“A criminal was once arrested for a hennas crime.”
What, were the patterns obscene?
“Even though the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, he wanted to defend himself rather than have faith in professionals.”
If the professionals are people who call bananas the atheist nightmare, i might understand his choice.
"He decided to the following defense.”
He decided to, what? USE the following?
Perform as interpretive dance the following?
"1. He had never seen the judge, so he concluded that he didn't exist.”
Heh. I’ve never seen China, but i accept it as real. This is not the reason I am an atheist. Your thought experiment, or metaphor, is tortured, obvious, and oblivious.
“2. The judge that he didn't believe existed, was immoral.”
Work a little harder, dipshit. Maybe, ‘The judge, that he knew only by reputation, was described as a misogynistic, racist, unstable, murderous twat waffle, with a giant ego and thin skin.’
But that’s not really a defense for breaking the law with henna, is it? More like something he’d tell reporters before his trial.
Also, this is not why i’m an atheist. I did believe in God even after i decided that the one described in the Bible was a fuckknuckle, but that just meant the Bible couldn’t be trusted. I thought God was still out there, somewhere.
“3. The law books were full of contradictions.”
Again, not a reason for atheism. But a really good reason not to want that piece of shit used as the basis of laws that non-believers have to obey.
“4. The criminal, despite his crimes and guilt, thought he was a good person.”
That’s not a defense, either. And not a basis for my atheism. It comes up when God’s representatives on Earth tell simplistic lies about what atheists are like, how utterly amoral we are, or even consciously evil.
“how true are the words "He who defends himself in court has a fool for a client."
What a tortured chain of bullshit just for someone (whose Bible says not to call people fools) to get to call people fools.
