Gay Marriage and Children

Here is the latest sky-is-falling alarmism about same-sex marriage from Christian Post.  Allow me to debunk:

The argument that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation is a strawman; there is no requirement that straight couples do so.  I'm actually unable to have children, but when I got married last year, no one asked myself or my wife anything about that.  The clear double-standard is strong evidence that Christian activists seek only to regulate the behavior of gay people, not to treat everyone equally.

Here's an interesting claim from the article:
"Such a shift in its meaning would remove marriage as society's foremost (and perhaps only) means for promoting the gold standard for children-a household headed by a child's own mother and father."
This is false.  There is a far more effective way that society could make sure that a child's own mother and father raise the child: mandate it by law.  Outlaw divorce and force couples with children below a certain age to live and raise the children together.  Once again, however, it is only the behavior of gay people that they are trying to regulate.

The article then makes the point that "in a genderless marriage society, all child-rearing settings are perceived as indistinguishable."  However, that's a strawman, because it includes single-parent child-rearing settings, which are not at issue.  A more accurate conclusion would be to say that all two-parent child-rearing situations are perceived as indistinguishable.  This is a conclusion that is well-supported by research; studies show no difference in achievement or quality of life between children raised by two straight parents and those raised by two same-gender parents.  Ironically, the article points out that the courts noted this fact in the decision striking down California's Proposition 8.

The article concludes with what it admits is a slippery-slope fallacy:
"Although the ultimate outcome of redefining marriage cannot be fully foreseen from our current vantage point, the signs point to danger ahead."  In fact, this outcome is readily observable in states that have already legally-recognized same-sex marriages:  Gay people and straight people enjoy equal protection under the law, and the sky hasn't fallen on any of them.

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
therefore
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
therefore
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.

Holy Alarmism, Christian Post!

Check out the hyperbole on this headline!

The Constitution Repealed in Ten States

The whole Consitution got repealed!  Er, wait, none of it did at all; this is a story about Fourth Amendment concerns with laws in some states.

Who's responsible for this outrage?  President Obama!  Er, wait, the article admits that these are Bush Administration policies but blames Obama for them anyway.

One glance at the story shows the headline to be a load of crap.

But here's the thing: the concerns raised in the story are legitimate.  So rather than undermining their credibility with falsehood and sensationalism, why wouldn't Christian Post just report the facts?

Oh yeah, because Christian Post is not a legitimate news source.  It's propaganda; its intention is to provoke outrage, not disseminate information.

Seriously, CP readers, why do you go to a site that treats you like children?  Just goes to prove you can sell anything to Christian extremists, just as long as you make it sound like you're doing it for God!

And the award goes to...

I would like to congratulate Brian Rush on being the single biggest wuss I have ever run across.  Have a look at our exchange in the comments section of this post on his blog.

Not only is he unwilling to stand by the comments he made about atheists, he refuses to commit to and support any beliefs or assertions at all.  At one point, he even claims not to have beliefs!

Check out the exchange and see if you can count the number of times he contradicts himself.

Seriously dude, grow a pair.  If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Thought I might have a go at CARM's questions for atheists. Here ya go:

“How would you define atheism?”

Atheism is defined as the belief that there are no gods.

“Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I act according to what I believe.

“Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I don't think it's inconsistent.

“How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I am quite convinced.

“How sure are you that your atheism is correct?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I am quite convinced.

“How would you define what truth is?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I would define something as true if it can be objectively demonstrated to others.

“Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I believe it is because those claiming that a god exists have failed to provide any evidence for their existence.

“Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I don't consider myself either.

“Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I deny that it is a worldview; it is the single belief that there are no gods.

“Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, it is because Christian activists are making a concerted effort to gain special treatment under the law for their beliefs.

“If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have never believed in the Christian god.

“Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have no opinion on the subject.

“Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have no opinion on the subject.

“Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have no opinion on the subject.

“Must God be known through the scientific method?:

Atheism makes no claim about how god must or must not be known.

“If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?”

Not applicable.

“Do we have any purpose as human beings?”

Atheism makes no claim about purpose.

“If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?”

Not applicable.

“Where does morality come from?”

Atheism makes no claim about morality.

“Are there moral absolutes?”

Atheism makes no claim about morality.

“If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?”

Not applicable.

“Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I believe that actions that cause grievous harm to lots of people could be described as evil.

“If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I judge the god of the Old Testament to be morally bad because his actions caused lots of harm to lots of people.

“What would it take for you to believe in God?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, it would take sufficient evidence.

“What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I'm not sure. But an omniscient god would know.

“Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I'm not sure. But an omniscient god would know.

“Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I think it depends on how dogmatic the atheists are.

“Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion).”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, yes.

“If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, yes.

“If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not?”

Since this question is addressed to me personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have opinion on the subject.

“If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?”

Not applicable.

Misanalyzing Atheism

If anyone's up for a rousing game of count-the-logical-fallacies, I encourage you to check out the ironically-titled Atheism Analyzed blog.  Keep an eye out for these:

Appeal to authority:  The blogger claims to have once been an atheist, as though that confers validity to the rampant misrepresentations of atheism on the blog.

Shifting the burden of proof:  Atheism is consistently misrepresented as a truth claim rather than the conclusion that it is.

Strawman:  Lots of things are ascribed to atheism that are not part of its definition.

Non sequitur:  Unable to respond to requests to back up the false claims that he makes, the blogger is fond of raising irrelevant points.

Tu Quoque:  This is the "oh yeah, and so do you" fallacy, similar to shifting the burden of proof.

Enjoy!

An exercise in logical fallacies

I've been looking forward to dissecting this video for a while. Enjoy!

“An atheist is asked, 'who made you?' and they answer 'nobody, nothing.'”

Strawman: Atheism makes no claim about where people come from.

“We, as a creation, are a result of the Big Bang.”

Assumed Conclusion: We are only a creation if one presupposes the existence of a creator.

“We are the result of evolution, which brought life into existence.”

Strawman: Evolution makes no claim about the origin of life.

“Before the [Big Bang] explosion, there was a primordial dust cloud.”

Strawman: The Big Bang model explicitly holds that dust clouds could not have formed until after the Big Bang. In addition, the model holds that time began with the Big Bang; since “before” is a concept that depends on the existence of time, “before the Big Bang” is a nonsensical idea.

“If there is one thing we know from science, it is that we do not get something from nothing.”

Strawman: The Big Bang does not claim that the universe came from nothing.

Strawman: Science makes no claim about “nothing,” since to the best of our knowledge, there are no examples of “nothing” to test.

“...yet we are to believe that this supposedly random event led to the perfection of the universe as we know it?”

Unsupported assertion: No support is given for the idea that the universe is perfect, nor is any explanation given of what that means.

“This is an example in which science contradicts science.”

Oxymoron: While one scientific hypothesis may contradict another hypothesis or a known principle, the idea that science as a whole contradicts itself is nonsensical.

“Entropy is the principle that unless there is greater control over a process, then the process tends to chaos.”

Strawman: Entropy only hold true in a closed system, which the universe is not.

“If someone does not control the chemical reaction, the result is going to be random and chaos.”

False conclusion: Chemical reactions happen in a consistent, predictable manner.

“If you look at a painting, you know there was a painter... and yet we are to look at creation and believe that there is not a creator.”

Assumed conclusion, per above.

False equivalency: We know that a painting has a painter because it is clearly distinct from nature. The same cannot be said of natural phenomena.

“Natural selection can explain the diversity of life... But how can it explain the soul?”

Unsupported assertion: No support is provided for the idea that such thing as the soul exists.

“You believe in the existence of a human soul. How do you explain this?”

Strawman: Atheists do not believe in the existence of a soul.

“How can you explain life as having evolved?”

Misleading question: The evolution of life is very well-understood and explained by science.

“By life, I mean the power that gives the body, once assembled, the power to live.”

Strawman: Bodies are not assembled; they develop from the union of a sperm and egg cell in a well-understood and predictable manner.

“All of the world's scientists, over all of history can make them [“Frankensteins”] live.”

Strawman: Science has not attempted this in the way that is being suggested. Scientists are, however, capable of cloning living things.

Strawman: The inability of science to accomplish anything at its present state of development does not mean that such a thing is impossible.

“We can not even make the wing of a gnat in the perfection that it is made by our creator.”

False conclusion: Science is in fact capable of cloning gnats.

Assumed conclusion: The existence of a creator has not been established.

“That is why, when a body is dead, science is not able to revive a dead person.”

False conclusion: Medical technology can in fact revive a person who has been dead a very short time.

“There are some who accept that explanation, but I submit to you that it is not of those who are enlightened.”

No True Scotsman: One cannot be enlightened and accept a position other than the one advocated.

The video ends with an extended argument from analogy, claiming that an Arab parable somehow mirrors reality with no support for the intended connection.