So I often have had the annoying “genetic fallacy” thrown in my face over the past few years on Twitter by christians who simply used it to dismiss certain things that they have no argument, or defense against.

So how do they do this?

Well I will list several points.

1) When I remind them that most religious believers are only religious to that religion because they were child indoctrinated to that particular religion that they presently have believed since birth.

a) This is true that most believers are simply programmed to cling to that religion and deflect anything that contradicts it.

b) This can’t be denied and just because there are a small number of people who escape religious belief, or even changed religions for various reasons doesn’t change the fact that religious child indoctrination is most likely the reason for someone being a certain religion.

c) Where someone was born has an incredible influence on what religion they are.

– This can’t be denied.

d) The 2 factors of child indoctrination and where they were born, or lived does determine what religion you are and most of the time.

2) They will say “that all these are a genetic fallacy and can be ignored and disregarded”.

– So this of course is nothing but a deflection and does not discount the issue of it being true.

– This is simply a way of not dealing with the cold hard truth.
3) This does not change the fact that there is no evidence for any religion being real and nothing about any religion that makes any sense.

– The only way people can actially believe things without evidence and that make no sense are because of these:

> Child indoctrination

> Being caught in an emotional state of vulnerability that is exploited by a particular religion that is geographically convenient, or that they have deluded themself to as being “a sign”

4) If people weren’t child indoctrinated and weren’t forcefed religion, but simply given the information at 18 and were able to rationally evaluate religion then religion would simply fade away.

– This is undeniable.

– This is the cold hard truth that religious believers do not want to have to admit.

– This is the cold hard truth that religious believers cannot defend.

– The only defense is simply not dealing with it at all and hope that it goes away.

5) Religious believers know at heart that brainwashing, location and child indoctrination exposes their religion as both a fraud and a lie.

– The cognitive dissonance is too much to deal with.

– They can’t deal with the fact that their entire religion is nothing but a lie and they have been stupid enough to believe it, or gullibly mislead.

– They can’t deal with the fact that the people they look up to, respect and taught them everything they know about religion, were wrong, deluded, brainwashed and that billions of other people throughout history aswell.


Now I am NOT a philosopher and to be perfectly honest until 2 years ago I didn’t even know what philosophy was.

– Though I am now in school and working like crazy to study science, psychology, biology and yes… philosophy, I still fail completely to see how the genetic fallacy can be used to defend brainwashing and child indoctrination (I won’t lie and say that going back to school hasn’t been a challenge due to me being in my late forties, but I’m trying and doing ok).

– Even worse than this I’ve had philosophy Atheists backing this up and defending the religious believers by going along with “the genetic fallacy”. This was truly mind-blowing to me.

So I began to question my own sanity,

– I mean we’re talking some serious self reflection here.

> Was I going insane?

> Was I insane?

> How is it that what these Atheist “philosophers” who apparently had educations and undeniable math skills and educational acheivements that generally could only be aquired by someone who was “intelligent”, be saying this “genetic fallacy” defended religion and that it was “valid”?

> Using the genetic fallacy with what I just said immediately above doesn’t even make sense because it discounts it as “irrelevant” when I say the statement “all well educated philosopher Atheists know what they’re talking about” is (I can only assume) a “genetic fallacy”.

Either way I have still found nothing that contradicts what I have evidence of to be TRUE, not a “belief”, but true. This is something I have sat and put a great deal of thought into. Well… kinda like a philosopher.

This brings up some interesting questions I’ve thought of:

– Could I be just not seeing something that just seems to have slipped past my radar?

– Is there some kind of “cognitive bias” that I am unaware of that makes me blind to what I am trying to understand about the “genetic fallacy” and how it defends religion?

> If there is, then what is it?

– Have I lost my mind and that is why the answer is in front of my face but I don’t see it?

> Has my sanity slipped?

> Has all the hours of not sleeping, then doing all my writing and seeing all the religious attrocities truly knocked me off my rocker and I don’t know?

> How do I know if I am crazy?

> Has my anger issues and disgust for religion made me insane and made me unable to see reality either accurately, or clearly, or both?

> Does the fact that I actually ask myself these questions mean that I’m NOT crazy, or the fact that I have to ask myself these questions in the first place mean that I am kinda kooky, or even full blown psychotic?

– Are the douchbag religious philosophers and the Atheist philosophers who defend religion just as stupid and insane as I think they are?

– Well the evidence of the religious philosophers being insane and dishonest is overwhelming, but the Atheists?

> Aren’t the Atheist philosophers supposed to be the smart ones?

> Then why are the majority of Atheist philosophers against me on most issues I talk about if they do in fact have education and have acheived “official” skills in a genuine field of study and program?

– Are all these Atheists who defend religion wrong?

> Wouldn’t the odds be completely astromical?

>> Unlikely, but is it impossible?

– Is philosophy wrong, but I just happen to see that the genetic fallacy is not a defense for religion for some unexplained and undetermined reason?

> Am I no different than Giordano Bruno with what I see, but other people can’t?

> Does even considering the slightest possibility of this above possibility prove me crazy?

> Is it crazy?

So what are my biggest pieces of evidence that I might be possibly wrong?

1) Well first off would be Richard Carrier.

– I respect him and find him brilliant and he is a philosopher who makes a lot of sense.

> Well to be honest I don’t entirely understand most of what he says.

> I do have trouble following most of what he says, or even applying it to any problem, or application.

> I have to rewind and reread several times, but I do eventually get the drift.

> What I admire about him is his actual knowledge of science and history and brilliant memory combined with his collection of well researched facts.

– He talks about philosophy a lot though and swears by it and he is one of religions greatest opponents.

> However I do find that he does so using actual facts and knowledge as opposed to philosophy and word play, or at least that is all I see.

– He also attacks other mythicists for what he sees as wrong information, which isn’t really defending religion, but exposing bad information.

– I’ve even seen him attack Bart Ehrman for the “genetic fallacy” using philosophy and being very clear about it and making his point justifiably and agreeably clear. Undeniable.

– My guess is that Carrier would also dislike me on a personal level for what I do say about philosophy being useless in the fight against religion a lot, since many philosophers do, but oh well.

– Carrier did give me a lot to think about and self reflect, but at present I am still in the dark regarding answers to my problems of what I call “The genetic fallacy FALLACY”.

1) The fact that I have Atheist philosophers telling me I’m wrong.

> Though they seem genuinely stupid, the fact can’t be denied that they are still defending religion with this “genetic fallacy”.

> It can’t help but give me pause.

So what are the still unknown problems that I have with the genetic fallacy?

– What do I need answers for?

– What do I need answered?

Well let’s go through them….

– How do I counter the “genetic fallacy” to stop religious philosophers from deflecting like cowards when I address brainwashing, child indoctrination and locational upbringing?

– How could I possibly be actually wrong when religion only really does exist because of brainwashing, child indoctrination and locational upbringing?

> As Richard Dawkins also probably would have thought if he watched this response William Lame Craig used regarding some of the same issues I bring up:

– How does simply giving the question a fallacy name make the issues “irrelevant” when they are in fact true?

– Is there something I’m missing?

– How can things be true, be the entire cause of the problem, be what needs to be answered and still be simply dismissed and not addressed by calling them a name?

– Why should I not naturally be foaming at the mouth insane when Atheists come along and condescendingly defend religious believers who use the genetic fallacy to dismiss and deflect the ugly truth about religion?

How is this any different than saying that if a highly contagious ebola plague sufferer threw up on you then you would probably die because the fatality rate is 80%

– Then saying that throwing up on someone who is highly contagious with ebola plague won’t kill you because it’s a genetic fallacy?

Because 20% of people who contract ebola live and survive, then we shouldn’t address throwing up on someone by someone who has ebola as being a cause of dying from ebola.

– Would this be wrong, or not?

So thus far this is what I am still stuck with:

– Religion only exists because of child indoctrination.

> Despite people saying this is a genetic fallacy, it is undeniably true.

– Religion is simply a matter in undeniably most cases of where that person was born, whether it is a country, a community, a town, or a particular household.

> Despite people saying this can just be ignored because this is a “genetic fallacy”.

– Religion is believed to be true without evidence and can only be believed if someone is child indoctrinated, or brainwashed when older by whatever religion is geographically convenient, or just convenient.

> Despite people saying this can be ignored because it’s a “genetic fallacy”.

– Religious believers and apologists merely use this as a cowardly and convenient deflection for something they know they have no defense against (that they are brainwashed to a lie that has no evidence or truth).

> The “genetic fallacy” is a “get out of jail free card” so they don’t have to admit the truth.

– Atheist philosophers who give lying, deflective, time-wasting, manipulative apologists credibility, are part of the problem if they don’t call them out for it and are as much of a problem as religion itself, even if they are unable to see it.

So that is my take on brainwashing, child indoctrination, religious location and the despicable genetic fallacy FALLACY!

“Using the genetic fallacy to deflect and not have to address the undeniable truth”