More Atheist Intolerance
Buon giorno. Normally, I save this atheist stuff for the weekends, but I plan on being busy.
Whaddya think? Should I just drop the atheist stuff next year? On one hand, they're boring and predictable with their absence of critical thinking. On the other hand, I get amazed at the lack of reasoning ability and the vituperative hate.
Let's start with a self-appointed atheist Thought Police officer. He kept badgering me about being a Christian and a creationist, but kept refusing to answer my question as to why it mattered to him what I believe. Finally, I got an answer:
Isn't that precious? He cares because he thinks that "religious" people will do stupid things.
He's committing the Fallacy of Composition. Yeah, gotta watch out for those "religious" types, can't have the Amish crashing their buggies into crowded bus stations or something. And we can't have "religious" people building schools and hospitals, or ministering to the poor — you know, those things that you don't see atheist groups doing.
I really have to add this, but I don't have time right now to fully discuss their double standards:
One of the problems I have with modern Internet atheists is that they use their "reason" and "logic" by (to use the technical term) making stuff up. The other "big thing" they do is another fallacy, wishfully thinking that if they assert something, it will magically become true. Norman the Paranoid Troll was great at these, he was full of accusations and hate in his rambling, nonsensical "writings". Norman is right because he said so! He did not document things correctly (the few times he documented anything), and was guilty of libel and defamation. Yes, I've documented it. Don't want to be like those other people and leave it undocumented, capice?
Many atheists have been guilty of libel, slander, illegally recording calls and more, but I digress.
My old pal Matt Slick of CARM (ask him about me, he'll say, "Oh, him!") was doing hate mail. He "amps it up" for those times (usually on Fridays) and indulges in silly voices and rants. This one was good (and very similar to material I have received, almost verbatim in some places), showing atheist intolerance, smugness, arrogance, presuppositions, anger, hate and fallacies. Count 'em.
Whaddya think? Should I just drop the atheist stuff next year? On one hand, they're boring and predictable with their absence of critical thinking. On the other hand, I get amazed at the lack of reasoning ability and the vituperative hate.
Let's start with a self-appointed atheist Thought Police officer. He kept badgering me about being a Christian and a creationist, but kept refusing to answer my question as to why it mattered to him what I believe. Finally, I got an answer:
 |
| No link, the original was deleted. |
Isn't that precious? He cares because he thinks that "religious" people will do stupid things.
He's committing the Fallacy of Composition. Yeah, gotta watch out for those "religious" types, can't have the Amish crashing their buggies into crowded bus stations or something. And we can't have "religious" people building schools and hospitals, or ministering to the poor — you know, those things that you don't see atheist groups doing.
I really have to add this, but I don't have time right now to fully discuss their double standards:
One of the problems I have with modern Internet atheists is that they use their "reason" and "logic" by (to use the technical term) making stuff up. The other "big thing" they do is another fallacy, wishfully thinking that if they assert something, it will magically become true. Norman the Paranoid Troll was great at these, he was full of accusations and hate in his rambling, nonsensical "writings". Norman is right because he said so! He did not document things correctly (the few times he documented anything), and was guilty of libel and defamation. Yes, I've documented it. Don't want to be like those other people and leave it undocumented, capice?
Many atheists have been guilty of libel, slander, illegally recording calls and more, but I digress.
My old pal Matt Slick of CARM (ask him about me, he'll say, "Oh, him!") was doing hate mail. He "amps it up" for those times (usually on Fridays) and indulges in silly voices and rants. This one was good (and very similar to material I have received, almost verbatim in some places), showing atheist intolerance, smugness, arrogance, presuppositions, anger, hate and fallacies. Count 'em.
Comments
I know, I know, it makes it easy to make fun of the idea when you create a fake situation to attack (i.e. the straw man), but it's not a legitimate response to a legitimate concern.
For example, when religious people try to ban abortion based on religious grounds.. or bad scientific stem cell research based on religious grounds.. etc.
If you want to seriously talk about serious issues, then ditch the straw man.
First, it's not a Straw Man argument. Second, did you actually read the article, or are you just defending poor Chad? (By the way, take a look at his trolling history on Twitter.) Third, you obviously didn't listen to the radio bit, either. Fourth, why not slap Chad around for his Stalinesque thought police attitude, as well as his dreadful Straw Man approach of his own?
I see that you're upset that "religious people" try to stop certain things "based on religious grounds". I am so dreadfully sorry that people's reasons for their moral choices do not meet your personal criteria!
Thanks for helping prove my point with your own Atheist Intolerance.
I am SO glad that atheism is dying, partly due to its own Poes.
"Yeah, gotta watch out for those 'religious' types, can't have the Amish crashing their buggies into crowded bus stations or something."
Yes, right there, that's your straw man. I know you are familiar with the concept of logical fallacies since you refer to them in your posts, so you really should know that is exactly what you've done here.
Additionally, you misuse the phrase "thought police." You see, the thought police punish you for your actual _thoughts_, but Chad is referring to ACTIONS that people take.. not thoughts. So again, you attack something that isn't really there.
When it comes to public policy and law, religious grounds are not a valid basis, because public policy has to be based on provable information and laws must represent the citizenry. We don't have a theocracy in the US, perhaps you're posting from a different country. I don't know. If you want to use religious teachings to run the government and form the laws, then you're looking for a theocracy and not a democracy (technically, representative democracy). That's not my personal criteria, those are simple definitions of words.
Chad was upset about beliefs, and what he presumed they would lead people into. Followers of Christ seek to do good for others, have organizations to help the unfortunate, build hospitals, schools and so forth.
Your accusation of a theocracy is a non sequitur. Christians live in countries, too. We get to vote and stuff, except that leftist judges legislate their leftist, pro-atheism, pro-humanism policies from the bench and go against the wishes of the majority. Of course, atheists are a special interest group that has its own agenda and show very little interest in the rights and sensibilities of others.
"Your accusation of a theocracy is a non sequitur. Christians live in countries, too."
This argument doesn't make any sense. Of course Christians live in countries... so do atheists and Muslims and Buddhists. It has nothing to do with my point, which is that if you want to base a government's laws and policies on religious belief then your government is a theocracy. Iran has a Muslim-based Theocracy. Christians still live there. It doesn't change the truth than Iran is a Muslim Theocracy. If you want to base laws and public policy on religious beliefs, then you want a Theocracy.
Yes, in our democracy, Christians get to vote for representatives and ballot initiatives, etc., just like atheists and muslims and buddhists. However, since we do not live in a Theocracy, even if the majority is able to pass a religious law it will be overturned by the courts because it is unconstitutional in the US. Your claims of "leftist, pro-atheism" judges is just because you don't like the judgements they offer. Do you consider judges in other courts to be "rightist, pro-religion" judges? My guess is that if a judge offered a verdict you agreed with then the judge just made the right decision... but if you disagreed with the verdict, well, then my guess is that you'd consider them an activist judge. That's just my guess though, I could be wrong.
Christians live in America, too. So, we should not have to get our rights removed to please the loud minority. To even use the term "theocracy" in this context is erroneous, because there is no large-scale movement to establish such a thing. In fact, Christian leaders that I know of are opposed to attempting to establish a theocracy.
The leftists judges are documented, especially the 9th Circus Court, which has outlandish rulings that are the most-overturned by the US Supreme Court.
You keep accusing me of using a Straw Man fallacy, and you are completely wrong. Chad made a ludicrious, extremist remark based on his assumptions about the beliefs, not the actions, of others.
"we should not have to get our rights removed to please the loud minority."
Well, that depends on what you are referring to when you say "rights." A lot of people misuse the term "rights." For example, public school teachers leading a prayer in school... that doesn't count as you having rights removed, because public school teachers are govt employees and are not allowed to endorse a religion. Another example is placing religious symbols on government buildings, public land, etc. That kind of thing also violates the Establishment clause of the Bill of Rights.
What rights are being stripped from you? What do you think about same-sex marriage rights? What do you think about the right of gay citizens to serve openly in the military? Do you believe those rights should be afforded to gay citizens?
"To even use the term 'theocracy' in this context is errorneous..."
Not in the slightest. I made the point that religion is not a valid basis to determine law in our country. Then you dismissed that claim as just my opinion. Then I explained why it wasn't just my opinion, by showing the distinction between our representative democracy and a theocracy. In a theocracy, the laws are based on religious teachings. We don't have a theocracy, which means the laws are NOT based on religious teachings. That's not opinion, it's just simple definition. So, discussion of theocracy isn't erroneous. If you want to maintain a representative democracy that is backed by a Constitution which explicitly prohibits the establishment of a religion, then you cannot base our laws on your religious beliefs. It's simple.
Lastly, you didn't answer my question: Are you making the argument that if someone else uses a fallacy then you are allowed to use fallacies and they no longer count as fallacies?
"not allowed to endorse a religion"
Which one? They are active proselytes of Secular Humanism, and discriminate against Christians. Don't get me started on biases for Islam.
"Are you making the argument that if someone else uses a fallacy then you are allowed to use fallacies and they no longer count as fallacies?"
You didn't seem to catch my explanation, which dismisses your question.
"What rights are being stripped from you?" Peruse the link in my last comment, as well as this Weblog. The ones that are not being stripped are being attacked by atheist and humanist organizations.
"What do you think about same-sex marriage rights? What do you think about the right of gay citizens to serve openly in the military? Do you believe those rights should be afforded to gay citizens?"
What about them? Where do these alleged rights come from? The Constitution? The 9th Circus Court? Anyway, I'm not going to get mired into red herring distractions. If I write about homosexual "rights", we can discuss them at that time.
"In a theocracy, the laws are based on religious teachings."
You are way off base. First, you are not properly defining a theocracy. Second, America was founded by Christians upon Christian values, and no attempt at rewriting history can change this. The Founding Fathers did not want a theocracy, or to have a religious system per se to make the laws; all are protected, whatever faith or the lack thereof. So, yes, you are incorrect about your use of the term.
Nobody is arguing about the fact that the Constitution does not allow for establishing a national religion. Nor does it prohibit the free exercise.
Hey, looks like I can use that other OpenID. Cool! (There's a reason for it, but it's not pertinent to the discussion, sorry for the distraction.)
I didn't miss your dismissal of my question about the fallacy, but I was giving you another opportunity to answer it. Why avoid the question? You're essentially saying that two wrongs make a right here... Let me try with a different question: Let's assume I make a statement and you make a statement. If my statement is a fallacy, does that imply any information about whether or not your statement is a fallacy?
"The 9th Circus Court"
I let this one go the last time, but since you want to do it again... for someone who spends so much time on his blog discussing argumentative fallacy, you seem to use it a lot. Can you identify which fallacy this one is?
Re: Theocracy.. Do you believe that God's Will is that the laws of our country follow God's teachings?
Re: Founding of our nation on Christian values... what is your response to the Treaty of Tripoli? It states that the US is not founded, IN ANY SENSE, on the Christian religion. Being founded on Christian "values" is covered by "in any sense."
Now you're pulling out more stopes and attempting plays at my emotions because you don't like links and definitions. And no, I do not want to play "Guess the Fallacy" with you, since you have not been able to grasp the concepts that I have already explained.
Tripoli? Who cares? You're using ONE document (uncited, probably out of context) to disprove the all the rest of evidence that has already been made available to you. This is on the intellectually stunted level of one of your Twitter pals who thinks that one alleged error in the Bible will disprove its validity, and also God's entire existence! Agonizing.
I'm glad you had your emotional meltdown and showed your true colors early on, because I am BUSY now, even took today off work to do things. Hint: These things do not include coddling the egos of atheists who are unwilling to think clearly and wish to engage in transparent attempts to manipulate emotions.
Come back sometime if you want to stay on topic and talk rationally.
Look, I know that when you have your logic challenged that it can hurt your brain, but you're kind of freaking out right now.
"Especially after how I see you attack..."
I'm not the one doing the attacking here. YOU are the one using Ad Hominem attacks against The 9th Circuit Court (yes, that's the fallacy you used by changing the name in an insulting fashion)... TODD is the one using Ad Hominem attacks against me (you saw him call me a "JERK" on Twitter).
"use lousy logic and attempt to manipulate the emotions of others on Twitter..."
I'm not manipulating the emotions of anyone. Todd attempted to use Pascale's Wager with me. I asked me to think rationally and ask myself "What happens if you're wrong?" So I answered truthfully and rationally and I said, "If I'm wrong, I burn in Hell forever." Then I asked Todd the same question right back: "Ok, now what if YOU'RE wrong and Allah is the One True God?" Todd has absolutely refused to answer that question. It is an example of his hypocrisy. He claims to use rational thought and logic to support his beliefs, but he can't handle even considering the idea that his belief might be wrong.
Re: The Treaty of Tripoli... wait, are you not familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli? Your words about it not being cited and out of context imply that you don't know what it is... So, here's your citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
"The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in America.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
"I'm glad you had your emotional meltdown.."
Wait, what? *looks around* You're serious, aren't you? What emotional meltdown?
"Come back sometime if you want to stay on topic and talk rationally."
This is just a coping mechanism you have to try to dismiss me because I'm asking you questions that you can't handle. I have been on topic from the beginning, discussing your Straw Man argument against Chad's tweet. Each post of mine after that has directly responded to your post before it.
I know you don't want to respond to my points, but your last couple of comments have just shown you resorting to insults and dismissals instead of actually responding to the question at hand.