Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism, Holocaust denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.

Rick Reuben wrote:

juice wrote:The argument is arbitrary to life on a particular planet and does nothing to refute or confirm a god, it's just a roadside distraction.

At least you recognize that it is impossible for man to refute or confirm a god. That's something.

Rick Reuben wrote:At least you recognize that it is impossible for man to refute or confirm a god. That's trivial and obvious to a child of nine.

big_dave wrote:

camilo wrote:Science deals in empirical knowledge, not the occult which seems to be the realm of religion. They each use different tools and it is impossible to compare them or argue about one from the other position. Why bother?

I am very saddened by the Talibanization of this country, but am at a loss as to how to stop it. Let's face it, rational thought isn't sexy or funny and doesn't sell ad time. Intellectuals need to devise a way to become smarmy, belittling and condescending. Or tell a really good fart joke.