Every day social media users, especially those identifying as agnostics, atheists and skeptics, are subjected to a barrage of religious spam from true believers. This tends to be repeated, day in, day out, several times a day with no attempt to engage or discuss the matter. It’s spam, plain and simple. Some groups even seem to use small botnets, multiple accounts or proxies to spam hundreds of identical or similar messages all in one go.
Let’s look at some, all from one afternoon and evening on Twitter and only a small sample…
Just Watch this Video!
A sort of Gish Gallop by proxy, linking to a video that you’re expected to watch, some of which go on as much as two hours, seems to be a tactic more designed to shut you up than to actually engage. These videos usually contain a torrent of fallacies, lies, half-truths, no-truths and nonsense and it’s impossible to reply to all of them in any sort of short order.
If you don’t watch the whole thing you’ll be whinged at. If you do they’ll have moved on and stopped replying.
My current tactic is to stop watching after the third bit of bullshit or to ask them what they consider the best argument that’s presented. Rarely will anyone take me up on it though.
Using the above, just as an example, here’s all the problems…
0:38: Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Believers must provide evidence for god. There’s no onus on non-believers to disprove something for which there’s no evidence.
0:43: But you can get something from nothing – energy and particles (vacuum fluctuations). Regardless, even if we couldn’t we’d simply be saying ‘I don’t know’. If we don’t know something, that doesn’t mean god did it. This is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
0:47: It’s not a rational explanation if there’s nothing to support it and no reason to believe it. Appealing to the majority of people as any reason to believe something is another fallacy. Argument from popularity. That lots of people believe something doesn’t make it true.
1:00: Feelings etc, all these aspects of our lives can be explained natrualistically and this would simply be an argument from ignorance again anyway.
That’s four problems within the first minute, so you can see how it’s not worth continuing.