Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Stupid Atheist Tricks!

Have you ever seen this one?

"Atheists have no beliefs about God! In fact atheism is entirely about the LACK of certain beliefs! That's it!"

And then immediately, by the same person, maybe even the next sentence...

"Atheists believe in the importance of (insert various moral / ethical / laudatory traits here)!"

A related move is this: "Being an atheist doesn't mean you can't be moral! You can value honesty! Or compassion!"

Which leads me to ask, "Can you value killing hookers and making a parka out of their skin? Is that compatible with atheism too?"

I imagine that works better if you're wearing an apron and a hockey mask at the time.

8 comments:

Ilíon said...

Have you ever seen this one?

Surely, everyone has.


… I imagine that works better if you're wearing an apron and a hockey mask at the time.

The response is almost always an emotive logorrhea, generally with a healthy dose of moralism (or, sometimes, mere moral posturing), that appears to be intended to divert attention away from the point and implications of the question one had asked.

Crude said...

Yeah, I assume it isn't very original material. But what the hell, I like being the master of the obvious at times.

And yeah, the inevitable indignant response no longer impresses. "How DARE you imply atheism is compatible with that!"

J N said...

another one i hear a lot is: blah blah, if you cannot prove God objectively, he mustn't exist. athiesm is true! blah blah.

they make me want to deskpalm repeatedly.

Ilíon said...

"And yeah, the inevitable indignant response no longer impresses. "How DARE you imply atheism is compatible with that!""

Of course I has that in mind. But, I also had in mind the supercilious "I'm glad I don't live next door to you!" or "My! [feigned *gasp*] Is this [theasking of the question one had asked] where believing that morality is objective leads one?"

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

A: "Prove God exists."

B: "God exists."

A: "Nonsense. Mere sophistry. You have no empirical evidence for that claim. Human rights are the basis of reason and morality."

C: "Prove humans are intrinsically valuable and possess inviolable rights."

A: "Humans are intrinsically valuable and possess inviolable rights."

A: "Nonsense. Mere sophistry. You have no empirical evidence for that claim. God's will is the basis of reason and morality."

Proof is a very slippery word with secularists. If rights are ascribed by consensus, they can be just as easily erased. If however rights are self-evident apart from empirical evidence, then what else is legitimately defended as supraempirically self-evident?

Just more cogitating...

Crude said...

That reminds me of the other move of "no evidence". Which, when countered, inevitably gets redefined and redefined until it's "No evidence I like or will admit to".

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

The final "A" should have of course been "C". But you get my point. Be so kind as to have a gander at these posts o' mine, if you can find the time:

http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2009/11/evidence-for-evidence.html

http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2009/04/reason-or-values.html

http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2008/08/logical-factual-actual.html

Best,

Ilíon said...

Here is an amusing stupis atheist trick
"So now, in opposition to your prior justification for exclusion from CSI land, hurricanes are specified but are not complex (because they aren’t random enough!) Although hurricanes have constraints on them, they still have vast degrees of freedom that are unconstrained by natural laws due to chance events and contingency. They are not a simple system (ask any forecaster). "

Wow! Just wow!