Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[V8 Ninja]

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Oh HELL NO. That statement is wronger than wrong

[Epic Snip]

Yeah, yeah, I know that there's a difference between scientific theory and common theory. I also agree that creationism is a host of garbage. I don't need literal paragraphs stating why my semantics are bad. If it makes you feel any better, I'll edit my original comment stating that there's a difference and that I'm a horrible person.

Your original statement is "a theory just like", which is patently false. In fact it's an equivocation fallacy, where you abuse ambiguity of language to equate two different things, to imply that they are on equal footing when they are not.

But it's good that you at least agree that it's a pile of garbage, and not on equal footing with acual science.

Okay, so I'm bad at semantics and I (un)intentionally deceive people. I can dig that. What I don't need is literal walls of text explaining all that. I agree that justice must be done, but I would also say that there doesn't need to be hour-long dialogues on why stealing a car is bad.

EDIT: My above words do not reflect on your edited (and much lengthier) comment, Cerebrawl.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

I'll play devil's advocate here (quite ironically), and say that it's possible, if difficult. If you look at the original Hebrew text, there are hundreds of ways to interpret each sentence. It's a stretch, but you can coincide the two.

Example: "The seven days of creation are measured in God-Days (read: astronomically inverse dog years)". I am told that, if you use some calculations done by rabbinic scholars way back, the time ratio of those seven "days" is actually fairly close to NASA's current estimation of the age of the universe.

I don't know how convincing that is, but I'd say it's interesting at least.

That wouldn't change the fact that the original texts still have the order mixed up. Light before stars, Earth before the plants before the sun etc. No matter how you look at it, creationism is completely wrong.

Fair enough. I only claimed that there are interesting ways of looking at it, not whether they were factually true or not.

 

[Cerebrawl]

kay, so I'm bad at semantics and I (un)intentionally deceive people. I can dig that. What I don't need is literal walls of text explaining all that. I agree that justice must be done, but I would also say that there doesn't need to be hour-long dialogues on why stealing a car is bad.

I've just seen the creationists spew the exact same thing too many times to count and it gets a bit tiresome seeing it over and over and over again.

Not really your fault, but you basically regurgitated creationist arguments that I've debunked hundreds of times before. It never stops and they never learn, the arguments don't change, but they shouldn't allowed to say it unopposed either.

I've learned most of the formal and informal fallacies by heart in the process of standing up to this sort of ignorance. Basically going from "wait, that's not logical" to "it's this particular logical fallacy and this is how it works and why you're wrong". Hey at least I learned something.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to CREATIONIST THEORIES.

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

 

[sunthaiduc]

Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to CREATIONIST THEORIES.

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

You are dangerously close to sounding like the people who bother you. Anyone who refuses to allow other options besides the one they believe in is an asshat. And for the record while I get your point because I know the back story I have to say as a science loving believer in god i find the derision the man displays towards religion to be seriously not necessary. Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move. Let a creationist speak. I'm curious who displays more hostility.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to CREATIONIST THEORIES.

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

You are dangerously close to sounding like the people who bother you. Anyone who refuses to allow other options besides the one they believe in is an asshat. And for the record while I get your point because I know the back story I have to say as a science loving believer in god i find the derision the man displays towards religion to be seriously not necessary. Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move. Let a creationist speak. I'm curious who displays more hostility.

I apologize you do have a point. Normally, I am very opened minded about other peoples beliefs (I'm agnostic myself). Its just, with creationists... well there's no nice way to say it, but I'll try to be respectful about it.

I am obsessed with understanding the universe around me and seeking out the truth even if it hurts me in the process. Example, It gravely saddens me that even if we became masters of the universe there is a high probability that one day the universe itself will die and us along with it. Its a terrible thought, that even at our best we will inevitably be lost to history with no signs of past existence. I don't want to believe it, however according to scientist it is a very real possibility so I accept it. The fact Creationist are teaching school children that the Earth is only 6000 years old, man walked with dinosaurs, that we... a tiny race on a tiny world are so central to the universe's creation. Yet, they lack proof (though sometimes their arguments can't be disproven too) and schools accept it as fact. As real as air. It terrifies me, I see a future generation of struggling ignorance. America already struggles with other countries I just see it getting worse. They take centuries of research and proven experiments and casually dismissed them.

God exist... fine I can see that. He created the Earth. Its possible if a world can be created by nature then it should be able to be created by "man". I will even go as far as to admit that there could be a judgement day where our creator (or son of creator) appears to save us. I can accept the possibility that this is just an over reaction. I imagine some people feel the same way about gay marriage or legalizing marijuana. I would be narrow minded not to accept that I myself could be in error. Thank you for reminding me of that.

I gue

 

[wolfyrik]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

I'll play devil's advocate here (quite ironically), and say that it's possible, if difficult. If you look at the original Hebrew text, there are hundreds of ways to interpret each sentence. It's a stretch, but you can coincide the two.

Example: "The seven days of creation are measured in God-Days (read: astronomically inverse dog years)". I am told that, if you use some calculations done by rabbinic scholars way back, the time ratio of those seven "days" is actually fairly close to NASA's current estimation of the age of the universe.

I don't know how convincing that is, but I'd say it's interesting at least.

That wouldn't change the fact that the original texts still have the order mixed up. Light before stars, Earth before the plants before the sun etc. No matter how you look at it, creationism is completely wrong.

Fair enough. I only claimed that there are interesting ways of looking at it, not whether they were factually true or not.

Sure it's interesting but it gets us nowhere, provides no knowledge, gives no insight, just confuses matters with redundant information, gives excuses to the pre-determined and doesn't bring us closer to truth. But then, that's religion all over.

 

[wolfyrik]

Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to CREATIONIST THEORIES.

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

You are dangerously close to sounding like the people who bother you. Anyone who refuses to allow other options besides the one they believe in is an asshat. And for the record while I get your point because I know the back story I have to say as a science loving believer in god i find the derision the man displays towards religion to be seriously not necessary. Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move. Let a creationist speak. I'm curious who displays more hostility.

I disagree with you whole heartedly. Religion absolutely deserves derison, it is entirely necessary. Religion is the fantasy explanation of how things occur, made up by people who didn't understand the universe. It is by definition, a system of close-minded rules and orders from a magical being of whose existence there is absolutely no evidence, requiring belief in that magical being, soley on faith, without, even ignoring evidence.

Sure, some religions are ok and don't really deserve any derision, for example, shinto and buddhism are pretty much negligable but then, buddhism is more a philosphy and shinto has no single god-competing for supremacy against other gods it claims don't exist. Then of course, insulting shintoists or buddhsits, might annoy some people, but none of their followers would call for your prosecution, abuse or death for doing so. Hell, if you insulted sikhism and someone tried to prosecute you for it, the Sikhs would probably fight by your side for you right. Sure they be pissed off at you, but none of their followers would want you harmed.

Christianity and Islam, particlarly however, require faith, belief without evidence and have clauses and references to killing people who don't believe. Their gods engage in violence, homophobia, sexism, slavery, torture and genocide, while claiming to be loving in a partenership with thier believers which can only be compared to an abusive relationship.
"I love you, but do as I say, cos I don't want to have to get angry, you know what happens when you make me angry."
"I hurt you because I love you, because I want what's best for you, and I know what that is, better than you do"

Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move.

Gays, non-believers, women. Just three groups alienated from the start by books like the bible and many churches since the inception of the church, basically just all major mono-theistic religions.

No, derision is absolutely necessary. Religions need to be mocked, they need to be judged and scrutinised at every turn because they affect lives based on magic claims, ignorance and proclomations from a source which is only ever accessible by a few who invariably just happen to be the ones who aim for power or already have it. What happens when they are not kept in check? Galileo, kopernicus, Salem, creationism in science class. In other words burnings, hangings, beheadings, the stripping of peoples rights, violence, religious law instead of fair secular law, the end of knowledge, progression. All lead by rank paranoia that a magic sky-man from the bronze age might be angry.

Lets face it, religions that don't stick their neck out to cause harm or interfere with the lives of people who don't believe, will be overlooked and never have cause for derision. It's the mouthy ones who'll get the slack and they absolutely should. Religion should NEVER be allowed protection from mockery. Britain used to have blasphemy laws, and we did away with them. The country is better off for it. America has never had them and should be proud.

You only have to look at that dumbass senator Atanus to see why religion needs to be derided. This is a woman who actually thinks that storms exist because god is angry. This cretin actually has regressed to ideas that even 500 years ago would have been laughed at. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all religon should be stopped. If people want to believe in magic, that's their right and their perogative. So long as they do it in their own homes, behind closed doors and don't hurt anyone.

Captcha: rocket science
It really aint, captcha, it realy aint.

 

[Sansha]

Creationism theories bear no experimentation, study, evidence or peer-reviewed theses, so are pointless as scientific discussion.

It's not science to make shit up, nor is it scientifically sound to believe in a theory with no basis or results.

 

[SargeSmash]

I'm going to bring it up again, because apparently many here didn't read it.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

Disagree if you like, but keep it respectful. I'm seeing post after post of outright disrespect and condescension towards religious belief, and it's not conducive to any sort of reasonable discussion.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I'm going to bring it up again, because apparently many here didn't read it.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

Disagree if you like, but keep it respectful. I'm seeing post after post of outright disrespect and condescension towards religious belief, and it's not conducive to any sort of reasonable discussion.

You make a very good point, and thank you for keeping everyone civil. I will Interject to say though that what is being directed at Religions is historical fact, backed by evidence. It is not in any way disrespectful to mention things like the Crusades, the Inquisition and all the other Myriad Atrocities committed specifically by the religion that wants to be heard.

Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to CREATIONIST THEORIES.

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

You are dangerously close to sounding like the people who bother you. Anyone who refuses to allow other options besides the one they believe in is an asshat. And for the record while I get your point because I know the back story I have to say as a science loving believer in god i find the derision the man displays towards religion to be seriously not necessary. Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move. Let a creationist speak. I'm curious who displays more hostility.

I disagree with you whole heartedly. Religion absolutely deserves derison, it is entirely necessary. Religion is the fantasy explanation of how things occur, made up by people who didn't understand the universe. It is by definition, a system of close-minded rules and orders from a magical being of whose existence there is absolutely no evidence, requiring belief in that magical being, soley on faith, without, even ignoring evidence.

Sure, some religions are ok and don't really deserve any derision, for example, shinto and buddhism are pretty much negligable but then, buddhism is more a philosphy and shinto has no single god-competing for supremacy against other gods it claims don't exist. Then of course, insulting shintoists or buddhsits, might annoy some people, but none of their followers would call for your prosecution, abuse or death for doing so. Hell, if you insulted sikhism and someone tried to prosecute you for it, the Sikhs would probably fight by your side for you right. Sure they be pissed off at you, but none of their followers would want you harmed.

Christianity and Islam, particlarly however, require faith, belief without evidence and have clauses and references to killing people who don't believe. Their gods engage in violence, homophobia, sexism, slavery, torture and genocide, while claiming to be loving in a partenership with thier believers which can only be compared to an abusive relationship.
"I love you, but do as I say, cos I don't want to have to get angry, you know what happens when you make me angry."
"I hurt you because I love you, because I want what's best for you, and I know what that is, better than you do"

Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move.

Gays, non-believers, women. Just three groups alienated from the start by books like the bible and many churches since the inception of the church, basically just all major mono-theistic religions.

No, derision is absolutely necessary. Religions need to be mocked, they need to be judged and scrutinised at every turn because they affect lives based on magic claims, ignorance and proclomations from a source which is only ever accessible by a few who invariably just happen to be the ones who aim for power or already have it. What happens when they are not kept in check? Galileo, kopernicus, Salem, creationism in science class. In other words burnings, hangings, beheadings, the stripping of peoples rights, violence, religious law instead of fair secular law, the end of knowledge, progression. All lead by rank paranoia that a magic sky-man from the bronze age might be angry.

Lets face it, religions that don't stick their neck out to cause harm or interfere with the lives of people who don't believe, will be overlooked and never have cause for derision. It's the mouthy ones who'll get the slack and they absolutely should. Religion should NEVER be allowed protection from mockery. Britain used to have blasphemy laws, and we did away with them. The country is better off for it. America has never had them and should be proud.

You only have to look at that dumbass senator Atanus to see why religion needs to be derided. This is a woman who actually thinks that storms exist because god is angry. This cretin actually has regressed to ideas that even 500 years ago would have been laughed at. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all religon should be stopped. If people want to believe in magic, that's their right and their perogative. So long as they do it in their own homes, behind closed doors and don't hurt anyone.

Captcha: rocket science
It really aint, captcha, it realy aint.

See, this is perfect. Relevant, salient points, made in an intelligent manner. I honestly laughed hard at how apt your Abusive Relationship analogy was.

The best part about when Creationists get in a huff about wanting to be heard is that when most people actually HEAR what they have to say, the facepalming begins in earnest. It usually only servers to Create (wahey!) atheists.

I remember watching an Interview with Penn Jilette on a religious show and he was asked "What made you an Atheist?"

Answer: "Reading the Bible." He is on record as saying the fastest route to Atheism is to sit down, and just read the Bible.

 

[MCerberus]

Haven't we been through this entire song and dance in the realm of ethics, where the "traditional" view was that you cannot have morals or behave ethically without divine command?

And just like this line of thought, YE creationism is buried under paradoxes and evidence of just how wrong it is.

As an aside, divine command as the basis for human morality is ridiculous. Taken at face value it actively takes away the human ability to think about the rightness of most of their actions and can lead to the ridiculousness that is divine fatalism.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

I'll play devil's advocate here (quite ironically), and say that it's possible, if difficult. If you look at the original Hebrew text, there are hundreds of ways to interpret each sentence. It's a stretch, but you can coincide the two.

Example: "The seven days of creation are measured in God-Days (read: astronomically inverse dog years)". I am told that, if you use some calculations done by rabbinic scholars way back, the time ratio of those seven "days" is actually fairly close to NASA's current estimation of the age of the universe.

I don't know how convincing that is, but I'd say it's interesting at least.

That wouldn't change the fact that the original texts still have the order mixed up. Light before stars, Earth before the plants before the sun etc. No matter how you look at it, creationism is completely wrong.

Fair enough. I only claimed that there are interesting ways of looking at it, not whether they were factually true or not.

Sure it's interesting but it gets us nowhere, provides no knowledge, gives no insight, just confuses matters with redundant information, gives excuses to the pre-determined and doesn't bring us closer to truth. But then, that's religion all over.

I'd argue there's philosophical/mythological value to be found somewhere in there. You've no idea how useful this crap is when writing sci-fi/fantasy.

 

[Madman123456]

Bwahahahahaha!
So these people are trying to explain around this being which is by its very (probably non-existent) nature unexplainable.

While i welcome everything that would challenge the scientific community to prevent them from getting dogmatic i find it deliciously ironic that they are being challenged by the very dogmatism they tore apart when attemting to make sense of the world.
I'd say give the creationists some airtime.
Not in that show however, but i'd like actual scientists, probably psychologists, to explain how this "creationism" came about.
What would have to go on in a human's mind nowadays to have him turn against people who would attempt to explain things with experimentation?

If the bible is proven "wrong" as it has been plenty of times, it wouldn't diminish any worth the book might hold.
The bible has a lot of metaphors. Science merely uncovers more metaphors.

 

[Laurents van Cauwenberghe]

I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

It's the theory that, deep in our hearts, we know is true. But we can't accept it

 

[wolfyrik]

See, this is perfect. Relevant, salient points, made in an intelligent manner. I honestly laughed hard at how apt your Abusive Relationship analogy was.

The best part about when Creationists get in a huff about wanting to be heard is that when most people actually HEAR what they have to say, the facepalming begins in earnest. It usually only servers to Create (wahey!) atheists.

I remember watching an Interview with Penn Jilette on a religious show and he was asked "What made you an Atheist?"

Answer: "Reading the Bible." He is on record as saying the fastest route to Atheism is to sit down, and just read the Bible.

Dood, I saw that one, Penn and Teller have been heroes of mine since I was a kid. That interview was brilliant and I agree entirely.

 

[wolfyrik]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

I'll play devil's advocate here (quite ironically), and say that it's possible, if difficult. If you look at the original Hebrew text, there are hundreds of ways to interpret each sentence. It's a stretch, but you can coincide the two.

Example: "The seven days of creation are measured in God-Days (read: astronomically inverse dog years)". I am told that, if you use some calculations done by rabbinic scholars way back, the time ratio of those seven "days" is actually fairly close to NASA's current estimation of the age of the universe.

I don't know how convincing that is, but I'd say it's interesting at least.

That wouldn't change the fact that the original texts still have the order mixed up. Light before stars, Earth before the plants before the sun etc. No matter how you look at it, creationism is completely wrong.

Fair enough. I only claimed that there are interesting ways of looking at it, not whether they were factually true or not.

Sure it's interesting but it gets us nowhere, provides no knowledge, gives no insight, just confuses matters with redundant information, gives excuses to the pre-determined and doesn't bring us closer to truth. But then, that's religion all over.

I'd argue there's philosophical/mythological value to be found somewhere in there. You've no idea how useful this crap is when writing sci-fi/fantasy.

I agree completely, when it comes to fiction this sort of thing is great. I love shows and games like Supernatural and Diablo, angels and demons fighting etc but that's all it's useful for. If you want some inspiration for some stories, religion is great. Afterall it's all just stories, hell, half the stuff in the bible is basically plageurised from or inspired by other gods and religions.
If you want to understand the world around us however and the reality of it....not so much.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Yeah, and I want the ability to sprout wings a and a tail just so I can save money on fuel expenditures for traveling.
But you don't see me making such outlandish demands.

Science is science. It's based on observation and rational discourse.

Religion is irrational; which doesn't necessarily make it wrong or bad, but it isn't the sort of thing that belongs on a channel dedicated specifically to rational ideals.

 

[Vigormortis]

I've learned most of the formal and informal fallacies by heart in the process of standing up to this sort of ignorance. Basically going from "wait, that's not logical" to "it's this particular logical fallacy and this is how it works and why you're wrong". Hey at least I learned something.

Why do I get the feeling you're a regular viewer of The Atheist Experience?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJV8mC8GYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpkjTn11DPM

Here it is.

So...

Do we consider it "divine justice" that this dick-bag not only lost another of his shows but has also become a mockery in two continents?

 

[Cerebrawl]

I've learned most of the formal and informal fallacies by heart in the process of standing up to this sort of ignorance. Basically going from "wait, that's not logical" to "it's this particular logical fallacy and this is how it works and why you're wrong". Hey at least I learned something.

Why do I get the feeling you're a regularly viewer of The Atheist Experience?

Haha, I have been. I haven't seen an episode in a year or two though. But mostly I learned the fallacies by looking them up myself when I was engaging in comment wars on youtube(I could call them debates, but that's giving them too much credit).

I still occasionally listen to the Thinking Atheist podcast, or check if AronRa has released another video.

The main reason I stoped watching The Atheist Experience was that I was fed up with the same moronic arguments again and again from christians calling the show, and in the comment sections. I basically can't even listen to them anymore because I ran out of tolerance for stupid, same with every single one of the creationist talking heads, and I'm a very patient guy. I couldn't watch the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate because the stupid it burns. Some are worse than others De Souza especially rubs me the wrong way, Kent Hovind is almost tolerable because he's so absurd that he can be unintentionally funny.