Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Atheism Analyzed, or How to Lie for Jesus

I'd like to take a closer look at the central fallacy of the Atheism Analyzed blog.

The argument that appears over and over in the blog posts is this:
Atheism makes no claims about morality
Atheists have no morals.

However, this is a non sequitur; the conclusion does not follow from the premise.  If a belief makes no claim about morality, then no conclusions can be drawn about the morals of anyone based solely on that belief.  Let's apply the same logic to a different belief:

The belief that the earth goes around the sun makes no claims about morality
People who believe that the earth goes around the sun have no morals.

The non sequitur becomes a bit more obvious when the context is changed.

If the author of the blog were interested in an honest discussion of morality, he would focus on what source of morality IS rather than continue to harp on a belief that he admits ISN'T.

I have personally pointed out this fallacy to the blog's author more than once; he responded by banning me.  So the author is well aware that this reasoning is flawed, yet he continues to present it.  This is the definition of dishonesty.  He is a liar for Jesus.

And that is really the irony in all of this.  Religions DO make claims about morality.  If a moral system permits such blatant dishonesty and suppression of dissent, can we really say that it has anything useful to offer the world?

He banned me with the parting words that I will no longer comment on his blog.  On the contrary, I look forward to continuing to do so.  Watch this space for future updates.


  1. Atheists do have morals. They stole them from Christians but threw out the ones they didn't like.

    Check out my comments to DVD Bach at http://americanvision.org/6988/atheists-want-you-to-have-a-personal-relationship-with-reality/
    You'll have to read all the way down to the bottom, since the replies are interspersed with other comments.

    DVD Bach's view of morality boils down to whatever he says is right is right, and whatever he says is wrong is wrong. He uses words like "society" and "suffering" as a smokescreen to hide the fact that his morality is completely subjective and determined solely by him.

    You could also check out the comments on http://americanvision.org/7063/did-you-know-youre-related-to-a-rat/ and http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheism-and-grief.html.
    You have to scroll down a lot to read them all.

  2. Yes, by all means, please read the comment threads that Thoughts For Young Men is referring to; I believe you'll find that he's misrepresenting pretty much everything I explained to him about my view of morality.

  3. DVD Bach,

    I apologize. I stated that you stole your morality from Christianity. But that might not be true. After all, since your morality amounts to "Whatever I say is right is right, and whatever I say is wrong is wrong", I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you came up with that yourself. You have shown yourself to be quite adept at being arbitrary, subjective, and inconsistent, so I'm sure that you are quite capable of doing so in this instance. It's just that no one else is willing to submit to "morality according to DVD Bach."

    On another note, let me recommend to anyone else reading the website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/. It has a glowing recommendation from DVD Bach. He said, "of all the apologetics websites I’ve seen, the one you’re linking to is easily the goofiest." That's just his way of saying that it completely refutes his worldview and he has no idea how to even begin answering it.

  4. If you're just going to copy and paste the same dishonest comment on every thread, I'm going to block you. Please stop. You only need to make your point once; I promise I'll respond to it.

  5. Okay, sorry. I would rather not respond to so many multiple threads myself either. I was doing that for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading a particular entry. I don't want them to get the mistaken impression that you have somehow actually refuted my arguments.

  6. That makes sense. Feel free to provide links to different blog posts if you feel you've covered a topic well in your response to one of those. I don't have a problem with your cross-referencing different conversations; it's the cutting and pasting that was starting to make me a little dizzy...

  7. Ha. I've watched your attempt to 'bring the full weight of valid sources to challenge religion and defend atheism'. You're not very good at what you do, and I suspect you don't even realize it. Not many would consider logical fallacy, insults and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'LA LA LA' to be a rebuttal.

    It's okay, the truth will come out in the end.

  8. You're welcome to try to support your claims.