Check out this blog post from Catholic blogger Rebecca Hamilton.
Now have a look at the comments section. See anything that offers any more than a cursory challenge to her claims? No? That's because she's censoring them.
I submitted a comment for moderation in which I directly took on a number of the points she made, but she has thus far refused to approve it. Several other comments have been approved since then, just as long as they didn't challenge her. Hardly surprising that she would do this, given that she admits in the post that she sees any criticism of Christian views as an "attack."
But here's the kicker: The whole point of the post is to criticize atheists for mistreating people who aren't part of their own in-group. I imagine the irony is probably lost on her.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Today's Liar for Jesus, Thoughts for Young Men
I've recently had a series of online exchanges with a Christian activist whom I hadn't encountered before, the disturbingly-named Thoughts for Young Men. In our first exchange, I refuted a great many false claims that he was making, to which he responded, in effect, "nuh-uh." That is, he has yet to provide coherent responses to my refutations.
However, he has begun showing up other places that I've commented and trotting out the exact same refuted claims, dishonestly implying that I have failed to address them. Accordingly, I thought I would catalog those claims, along with my responses, so that I can simply direct him here rather than rehash the same things every time I see him.
If Thoughts for Young Men is seeing this list, he is welcome to post any responses to the comments section; I would be happy to modify the list if he can support his arguments.
Atheism is a religion.
False. Atheism is a single belief, that there are no gods. It lacks any of religion's defining characteristics, including belief in the supernatural, belief in a soul separate from the body, belief in an afterlife, and so on.
Atheism necessitates belief in evolution, or vice versa.
Strawman. Atheism makes no claim about biology, and evolution makes no claim about any gods.
A variant of the preceding claim is: Someone cannot believe in both evolution and God.
False dichotomy, for the same reason as the preceding claim.
Because atheism makes no claims about morality, atheists have no morals.
or
Because atheism makes no claims about morality, atheists cannot make moral judgments.
Non sequitur. Because atheism makes no claims about morality, one can draw no conclusions about a person's views on morality solely on the basis of his or her being an atheist.
Atheists "steal from the Christian worldview."
Unsupported, since no explanation is given for what this means.
The Bible's factual claims are true.
False. While some of the Bible's claims can be shown to be true (for example, Jerusalem exists), a great many are demonstrably false (for example, the earth is not flat, sitting on a foundation or surrounded by a firmament). If any given factual claim made in the Bible is true, it could be verified by means other than the Bible.
There is no evidence that there is no God.
Shifting the burden of proof. Atheism is not the claim that there is no God; it is the conclusion that there is no God, based on an examination of the evidence put forth by those claiming there is one.
The Bible's morality is logical and consistent.
False. The Bible contains wildly contradictory moral imperatives. For example, we are to treat others as we wish to be treated, but it is also okay to own another human being as property.
We know the universe has a creator because the universe is a creation.
Assumed conclusion. Should be pretty self-explanatory.
Believing in evidence requires faith.
False, by definition. Faith is the belief in something regardless of whether or not evidence supports it.
Evaluation of evidence is entirely subjective.
False. While there is some subjectivity involved, there are objective considerations in determining whether any information source is credible, reliable and authoritative.
The scientific process is biased.
True, but not in the sense that is intended. The process of science is designed to produce objectively-verifiable knowledge, and in fact has an outstanding track record of doing exactly that. In that sense, it is biased against things that are false or untestable.
Atheists have no basis for believing in logic, because logic is universal, immaterial and unchanging.
False premise and non sequitur. Logic has developed over history, and even if it hadn't, that doesn't preclude someone from concluding that a god doesn't exist.
Human beings as we know them today were either created by God or happened by chance.
False dichotomy. Natural selection is not a random process.
Evolution is impossible because one "kind" of animal cannot develop into another "kind."
Presently unsupported, since no definition for "kind" has been given.
I think that about covers it. If I need to modify the list, I'll do so in the form of new blog posts, so that this one can be referred to.
However, he has begun showing up other places that I've commented and trotting out the exact same refuted claims, dishonestly implying that I have failed to address them. Accordingly, I thought I would catalog those claims, along with my responses, so that I can simply direct him here rather than rehash the same things every time I see him.
If Thoughts for Young Men is seeing this list, he is welcome to post any responses to the comments section; I would be happy to modify the list if he can support his arguments.
Atheism is a religion.
False. Atheism is a single belief, that there are no gods. It lacks any of religion's defining characteristics, including belief in the supernatural, belief in a soul separate from the body, belief in an afterlife, and so on.
Atheism necessitates belief in evolution, or vice versa.
Strawman. Atheism makes no claim about biology, and evolution makes no claim about any gods.
A variant of the preceding claim is: Someone cannot believe in both evolution and God.
False dichotomy, for the same reason as the preceding claim.
Because atheism makes no claims about morality, atheists have no morals.
or
Because atheism makes no claims about morality, atheists cannot make moral judgments.
Non sequitur. Because atheism makes no claims about morality, one can draw no conclusions about a person's views on morality solely on the basis of his or her being an atheist.
Atheists "steal from the Christian worldview."
Unsupported, since no explanation is given for what this means.
The Bible's factual claims are true.
False. While some of the Bible's claims can be shown to be true (for example, Jerusalem exists), a great many are demonstrably false (for example, the earth is not flat, sitting on a foundation or surrounded by a firmament). If any given factual claim made in the Bible is true, it could be verified by means other than the Bible.
There is no evidence that there is no God.
Shifting the burden of proof. Atheism is not the claim that there is no God; it is the conclusion that there is no God, based on an examination of the evidence put forth by those claiming there is one.
The Bible's morality is logical and consistent.
False. The Bible contains wildly contradictory moral imperatives. For example, we are to treat others as we wish to be treated, but it is also okay to own another human being as property.
We know the universe has a creator because the universe is a creation.
Assumed conclusion. Should be pretty self-explanatory.
Believing in evidence requires faith.
False, by definition. Faith is the belief in something regardless of whether or not evidence supports it.
Evaluation of evidence is entirely subjective.
False. While there is some subjectivity involved, there are objective considerations in determining whether any information source is credible, reliable and authoritative.
The scientific process is biased.
True, but not in the sense that is intended. The process of science is designed to produce objectively-verifiable knowledge, and in fact has an outstanding track record of doing exactly that. In that sense, it is biased against things that are false or untestable.
Atheists have no basis for believing in logic, because logic is universal, immaterial and unchanging.
False premise and non sequitur. Logic has developed over history, and even if it hadn't, that doesn't preclude someone from concluding that a god doesn't exist.
Human beings as we know them today were either created by God or happened by chance.
False dichotomy. Natural selection is not a random process.
Evolution is impossible because one "kind" of animal cannot develop into another "kind."
Presently unsupported, since no definition for "kind" has been given.
I think that about covers it. If I need to modify the list, I'll do so in the form of new blog posts, so that this one can be referred to.
Friday, February 15, 2013
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, February 11, 2013
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!
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.
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.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
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.
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I don't
consider myself either.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)