “Discussing atheist topics on an atheist site, where Steve Maxedon isn’t an atheist, is like asking a man, blind from birth, to describe what colors are around him”

Yet Steve will not admit that his own words apply to himself.

Why is Steve still here? If, as Steve says, non-Xians can’t comment on Xianity, then the inverse is also true: non-atheists can’t comment on atheism. Steve applies a criteria to atheists that he will not apply to himself.

Yet Steve is still here on an atheist blog. Steve still won’t be held to his word and that’s what makes him intellectually dishonest.

Come on Bear, man up.

Future readers, you’ll notice that Steve attempts to bullshit macho bluster his way out of his intellectual dishonesty by telling me to “man up.”

That’s hilarious because a real man (or woman, to be all inclusive) admits when they are being intellectually dishonest, not double downs on that dishonesty.

A real man (or woman) admits their error and doesn’t hold other people to their words but not hold themself to their words. For a real man (or woman), their word is bond. A real man (or woman) isn’t afraid of admitting they were wrong.

In fact, dear readers, a weak person, a cowardly, impotent person, continues to try to change the subject from their intellectual dishonesty and weasel their way out of it by blaming the person who is holding them to their words.

And you, dear readers, note that Steve has had plenty of opportunities to admit to his intellectual dishonesty but has squandered every single one.

Besides if anyone had been interested one would think they would have weighed in by now.

Dear readers, did you see what Steve did there? Equating honesty to people being interested in responding to his intellectual dishonesty, when honesty is its own reward. Yet Steve still hasn’t admitted his intellectual dishonesty.

BTW, isn’t weighing in exactly what you did sixteen days ago?

Future readers, you’ll notice that Steve still continues to hold me to my words but doesn’t do the same for himself. He doesn’t realize that he has no grounds to hold me to my words if he also doesn’t do so for himself.

He’s also failing to understand that posting comments on blogs are open to all, even intellectually dishonest liars like him.

But I really am happy that Steve has decided to continue posting here on Friendly Atheist: it shows everyone just how intellectually dishonest he is. Now, if Steve truly believes that atheists shouldn’t talk about Xianity, then the inverse applies to him and he shouldn’t be here as a non-atheist or else he’s being intellectually dishonest. And guess what? He’s here.

Again, future readers, I’m sorry that Steve’s “personal relationship” with his bible god haven’t made him a better, more honest person. How could it be, when he bears false witness, tries to shift blame and is dishonest? One would think the bible has something to say about bearing false witness and honesty and that plank in Steve’s eye.

One would think Steve believes his “personal relationship” gives him carte blanche to behave this way and that no matter the shitty, dishonest things Steve does, he gets a free pass (and if so, what a bankrupt relationship that would be).

What’s next, dear readers, for Steve? Well, if he’s true to form, he’ll respond yet again, not admitting his intellectual dishonesty, but again try (and fail) to push it on me. I’m betting he invokes yet another fallacy he doesn’t understand.