Just a quick note to let you know that I have to change the theme here at Heaving Dead Cats. I found one I am in love with (I have no idea why, but it’s very different), and I’ll be trying to implement it as quickly and efficiently as possible, to impact you the least I can. Read more…

A week ago I did a post called 50 Old Testament Inconsistencies. It was just something I thought might be a bit different to share with everyone. I didn’t write it but I linked to where I had found it and also to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible’s list of contradictions. Apparently some people found it recently and it’s gotten some traffic, mainly by christians who are none too pleased. I guess I hit a nerve.

In my experience, most people don’t know how to argue effectively. I myself am not very good at it. I hate arguing, and conflict in general. But I think personal attacks are really uncalled for, especially when one person states an opinion and the other person counters with a personal attack. It just shows lack of ability to handle a disagreement.

By the way, this is called the Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy as I wrote about previously.

Sometimes I wonder if people do it on purpose because it’s so easy to lash out at someone and so hard to defend. I think they do, the more I see it happen. And frankly I think it’s weak and lazy. Read more…

The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe - that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power and hence a fraud.

H L Mencken, in The American Mercury, January, 1924

Actually, here is the full quote, in context:

Of a piece with the absurd pedagogical demand for so-called constructive criticism is the doctrine that an iconoclast is a hollow and evil fellow unless he can prove his case. Why, indeed, should he prove it? Is he judge, jury, prosecuting officer, hangman? He proves enough, indeed, when he proves by his blasphemy that this or that idol is defectively convincing—that at least one visitor to the shrine is left full of doubts. The fact is enormously significant; it indicates that instinct has somehow risen superior to the shallowness of logic, the refuge of fools. The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians—and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse. The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by such learned dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe—that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power, and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.

H L Mencken, in The American Mercury, January, 1924 - p. 75.