Scott Adams has this trick that he calls philosotainment.

1. He announces that he is going to say something silly to wind people up
2. Then he says that something is self-evident and no reasonable people can argue with it
3. Then he says something vaguely plausible but wrong
4. If someone questions the silly,wrong point, he makes fun of them

It works every time. Even I am falling for it.
Here’s a sample from today

Step 1:

I don’t think he appreciates the philosotainment benefit of watching the Dilbert cartoonist whip people like him into a frenzy.

Step 2:

First, I will make an argument on such a simple level no rational person could disagree. Then we will watch him disagree.

Step 3:

there is no meaningful difference between an agnostic who understands science and a weak atheist who understands science. Neither believes the case for God has been made, and both accept the peer reviewed science showing the fragility of the human mind for knowing “truth.”

Step 4:

The Angry Atheist jumped on this post like a hobo on a ham sandwich

Thus, he creates a nice paradox. Either accept Scott’s wrongness or argue with it and be an idiot. It’s a no-lose situation!

PZ Myers fell into his trap but it’s worth reading if only to read what is now my second favourite argument for God’s existence:

Argument from Imaginary Improbabilities