On the back of a bottle of drain opener you’ll find this:
Using the information on the warning label, do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
This substance should not be eaten.
Wait!!
Before you answer…!!
I need to tell you the warning label was written by a 25 year old female who lives in Chicago.
She is married and has one child.
And she doesn’t have a medical degree.
Neither do I, for that matter!
So would you trust the opinion of two unqualified strangers that drain cleaner should not be ingested?
Would you need to do a background check on the warning label writer?
Of course not!
That would be moronic.
Now, suppose you read the following comment on a webpage:
“We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not.“
Would you need to do a background check to make sure the author of this quote was an atheist?
Of course not!
All you need to know is whether or not the author lives in Chicago!
(I’m kidding.)
Personal details about the author don’t matter…
…except to atheists who want to avoid discussing the comment itself.
Ideas like this stand or fall on their philosophical merits.
Critical thinkers consider what is said.
Critical thinkers don’t care who said it.
Dummies need to know who you are before deciding if they agree with you.
Dummies need to know your educational background.
Dummies need to know your religious affiliations.
Dummies need to know your politics.
Dummies need to know your pedigree.
…this is what makes them dummies.
Don’t be a dumb.
When the sign says, “Harmful if swallowed”…
…it doesn’t matter if the sign writer was an English major.
9 Responses
The more educated someone is, the more indoctrinated they are in their particular worldview. That’s why it takes people from the outside of the sycophantic echo chamber of academia, like an Einstein or Tesla, to bring any significant innovation in science.
John, this is the perfect post – I’ve wanted to email you and thank you for warning me to not reply to the dummy questions being rudely hammered at me about my credentials, etc. a month or so ago. The questions were the ones you’re speaking of here. I didn’t want to post further in that heating up comment thread, but I’ve been carrying unexpressed gratitude for you, and your protective advice, experience and insight into the mind of the atheists.
Thank you, John!
I have learned by following this blog that atheists really don’t want to answer any question about what they believe. They talk around it or criticize the person asking the question, but never really answer directly. They write a lot of words and yet never answer the question. I honestly don’t know how you do it John. It is way to frustrating for me to even bother engaging in a discussion.
I do it to demonstrate the futility of godless philosophy. This blog isn’t an outreach to atheists. It is an encouragement to people like you.
❤️
The atheists are suspicious by their absence on this post.
dummies feel really smart when they can use diversionary debate tactics to keep from addressing the topic of discussion. Dummies use terms like “what about such and such”, or ” you have your truth and I have mine “. In short, the dummies are the cultural elite journalist, philosophers,politicians, and university teachers. I seem to remember reading somewhere “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”. The good news is that unlike us basket of deplorables, some of these people are still redeemable if they could only see their own blindness.
Amen! We call that thing, “credentialing.” Ironically, it’s rooted in legalism and authoritarianism and displays a psychological opposition to critical thinking. Bit ironic, but those are the charicteristics of religousity, cultians, and brainwashing.
First response: 😂👏