4 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 22.0 ms ] thread
I'm trying to wrap my head around how backward this guy's reasoning is. He wants the "new atheists" to provide him with a compelling logical argument that his god does not exist. It seems like an oddly backward supposition of where the burden of proof lies in this argument.
He comes across as some kind of emperor who cannot see why the peasants are revolting, completely blind to the misguided nature of their own argument.

Also, atheism == disco.