Posted: Jan 17, 2020 9:49 am
by Thomas Eshuis
campermon wrote:Hi all,

There's a muslim fella at work who is attempting to convert me to Islam. We have interesting discussions at work and he knows that I am a soldier for science :grin:

Anyway, the other day he told me about a marvelous pamphlet that would make me change my mind. Right.

I've got a copy and will add my own commentary for this chap (it's the usual canards that we've seen here before).

I'd never heard of this text before, it's "The man in the red underpants".

Can be found here:

Anyone ever seen this before?

And any advice on commentary welcome.


It is not very encouraging that the introduction of the story starts with a lot of well-poisoning.
And appealing to common sense doesn't make it any better.

The next part of the text is all a big appeal to common 'sense', by declaring things that can be understood based on logic and evidence, to actually be universals, that are true, because we just magically know them to be true...

The next paragraph is a straw-man of the BB theory.
Followed by the Watchmaker argument and a thinly veiled appeal to irreducible complexity.
Followed by a failure to understand how evolution works, particularly the role of natural selection.

Then he makes the typical, unwarranted insinuation that it is highly unlikely that the earth would exist as the life-bearing planet that it is.

Then he mixes up the strong and weak nuclear forces with so called strong and weak electromagnetic forces.
A typical appeal to fine-tuning.
The typical appeal to personal incredulity and ignorance vis a vis the possibility of infinite regress, complete with flawed analogies.

The Kalam fallacy.

The assertion that you must always want to know the answer to everything.

A weird short tangent about racism and criminality.

A conflation of correlation with causation, through the typical 'it changed their life' anecdote.

Begging the question by asserting that we are 'created' to be religious.

The completely unwarranted assertion and display of cherry-picking: the fact whether a religion claims there is one single creator or not, should somehow determine it's validity.
In short, an appeal to mono-theistic exceptionalism.

Asserting there are only three mono-theistic religions, while excepting Christianity on the basis of declaring triune Christianity to be 'normal' Christianity.

Dismissing Hinduism on the basis of personal ignorance and incredulity.

Dismissing a self-creating and regulating universe on the basis that the author wants things to be created.

Dismissing Christianity again, this time on the basis of claiming Jesus was a finite mortal being and yet god, which cannot be according to the author because god is not a mortal finite being.

Making the self-defeating claim that any claim about god needs to be proven, while continuing to provide no evidence whatsoever.

The contradictory claim that god could do evil but never would because it's nature is good. Completely ignoring the question of evil: if god's nature is good and he created everything, why did he create evil?

Dismissing Christianity yet again, this time on the bald assertion that god does not have sex (Jesus), because, again by bald assertion, god is not like creation/humans.

Dismissing Buddhism as a religion on the bald assertion that it has no creation and apparently only philosophies with a creator can be called religions, otherwise it's just a philosophy.
Also a throw-away line that tries to inject the question-begging assertion that there is an afterlife.

Dismissing Sikhism on the assertion that it has no claim to divinity and that it's origin was a mixing of Islam and Hinduism. As if Islam was a truly original religion.

Repeats the baseless assertion that a religion can only be true if it has only one god; the creator.

The next chapter begins with another claimed, but unreasoned claim that a religion is only true if it is for everyone.
This bullshit is then used to dismiss Judaism for obvious reasons.
Then makes a 180 and admits Judaism might be true even if it preaches a favored people, and then another 180 by once again dismissing Judaism because if it were true, it would be irrelevant to anyone who is not a Jew.
As if that would somehow make it not true.

Then claims there are other reasons for dismissing Judaism but skips the burden of proof with the excuse that 'now is not the time for that.'

Self-fellatio about the dangerous and unlikeable truth the author is going to present.
Seriously, four paragraphs warning the reader that they won't like it and to keep an open mind.

Asserts there are only two possible religions left now: Islam and Zoroastrianism.
Then proceeds to claim Islam is 'better' on the basis that:
1. Islam is for all people, not just Arabs. Without addressing, much less demonstrating that Zoroastrianism is not for everyone.
2. Immediately invalidating point 1 by harping about the importance of 'Islam' and it's meaning as an Arabic word.
3. Immediately invalidates point 1 again, by pointing out that the creator god of Islam is the same god that sent prophets and messengers to various chosen people.
4. A weird 'argument' about how Islam is not, through it's name connected to any person or region with this list:
- Judaism (Juda)
- Buddhism (Buddha)
- Christianity (Christ)
- Hinduism (India)
- Zoroastrianism (Zoroaster)
As if Islam did not start specifically in the Arab world with Arabic being the divine language.

Then claims you don't need to know about Islam to come to the religion via reason and experience, thereby conflating Islam with generic d/theism.

Now follows an appeal to scriptural authority/veracity.
On which basis the author dismisses Zoroastrianism again (no/few texts remaining) and Christianity (controversial origins of the bible).
Completely fails to address the scriptural authority of other religions.
Then asserts, falsely, that there is virtually no controversy about the Quran.
Proceeds to invalidate his argument by appeal to the oral tradition of the Quran.

Tries to dismiss accusations of Islam being sexist by playing various 'whataboutism' cards.
Then proceeds to list various immoral, sexist and barbaric teachings from the Quran only to dismiss them by once again appealing to 'special' consistent authenticity. As if the former are in any way remedied by the latter.

Disingenuously or foolishly mistakes the moral criticisms of the Quran as an attack on it's veracity.
Tries to defend the atrocities in the Quran by appealing to the subjective morality of the rest of the world.
Finishes with a literal appeal to authority: god know what's best for us.

Regurgitates all the 'arguments' made at this point and then ads the mob-boss threat of hell.

Followed by the typical erroneous claim that the Quran does not contain any errors or contradictions.
Followed by the even more ridiculous assertion that the Quran is the most poetic piece of literature in existence and that, even the Arabs, supposedly the masters of poetry and literature have never been able to produce better.
Tries to enforce this claim by appealing to Muhammed's illiteracy proving it came from god.

Briefly touches upon the liar, nutter, prophet false trilemma and then asserts, blindly, that prophet is the only reasonable conclusion.

Next the author tries to dismiss the fact that the Quran is partially copied from Judaism and Christianity by asserting there was not Arab bible at the time and Muhammed couldn't read anyway. As if that's the only way one could copy the stories.

Tried to claim that the Quran's assertion to be the final message, somehow makes it true.
Then offers several ignorant and a-historical assertions about historical mistakes in the bible that are not present in the Quran.
Some unsourced appeals to authority are also thrown in the mix.

Followed by the typical nonsense of scientific 'truths' found in the quran that were not possible for that time.
Complete with mental gymnastics and brute-forced reinterpretations of Quranic mythology to fit scientific knowledge.
Also including the infamous 'embryo description in the Quran' nonsense.

Followed by another long-winded appeal to authority, which is only interesting because it reveals the author is a cherry-picker by referring to authenticated hadith.

The second to last chapter is basically explaining what's important to know/do as a Muslim.

The last chapter ends with the typical 'belief in what you need to belief and you will belief it!' diddle.

This story is, imo, poorly titled as the man in the red underpants is only mentioned twice.