Ignoring the Outmoded

Here’s a video where atheist Lawrence Krauss talks about religion from his hostile perspective.  I hope to address various points that he raises in the future, but for now, I’d like to focus on his basic point from 1:50 – 2:47.  He is talking about morality from an atheistic perspective.

He admits that religion provides many things for people, like community ,support, and hope.  He argues that what atheists need to do is to take these things out of religion and use the “real world” to build up those qualities.  He preaches a “morality based on rationality, not outmoded religious beliefs.”  He insists we “use the rational world to build a global society based on the reality we are all humans sharing this planet and we need to work together to build a better place.”

Of course, this is all just posturing rooted in empty words.  Words, just empty words.  Look, we’ve been watching the atheist activist community for the last couple of weeks, a community that claims to have constructed a morality based on rationality because, well, they are always guided by reason and evidence.  But what we see is an atheist community at each others’ throats all because of the actions of one man – Lawrence Krauss himself.  If atheists want to build a global society based on the reality that we are all humans who need to work together to make the world a better place, why not start with something more simple – build an atheist internet community where all atheists work together to build a better world?  If you can’t handle that, what makes you think your ideas about a global society are anything other than delusions of grandeur?  And where oh where is this atheist community filled with support and hope?  I see a community filled with despair, anger, and even hate – all directed at each other.  I see a deeply divided community where both sides claim that reason and evidence just happens to be on their side, of course.  That’s the “real world” that is out there.

The best part is when Krauss says the following:

 if you base your beliefs and actions on myths that are incorrect you are inevitably going to take irrational actions

If Krauss is correct, he has given us good reason to think his atheism and scientism is a myth.  Take the example of a leading scientist deciding to cheat on his wife and invite a young make-up artist, someone he barely knew, up to his hotel room for sex.  What an astoundingly irrational action.  To risk your entire career and reputation for such a fleeting moment of pleasure is foolish and stupid.  Didn’t Krauss have some type of world view or belief system that would grab him by the collar and warn, “Hey dumbass, it’s a reaalllly stupid idea you have there!”?  Nope.   There was nothing in his head to stop him.  Science has nothing to say about such matters so it was useless.  And his atheism probably unleashed his Id which in turn winked at him – atta boy!  In contrast, those who truly hold to the “myth” of Christian doctrine would not have put themselves in this situation.  That “myth” would have warned them away.   Of course, some Christian men cheat, but when they do, they violate and rebel against their Christian doctrine.   They have to abandon their principles.  Krauss’s action did not violate atheism  nor can they be viewed as rebelling against atheism.  And no principle was abandoned.

So what happened because of Krauss’s irrational action?  The atheist woman he barely knew talked about him and his behavior with other atheist women.  Well, duh.  And she said bad things.  A whisper network was created that ultimately, after many years, grew and led to Krauss getting kicked out of several atheist and scientific organizations, being shunned by his former allies, and having his reputation dragged through the mud.  All because of his irrational action rooted in the belief that he could use the power of his own reason to construct his moral system.   When he then tried to use the power of his reason to write a nine page response to the multiple allegations against him, it changed no minds.  So the same reason that led him into the quicksand years ago failed to rescue him when it was most needed.

Look, if Krauss had retained some of those outmoded beliefs from those Iron Age peasants,  his career and reputation wouldn’t be in the dumpster.

This entry was posted in atheism, Lawrence Krauss and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Ignoring the Outmoded

  1. Kevin says:

    Much like how atheists, typically leftists, mock Mike Pence for not being alone with women other than his wife. Their worldview makes them incapable of grasping the obvious wisdom and reasoning behind his stance.

  2. it seems that you confuse atheism with morals and a personal philosophy. Atheism means a conclusion was reached that there is no god or gods. Atheists have different morals and personal philosophies.

    That Christians don’t agree on what morals their god wants differing vastly in what their morals and personal philosophies are, indicates that no god is needed to determine morality at all; morality and philosophy is invented by humans.

    As for Mike Pence, he is a great example of a Christian who doesn’t trust his god. Just like every Christian who goes to a hospital, who has insurance, etc.

  3. Kevin says:

    Atheism means a conclusion was reached that there is no god or gods.

    I agree, but you should tell that to PZ Myers and crowd. They’re the ones that need to hear it.

    As for Mike Pence, he is a great example of a Christian who doesn’t trust his god.

    I don’t know what you’re specifically referring to here. That Pence should trust God to not allow rumors to get started?

    Just like every Christian who goes to a hospital, who has insurance, etc.

    It seems safe to assume you don’t know a thing about Christianity based upon this statement.

  4. FZM says:

    That Christians don’t agree on what morals their god wants differing vastly in what their morals and personal philosophies are, indicates that no god is needed to determine morality at all; morality and philosophy is invented by humans.

    Atheists don’t even agree what the definition of atheism without asking all the non-atheists what they think it is; atheism is therefore invented by humans and doesn’t reflect any other kind of reality.

  5. Ilíon says:

    One *cannot* reason with an intellectually dishonest man …and *all* God-deniers are intellectually dishonest with respect to the reality of God.

  6. nsr says:

    >>Just like every Christian who goes to a hospital, who has insurance, etc.

    You do know Christianity isn’t about having a magic genie on hand to grant wishes when we’re in a sticky situation? Were you by any chance brought up in some overly charismatic church which taught that?

  7. Isaac says:

    “As for Mike Pence, he is a great example of a Christian who doesn’t trust his god. Just like every Christian who goes to a hospital, who has insurance, etc.”

    Well that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read all day. You can tell when a person hasn’t given two minutes’ worth of thought to possible objections to the thing they’re pontificating about. I can’t imagine being so insecure in my own worldview as to have to hold such idiotic straw-man ideas about people who think different than me. It must be exhausting.

    Having insurance and going to the hospital are standard things that you do in the course of self-preservation, because you have the means to. It would be equally logical to claim that “trusting God” means not even putting a hand over a cut to stop the bleeding. And not bothering to eat. Or work. Or drink water. Just lie in the grass and let God supernaturally preserve you. I think you can see how that doesn’t make sense on any level.

    Besides which, not being alone with other women is not at all an example of lack of trust in God, but rather lack of trust in oneself. Ergo, Mike Pence has a much greater awareness of himself than, say, Lawrence Krauss, who probably could have used some of that humility.

  8. Ilíon says:

    Is there anything that gets “outmoded” faster than the latest, up-to-the-minute “refutation” of Christianity or of morality?

  9. Ilíon says:

    “… latest, up-to-the-minute, “scientific”, “rational” …”

  10. Kevin says:

    Besides which, not being alone with other women is not at all an example of lack of trust in God, but rather lack of trust in oneself.

    I would argue it’s not so much about himself avoiding temptation, but also this behavior makes it virtually impossible for any rumors to get started. This also helps the peace of mind for his wife, who can easily laugh off any gossip as ludicrous. The majority of public figures don’t have that protection due to their behavior, even if they haven’t cheated.

    I myself have always abided by this rule. I’m not married, but I’m never alone with another man’s wife. Not because I doubt my self-control and not because I doubt theirs, but because that makes it impossible for any doubt to be planted.

  11. John Branyan says:

    You this it’s okay for Krauss to cheat on his wife?
    That’s a yes or no question.

  12. “I agree, but you should tell that to PZ Myers and crowd. They’re the ones that need to hear it.”

    I’ve read them and nope, they don’t claim that atheismis anything else but what I’ve said.

    As for Mike Pence, he is a great example of a Christian who doesn’t trust his god.

    “I don’t know what you’re specifically referring to here. That Pence should trust God to not allow rumors to get started?”

    if he trusts his god, then nothing would happen because his god will take care of him like the birds of the air and lilies of the field. Why would God let rumors start and affect a TrueChristian?

    “It seems safe to assume you don’t know a thing about Christianity based upon this statement.”

    Seems like you are a Christian who ignores the failed promises from the bible as is convenient. Jesus says: “2 He said to his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. 23 For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. 24 Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! 25 And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? 26 If then you are not able to do so small a thing as that, why do you worry about the rest? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 28 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith! 29 And do not keep striving for what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not keep worrying. 30 For it is the nations of the world that strive after all these things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31 Instead, strive for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

    32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

    “17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands,[e] and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.””

    “13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.”

    So exactly why do Christians buy insurance, go to hospitals, etc? Are these promises untrue?

  13. FZM claimed this “Atheists don’t even agree what the definition of atheism without asking all the non-atheists what they think it is; atheism is therefore invented by humans and doesn’t reflect any other kind of reality.”

    funny how atheists don’t disagree on the definition of atheism “the lack of belief in god or gods.”

  14. “One *cannot* reason with an intellectually dishonest man …and *all* God-deniers are intellectually dishonest with respect to the reality of God.”

    nice to see Christians bear false witness against others. Funny how there is no evidence for this “reality” of god. Please do present evidence.

  15. Kevin says:

    I’ve read them and nope, they don’t claim that atheismis anything else but what I’ve said.

    Your expertise on Myers is as extensive as that on Christianity – nonexistent.

    if he trusts his god, then nothing would happen because his god will take care of him like the birds of the air and lilies of the field. Why would God let rumors start and affect a TrueChristian?

    So you’ve never read the Bible. Thank you for confirming your ignorance.

    Spoiler alert: bad things happened to Christians in the Bible, including apostles and disciples. They happened to Christ himself – you know, the guy you quoted without an ounce of understanding of the context for what was being said.

    Bad things happen. That’s something that every apostle warned of, and it’s why both they and Jesus told of things to avoid.

  16. Dhay says:

    clubschadenfreude > funny how atheists don’t disagree on the definition of atheism “the lack of belief in god or gods.”

    But they do disagree: both PZ Myers and Hemant Mehta, paradigmatic atheists, surely, seem to be convinced that to be an atheist you must also be a Democrat.

    Longer response at: https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/the-new-atheist-movement-an-autopsy-2/#comment-33238

  17. FZM says:

    funny how atheists don’t disagree on the definition of atheism “the lack of belief in god or gods.”

    It is more funny how a single atheist (you) couldn’t maintain a consistent definition of atheism over the space of 2 posts:

    Atheism means a conclusion was reached that there is no god or gods.

    …the definition of atheism “the lack of belief in god or gods.”

  18. FZM says:

    Funny how there is no evidence for this “reality” of god. Please do present evidence.

    There it is… <>

  19. Ilíon says:

    some God-damned God-hater: “nice to see Christians bear false witness against others. Funny how there is no evidence for this “reality” of god. Please do present evidence.

    *eyeroll* and *LOL*

    If this God-hater *were* intellectually honest, he’d acknowledge that I have already *demonstrated* multiple times on this very blog that atheism is the false view of the nature of reality, and that, ergo, the *only* alternative to atheism, which is to say, “theism”, is the correct view of the nature of reality.

    I don’t play the “Prove It Again” game, and I don’t waste my time with intellectually dishonest persons.

  20. Ilíon says:

    Google clicks don’t lie, Christians are addicted to porn and antidepressants.

    Even were this claim true in the way it appears to have been asserted-and-meant, so what? Do God-haters take special anti-logic classes where they are indoctrinated that alleged facts which correspond to an important foundational axiom of Christianity somehow prove Christianity false?

  21. Ilíon says:

    … sorry, wrong thread on that last

  22. Ilíon says:

    Infidelity doesn’t just happen — one plays with the idea for some time before one breaks one’s promise.

    And that is *why* the devotees of the “sexual revolution” mock Pence (and any others) for abiding by this wise rule — they want to keep their options open with regard to infidelity, and they want to pretend that any potential future infidelity “just happened”.

  23. John Branyan says:

    Apparently you missed my question.
    Is it okay for Krauss to cheat on his wife?

  24. nope. and I think so thanks to my wonderfully subjective morality.

    So, JB, is it okay for a Christian to support an adulterer?

  25. I do see you like to claim that I hate your version of your Christian god. I don’t since it’s rather silly to hate something imaginary, but I do get tired of Christians making false claims and being such lovely hypocrites. So, evidence that your god exists? Since you are a Christian, Ilion, the bible claims that all baptized believers in Christ as savior can heal people of sickness and injury (Mark 16, James 5). How many people have you healed? I’d be more than happy to accompany you to a hospice, a veterans’ hospital, etc, to see you work your God-given powers.

    Since you haven’t demonstrated that atheism is a “false view of the nature of reality”, then I am being quite “intellectually honest” when I call you out on your lies. I see no evidence of your god, just as you likely see no evidence of Vishnu, of Allah, of Wakan Tanka, etc. Now, since no one can find your god, why shouldn’t we believe in one of these other creator gods? They are all just as viable as yours.

    And alas, since your god is imaginary, it is only in your fantasies that this god would “damn” me. It’s good to see you lie to excuse your inability to support your claims.

  26. Ilíon says:

    It is for me unceasingly humorous that “moral relativists” *always* bleat about how “rude” or “mean” or “arrogant” a Christian (or Jew) is when he holds up their intellectually dishonest and/or incoherent assertions up for public ridicule.

  27. Michael says:

    club:
    it seems that you confuse atheism with morals and a personal philosophy. Atheism means a conclusion was reached that there is no god or gods. Atheists have different morals and personal philosophies.

    No confusion on my part. After introducing Krauss, I set the stage in the second paragraph by focusing on his claims: He preaches a “morality based on rationality, not outmoded religious beliefs.” He insists we “use the rational world to build a global society based on the reality we are all humans sharing this planet and we need to work together to build a better place.”

    I then respond by noting, “Of course, this is all just posturing rooted in empty words. Words, just empty words.”

    I then support my response as follows:

    Look, we’ve been watching the atheist activist community for the last couple of weeks, a community that claims to have constructed a morality based on rationality because, well, they are always guided by reason and evidence. But what we see is an atheist community at each others’ throats all because of the actions of one man – Lawrence Krauss himself. If atheists want to build a global society based on the reality that we are all humans who need to work together to make the world a better place, why not start with something more simple – build an atheist internet community where all atheists work together to build a better world?

    Krauss’s dream of a global society based on rationality is just wishful thinking. As you admit yourself, even the atheist community can’t use reason to come to a moral consensus.

  28. Ilíon says:

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/ignoring-the-outmoded-2

    [Krauss] insists we ‘use the rational world to build a global society based on the reality we are all humans sharing this planet and we need to work together to build a better place.’

    On top of the things our Host points out, look again at that insistence. As is customary with the moral assertions of those who seek to usurp God’s throne, Krauss’ insistence depends upon a number of hidden assumptions … and upon his audience not consciously examining those assumprions. Furthermore, if you really look at just this quote, you can understand why every time some set of God-deniers, going all the way back to the French Revolution, get their hands of the levers of state violence, the result is always windrows of human corpses — for, in the end, the only basis for any of the pseudo-moralities God-deniers can ever try to build is “Might makes right.

    Non-exhaustively:

    Hidden assumption: “… build a better place [or world]

    How is this “better” defined? See, the problem here is that one cannot define “better” until one has *already* established the moral grounding and standard by which an evaluation of “better” and “worse” can be made. The God-deniers always try to do this in reverse, thus “morality” always devolves to “Whatever advances the Interests of The Party.

    Hidden assumption: “… we need to work together to build a better place [or world]

    Do we now? You see, that “we need to work together” is already a moral assertion … and it is made before the grounding on which his/their moral assertions are to be made has been established. And, it raises some questions which tie back into the problem that, in the end, the only basis for any of the pseudo-moralities God-deniers can ever try to build is “Might makes right.

    Who says that “we” need to do this? Where does this asserted ought come from, in what is it grounded? What if I disagree, in focus, or in total? What if I think I am agreeing and believe that I am “work[ing] together”, but “We” believe that I’m lacking a bit in either working or togetherness? Who decides what are the conditions for and the limits of any force or violence that “We” may use to compel me to “work together to build [that] better place“? What if I totally agree, and there is no complaint with my working together, and yet “We” decide that it advances the Interests of The Party for me to be made dead?

    Hidden assumption: “… build a global society based on the reality we are all humans sharing this planet and we need to work together to build a better place [or world]

    How does this asserted moral obligation to “build a global society” logically and rationally follow from “the reality we are all humans sharing this planet“? A society is “this” and not “that”; thus, putting it another way, “build[ing] a global society” logically entails destroying the many existing societies in the world and imposing some as yet non-existent society upon all the separate and diverse peoples of the world. What if — and can be guaranteed to happen — the various peoples prefer their own existing cultures and resist the imposition? Who decides what are the conditions for and the limits of any force or violence that “We” may use to compel the peoples of the world to abandon their own cultures and submit to the one “We” have decided to impose upon them?

    With these “rational” and “scientific” pseudo-moralities, it *always* comes down to “‘We’ — we few who control the levers of state violence — decide“; it *always* comes down to “Might makes right.

  29. Yes, there is quite a bit of confusion on your part still. You want to pretend that atheists “should” have one set of morals. We don’t, and being atheists only means we don’t believe in god or gods. You are an atheist too when it comes to the gods you are sure don’t exist.

    Atheists can disagree and no problem there since again we all have different morals and personal philosophies. Atheists haven’t all constructed moralities based on rationality, again you fail to acknowledge what being an atheist is in favor of your strawman. There is no community that has invented one morality.

    Atheists also can work together for a better world and differing moralities and personal philosophies. You want to make a mountain out of Krauss’s actions, something that most atheists don’t know about and we aren’t “at each other’s throats”. You need to pretend that there is some thing wrong with atheists again and have latched on to this.

    Yep, the atheist community hasn’t used reason to come to a moral consensus since we all don’t follow some dogma that Christians so desperately wish we did. That doesn’t mean one can’t use reason to come to a workable morality.

    You want to claim your religion has a great morality and your god is the source of that morality. “Look, if Krauss had retained some of those outmoded beliefs from those Iron Age peasants, his career and reputation wouldn’t be in the dumpster.” Hmmm, iron age beliefs that are in your bible and part of your supposed divine morality are that women are property/second class citizens; children can be killed for the actions of their parents, men can have multiple wives/concubines, slaves are property, young girls can be forced into sex slavery after you murder their parents and brothers, etc.

    And then we have this from you “And his atheism probably unleashed his Id which in turn winked at him – atta boy! In contrast, those who truly hold to the “myth” of Christian doctrine would not have put themselves in this situation. That “myth” would have warned them away. Of course, some Christian men cheat, but when they do, they violate and rebel against their Christian doctrine. They have to abandon their principles. Krauss’s action did not violate atheism nor can they be viewed as rebelling against atheism. And no principle was abandoned.”

    So, you claim that atheism would “unleash” someone’s id. Again, still a lie on your part trying to claim that atheists have no morals just because they are atheists. You still want to lie and claim that atheism is something else other than the lack of belief in a god.

  30. TFBW says:

    @clubschadenfreude: “You still want to lie and claim that atheism is something else other than the lack of belief in a god.”

    In addition to your attribution of wilful deception (lying) to your opponents, you seem to want to have it both ways with regards to atheism being mere lack of belief on one hand, and something which can support an “atheist community” on the other (as in “the atheist community hasn’t used reason to come to a moral consensus”). I submit that if atheism is mere lack of belief, then there can be no such thing as an “atheist community”, since people do not form communities based on a shared lack of interest. This is why there are communities of people who collect stamps, but no communities of people who don’t, and so on for all manner of shared interests. Conversely, if there really is such a thing as an atheist community, then atheism is something other than the lack of belief in a god, at least to the extent that people form communities over it.

    It seems obvious to me that Michael isn’t lying, but rather that you (and other members of your community who adhere to this “mere lack of belief” meme) are kidding yourself. If you want to argue over what that shared interest is, exactly, then I’m open to discussion, but if you’re going to pretend that there isn’t one, you’re on your own.

    Also, it’s not the case that Michael claims that “atheists have no morals just because they are atheists.” He claims, and you agree, that they have not used reason to come to a moral consensus. The thing is, Lawrence Krauss (and others) claim that a reason-based morality is an achievable and appropriate end, so Michael criticises them for failing to live up to their own standards. You, on the other hand, simply deny that there’s a problem, and launch a counter-attack saying what bad things the Bible teaches, as though you have an actual basis for criticism in the absence of a rationality-based morality. If atheists do have morals, then what is their basis? You can’t derive morals from a lack of belief in gods, at least not beyond, “I guess we’ll have to make some up in the absence of a divine source.”

    You say, “that doesn’t mean one can’t use reason to come to a workable morality,” but the in-fighting over moral issues in the atheist community doesn’t support your claim. Krauss thinks he’s done nothing wrong, but a bunch of other people say he has. Which side is the side of reason in this case? Where does the rational error lie? Or does this “workable morality” apply only at the level of the individual, such that one atheist’s moral right is another atheist’s moral wrong? That doesn’t sound “workable” to me.

  31. FZM says:

    You are an atheist too when it comes to the gods you are sure don’t exist.

    This is wrong; general ‘-theism’ (e.g. as part of monotheism, polytheism, pantheism) just means that someone believes that there is a category of entities called ‘God and/or gods’ and that it has at least one member. You are only an atheist if you lack belief that the category has at least one member.

  32. Michael says:

    Club: You want to claim your religion has a great morality and your god is the source of that morality. “Look, if Krauss had retained some of those outmoded beliefs from those Iron Age peasants, his career and reputation wouldn’t be in the dumpster.”

    I was simply pointing out the irony.

    Hmmm, iron age beliefs that are in your bible and part of your supposed divine morality are that women are property/second class citizens; children can be killed for the actions of their parents, men can have multiple wives/concubines, slaves are property, young girls can be forced into sex slavery after you murder their parents and brothers, etc.

    In Christian theology, there is a reason Christ died on the cross. But I don’t sense a productive discussion with you about such matters. So let’s just point out that I have never known a Christian who advocates for any of that. I know that I don’t. I was talking about the moral belief that adultery is wrong. Every Christian I have known agrees. If Krauss had adhered to this moral truth, he would not have ruined his career and reputation.

    And then we have this from you “And his atheism probably unleashed his Id which in turn winked at him – atta boy! In contrast, those who truly hold to the “myth” of Christian doctrine would not have put themselves in this situation. That “myth” would have warned them away. Of course, some Christian men cheat, but when they do, they violate and rebel against their Christian doctrine. They have to abandon their principles. Krauss’s action did not violate atheism nor can they be viewed as rebelling against atheism. And no principle was abandoned.”

    So, you claim that atheism would “unleash” someone’s id.

    I was speculating about Krauss. I wrote: “And his atheism probably unleashed his Id which in turn winked at him – atta boy!”

    Again, still a lie on your part trying to claim that atheists have no morals just because they are atheists.

    Another ad hominem attack from you. When I point out how stupid Krauss was for inviting some unknown girl to his hotel room, I’m not lying. And when I point out nothing in Krauss’s rational morality stopped him from engaging in such reckless stupidity, I am not lying. But when you claim that I am claiming “atheists have no morals just because they are atheists,” you are lying.

    You still want to lie and claim that atheism is something else other than the lack of belief in a god.

    Trying to cast a disagreement as a lie is symptomatic of primitive thinking. Look, there is no consensus among atheists that atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god. If atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god, are you admitting that pedophilia is atheistic since it too doesn’t involve a belief in god?

  33. Dhay says:

    Back in February 2019 Michael Shermer, in an e-mail to Jerry Coyne about the death or otherwise of New Atheism, wanted atheism to be privately (“to us”) ‘lack of belief in a deity’, but publicly (defining ourselves to believers and “faitheists”) a long, long litany of much else:

    … One problematic aspect of the “atheist” label is that believers and “faitheists” (as you so effectively call atheists who believe in belief—for others, of course), is that we allow others to define us by what we don’t believe. That will never suffice. We must define ourselves by what we do believe: science, philosophy, reason, logic, empiricism and all the tools of the scientific method, along with civil rights, civil liberties, women’s rights, gay rights, animal rights, and moral progress as a result of these components of our worldview, which might better be described as humanism or one of its variants: secular humanism, Enlightenment humanism, or as I’m now suggesting, Scientific Humanism, the subject of my final Scientific American column.

    Defining ourselves by what we do believe prevents believers and faitheists from calling us “atheists” and then attacking whatever that word means to them, instead of what it means to us (namely, a lack of belief in a deity, full stop).

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/02/16/michael-shermers-take-on-the-question-is-new-atheism-dead/

    Shermer’s message looks rather garbled, both linguistically and logically, to me; so please do chip in if you make better sense of this apparent only/plus,plus,plus contradiction than I do.

    *

    For Hemant Mehta, it appears, atheism and Republicanism are incompatible, and no true atheist should be a Republican.

    https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/09/25/republican-atheists-group-celebrates-congressman-who-trashed-atheists/

    What does Mehta’s implicit definition-by-usage of “atheism” entail? Presumably it includes the minimalist ‘lack of belief in a deity’ definition, but Mehta expands on it by insisting that a “real” atheist is someone who is pro-science (a dog-whistle for certain Democratic party policies), pro-LGBTQ rights (dog-whistle), pro-abortion (dog-whistle), pro- church/state separation (dog-whistle) and anti- “whatever-conservative-Christians-want” (dog-whistle); in short, in Mehta’s eyes a true atheist seems to be someone who responds to a litany of Democratic Party dog-whistles.

    If I’m reading Mehta right, any atheist who is a Republican is just a pretend atheist, someone using the A-word merely to get attention, with no sign that they are real atheists (who in Mehta’s mind are, apparently, necessarily Democrats.)

    So in practice there’s (at least) two widely different definitions of “atheism”: there’s the minimalist definition pulled from some dictionary or other and/or the usage of some atheists; and there’s Mehta’s and Myers’ ‘votes Democrat and supports a wide range of Democratic policies’ addition.

    Whether the famously Libertarian Shermer is proposing a third definition I can but guess.

  34. So you are “pointing out irony” now? That doesn’t track with what you’ve claimed before.
    Yes, in Christian theology there is a reason that Christ died on the cross. There are actually a couple of reasons that Christians claim: forgiving of original sin, forgiving of our current sins, and appeasing this god for what it caused. You don’t want to discuss it since it will lead to more examination of the failures and false claims of the bible.
    Your bible has that your god said the things I wrote: “women are property/second class citizens; children can be killed for the actions of their parents, men can have multiple wives/concubines, slaves are property, young girls can be forced into sex slavery after you murder their parents and brothers,” You’re right, many Christians don’t advocate that stuff since we have far better morals now than humans did in the past and humans now have decided to ignore the problematic bits of their bible when they want to claim that their god is the source of objective morals. If what this god commanded was objective and you believed that, then you should have no problem with following what this god supposedly demanded. Objective things don’t change. You do just like any Christian does, you make your god and your religion in your own image, cherry picking your way through what you want your god to have said and ignoring the inconvenient bits.
    The commands against adultery are no more important or divinely “true” than the other parts of the bible you don’t like. There is no moral “truth” about adultery, but it does make people hurt less and make families and civilization more stable, so most humans find adultery bad since it is a breaking of trust. No god needed at all.
    Again, you were not speculating, you were trying to make believe that atheism somehow gives freedom to act. You still have yet to release your false claim that atheism somehow leads to certain actions. That’s just more Christian claiming that atheist are somehow without morals. Yes, I know you said “probably” and that is the usual thing that theists like you do so you can cast aspersions and try to not be held accountable for your false claims.

    Showing that you lie isn’t an ad hominem attack. Saying that since you dress funny, you are wrong is an ad hominem attack. You still can’t figure that out either evidently. No one said that you were lying about Krauss’s actions. You are lying when you try to establish a causation between atheism and certain actions. But nice try to avoid responsibility for what you’ve done and make further false claims against me. We see you try your best to try to establish a link between atheism and certain actions that you want to claim are amoral. I know you don’t like that I can draw a line in what you are doing, just like what other theists are doing with the same story about Krauss. We have you and other Christians saying in effect: Oh look, an atheist who did something harmful, oh look he did it because he is an atheist, oh look his rationality didn’t keep him from doing this.” Or in a more formal form: Presupposition: atheists have no morals. Krauss is an atheist. Krauss committed adultery. Therefore, atheism causes adultery.

    You have yet to show that atheism is something else other than the lack of belief in a god isn’t a disagreement. It is you ignoring the definition of a word, and ignoring that atheists don’t all commit adultery so atheism isn’t a cause of adultery. And nice try to claim I have “primitive thinking”. And my, now you want to claim this nonsense “Look, there is no consensus among atheists that atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god.” Wow, a Christian who has decided to deny what a word means that has a common definition in all dictionaries.

    It’s so wonderful that you try something so incredible inept as this, Michael: “If atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god, are you admitting that pedophilia is atheistic since it too doesn’t involve a belief in god?”

    Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Pedophila is “a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child”. You want to claim now that pedophila is atheistic because it doesn’t involve a belief in your god. Hmmm, we could rewrite your silliness as “If atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god, are you admitting that playing soccer is atheistic since it too doesn’t involve a belief in god?” See how silly you are? Playing soccer is no more atheistic than pedophilia since neither is concerned with a god at all.

    Thanks, Michael, I couldn’t have made a theist look more ridiculous than you have.

  35. Kevin says:

    we have far better morals now than humans did in the past

    Atheists keep forgetting morals are one hundred percent subjective under their own belief system.

    Today’s morals are different, not “better”, unless you arbitrarily claim a standard by which to compare the two and say that one meets that standard better than the other.
    Of course, since that standard isn’t objective either, you’re left with absolutely no grounds to accuse anyone from a moral standpoint. What you think is moral or not is merely your opinion, and no one is obligated to agree with you in order to be a moral person.

  36. nsr says:

    Another perfect example of how the moral argument shoots atheism stone dead every time. When they need to defend their own life choices, morality is subjective. When they want to criticise someone else’s, suddenly it becomes objective again.

  37. Ilíon says:

    Atheists keep forgetting morals are one hundred percent subjective under their own belief system.

    It’s not so much that they keep forgetting their own assertions about the nature of morality, as that they never believed the assertions in the first place. That’s one of the problems with trying to maintain a public facade of what you know to be false: you keep slipping up and saying what you know to be true.

  38. FZM says:

    Atheists keep forgetting morals are one hundred percent subjective under their own belief system.

    Certainly true if they say things like this:

    There is no moral “truth” about adultery, but it does make people hurt less and make families and civilization more stable, so most humans find adultery bad since it is a breaking of trust. No god needed at all.

    The consequences of believing that there is no moral truth about adultery:

    Hurting people is bad and you should avoid doing it; untrue. Familial and civilizational instability aught to be avoided; untrue. Breaking trust should be avoided or is in someway bad; untrue.

    People might feel empathy for others and not do it, or fear others will inflict pain on them if they do. But it is also untrue that lacking this kind of empathy is bad and untrue that hurting others makes a person in any way defective.

    That’s one of the problems with trying to maintain a public facade of what you know to be false: you keep slipping up and saying what you know to be true.

    I think you are right here Ilion, there is a theory and then the facts, and in fact people act and think as if there is a moral truth about adultery.

  39. TFBW says:

    Hurting people is bad and you should avoid doing it; untrue.

    It’s worse than this. In the absence of moral truth, the statement isn’t false but rather just meaningless, because the predicate “is bad” no longer signifies anything. You can’t make a moral assertion unless moral truth exists, so the mere act of saying that something “is bad” (in the moral sense) is a performative denial of the assertion that there is no moral truth. For consistency with the premise of no moral truth, “is bad” must be replaced with a term that’s not tied to the concept of moral truth, such as “is objectionable to me”. The word “should” falls on similar hard times: it is tied to the concept of moral duty, which presupposes moral truth. Thus, you could say, “hurting people is objectionable to me and I want you not to do it,” and this would be compatible with the non-existence of moral truth, but it also leaves the statement exposed as the not-an-argument it really is.

  40. Ilíon says:

    some incoherent moral anti-realist:… so most humans find adultery bad since it is a breaking of trust. No god needed at all.

    TFBW:You can’t make a moral assertion unless moral truth exists, so the mere act of saying that something “is bad” (in the moral sense) is a performative denial of the assertion that there is no moral truth.

    Notice that even the phrase “a breaking of trust” is an assertion of moral realism; and, in fact, it is all but an assertion of Christian moral realism. For, the foundation of Christian moral realism is ‘love‘ and ‘trust‘. The two concepts are inextricable; they may well be but different ways of looking at the same thing.

    TFBW:The word “should” falls on similar hard times: it is tied to the concept of moral duty, which presupposes moral truth.

    And there is *always* a hidden “should” in the assertions of the moral relativists/denialists/anti-realists; if not in the premises (to the limited extent that they attempt to argue), then in the application of the conclusion or (mere) assertion.

    Thus, in some recent thread here, I posted the idea that one may force this hidden “should” to be revealed by saying something along the lines of, “On the one hand, you have convinced me that there is no God, and ‘morality’ is just a human social convention. But, on the other hand, I am going to continue to try to convince people to believe that God is, and that ‘morality’ refers to transcendent facts beyond any human social conventions.

  41. Ilíon says:

    clubschadenfreude: “[blah, exceedingly lengthy blah]”

    My point here is that — as is customary with God-haters — clubschadenfreude writes interminable posts — frequently from a basis of moral assertions (feel the irony) — attacking his misrepresentations of Christianity and/or the Bible … as a means of muddying the waters and dancing around the reality that God-denial gives us a false view of the nature (and content) of reality.

    My point is that so long as a person denies the reality of The Creator, he really has nothing to say.

  42. nsr says:

    If morality is based solely on empathy then does that mean people with no empathy (Ted Bundy, for instance) can do whatever they like?

  43. Michael says:

    Club: Showing that you lie isn’t an ad hominem attack.

    More ad hominems. You have not shown me to lie. You may be of the personal opinion that you have done such a thing, but even then, you would be all alone. IN YOUR MIND, you have “shown” that I lie. But I did not. Normally, I’d point out that you are thus mistaken. But if I am to use clubschadenfreude logic, I have to point out that you are lying. You say I am lying when I am not. Thus, you are lying. You say you have shown that I am lying when you have failed to do so. Thus, you are lying.

    And imagine that. A lying atheist here to accuse others of lying. With the lying comes hypocrisy.

    Since you are so quick to accuse others of lying, let’s explore you atheistic sense of morality. Begin with a simple question – Is it always wrong to lie?

  44. Michael says:

    Club: So you are “pointing out irony” now? That doesn’t track with what you’ve claimed before.

    Yes, the irony of some pompous atheist preaching about how religious morality is outmoded and needs to be replaced by a morality rooted in reason, yet also setting his career and reputation on flames because he chose to dismiss the notion that adultery is wrong.

    Yes, in Christian theology there is a reason that Christ died on the cross. There are actually a couple of reasons that Christians claim: forgiving of original sin, forgiving of our current sins, and appeasing this god for what it caused. You don’t want to discuss it since it will lead to more examination of the failures and false claims of the bible.

    Nah. I just don’t think you are capable of exploring this issue in an open- and fair-minded manner (as there is no evidence you can). So it’s not a good use of limited time.

    Your bible has that your god said the things I wrote: “women are property/second class citizens; children can be killed for the actions of their parents, men can have multiple wives/concubines, slaves are property, young girls can be forced into sex slavery after you murder their parents and brothers,” You’re right, many Christians don’t advocate that stuff since we have far better morals now than humans did in the past and humans now have decided to ignore the problematic bits of their bible when they want to claim that their god is the source of objective morals. If what this god commanded was objective and you believed that, then you should have no problem with following what this god supposedly demanded. Objective things don’t change. You do just like any Christian does, you make your god and your religion in your own image, cherry picking your way through what you want your god to have said and ignoring the inconvenient bits.

    No, two principles are in play. First, I happen to think that the writings of one of the first Christians, someone named Paul, are very helpful in understanding what the Mosaic Law was about. Consider it essential context. Second, I don’t confuse objective with universal. Say, for example, that God told you to go down to the pet rescue center and get a puppy. Does that mean God is telling everyone to get a puppy? Would that mean I’m supposed to get one too? I think not.

    The commands against adultery are no more important or divinely “true” than the other parts of the bible you don’t like.

    The commands against adultery persist throughout the entire Bible. Found in the Ten Commandments, taught again by Jesus, and taught again by Paul. And in all cases, it’s taught as something that applies to all. As for children who can be killed for the actions of their parents, I don’t detect that as a persistent, universal theme.

    There is no moral “truth” about adultery, but it does make people hurt less and make families and civilization more stable, so most humans find adultery bad since it is a breaking of trust. No god needed at all.

    Oh, but atheist Richard Dawkins argued that spouses who get jealous and angry because their husband cheated are the problem.

    Again, you were not speculating, you were trying to make believe that atheism somehow gives freedom to act.

    Yes, I do think atheism can make it easier to sin. Even Dawkins seems to agree. From his new book: “Whether irrational or not, it does unfortunately seem plausible that, if somebody sincerely believes God is watching his every move, he might be more likely to be good.”

    You still have yet to release your false claim that atheism somehow leads to certain actions. That’s just more Christian claiming that atheist are somehow without morals.

    Here you go off the rails and read too much into my words. I am not claiming that atheism leads to certain actions. Nor am I claiming atheists don’t have morals. Those are straw men positions.

    Yes, I know you said “probably” and that is the usual thing that theists like you do so you can cast aspersions and try to not be held accountable for your false claims.

    I’m speculating about why such an intelligent man destroyed his career by doing such a stupid thing.

    No one said that you were lying about Krauss’s actions. You are lying when you try to establish a causation between atheism and certain actions.

    Once again, I am not trying to establish atheism as a cause for certain actions. You arguing with shadows in your own mind.

    We see you try your best to try to establish a link between atheism and certain actions that you want to claim are amoral.

    I was responding to a popular atheist who waves away religious morality and promises a morality rooted in reason.

    I know you don’t like that I can draw a line in what you are doing, just like what other theists are doing with the same story about Krauss.

    It’s pretty creepy that you think I’m worried because you draw lines that expose me. In reality, you are living in some type of delusional La La Land where your atheist identity is begging to be offended.

    We have you and other Christians saying in effect: Oh look, an atheist who did something harmful, oh look he did it because he is an atheist, oh look his rationality didn’t keep him from doing this.”

    No, it’s more like, “Oh look, a pompous atheist who mocks religious morality and promises a morality based on reason just set his career and reputation on fire because of his own immoral behavior. Then, for fun, we can point out that if he had only obeyed the Sixth Commandment, he might still be making big bucks on the speaking tours as Dawkins’ sidekick. Maybe he should not have been so quick to dismiss all that religious morality.

    Finally, it’s not clear whether you answered my question:

    “If atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god, are you admitting that pedophilia is atheistic since it too doesn’t involve a belief in god?”

    Oh, and I noticed that many others have replied to you. Is there a reason you are ignoring them? Don’t you think that is kind of rude?

  45. Ilíon says:

    As I said, “… as a means of muddying the waters and dancing around the reality that God-denial gives us a false view of the nature (and content) of reality.

    Until a ‘atheist’ acknowledges that atheism is false, that God is, he has no standing at all to critique/condemn anything recorded in the Bible.

  46. Ilíon says:

    some incoherent God-hater, as quoted by our Host:… children can be killed for the actions of their parents …

    our Host:As for children who can be killed for the actions of their parents, I don’t detect that as a persistent, universal theme.

    Amusingly, the specific ancient Bronze Age scriptures under being condemned by the incoherent God-hater actually issue a general prohibition against killing the descendants for the actions of the ancestors. As is so often the case with the God-haters’ condemnations of this one specific set of ancient Bronze Age scriptures, this prohibition is in striking, indeed shocking, contrast to the general practice of mankind over time and space and culture.

  47. FZM says:

    nsr,

    If morality is based solely on empathy then does that mean people with no empathy (Ted Bundy, for instance) can do whatever they like?

    It means what they do can’t be morally wrong. Other people might not like it though and hurt or kill them as a result, but this wouldn’t be morally wrong either if it didn’t conflict with their personal feelings of empathy.

    I don’t think relying on empathy is a viable alternative for realist morality.

    TFBW,

    Thus, you could say, “hurting people is objectionable to me and I want you not to do it,” and this would be compatible with the non-existence of moral truth, but it also leaves the statement exposed as the not-an-argument it really is.

    What seems to happen is that someone can in theory be committed to this (even if they don’t explore the question enough to formulate it as clearly), but I suspect most people reading it will intuitively read into it things like “hurting people is objectionable to me (…because it is wrong or bad…) and I want you not to do it (…because you shouldn’t)”. Those arguing against moral realism seem to spend no time at all being as clear as they can that this kind of intuitive understanding needs to be ruled out, in fact they often seem to rely on its presence to give their ‘moral’ claims credibility.

  48. Ilíon says:

    ^ exactly

  49. Again, Michael, you seem to need to imagine that atheists are all the same, and your presupposition has you repeatedly failing.

    Then we have you trying to lie about me and insisting that I can’t discuss something in an “open and fair-minded manner”. That’s such a lovely excuse that you’ve invented for yourself and it does an excellent job that you have no problem in ignoring your bible when its inconvenient. It does say that lying about others is a no-no in several places, Exodus 20, Romans 3, etc. It doesn’t bother me at all that you ignore your bible.

    The writings of Paul do help with mosaic law, and to show how that, in needing a new audience, Paul ignored the laws when convenient and kept those that he wanted, just like any Christian. It’s always so fun when a Christian insists that they can ignore some parts of Paul’s letter while insisting that other parts are required for every Christian to follow.
    Hmmm, so we can ignore the parts in Paul that were written to the Romans since he must have only mean the Romans had to hate homosexuals, right? OR is that part of the letter he/this god “really” wanted everyone to follow?

    Yep, moral commands are throughout the bible, and aren’t any more important or divinely true than other parts of the bible you don’t like. And it’s fabulous to see so many Christians ignoring then when it comes to supporting politicians. That adultery is repeated is no surprise, other commands are too.

    No one cares what your willful ignorance says, Michael. There is killing children for the actions of the parents as a persistent universal theme through the bible. I do love when you try to play word games to excuse your cherry picking. We have repeatedly that this god harms children for the actions of their parents, and then we get Christians making up things like it was “more humane” to kill them. Its in the OT and its in the NT in that mess called Revelation.

    Who cares what Dawkins says? Again, Michael, you are just lying again to try to pretend that atheists worship other atheists.

    Finally, you do admit that you think that atheism causes certain behaviors. And since not all atheists do these behaviors, you have nothing more than a false claim. Again, I don’t care what Dawkins says. It may be plausible, it may not be. IN any case, actions speak louder than words. Here is what Dawkins says in context: “God eyes are watching me so I’d better be good’ Perhaps it is an automatic subconscious effect. Like the effect of Melissa’s eyes on paper (in any case you’re wondering, by the way, she did the necessary sums ot show the results was unlikely to be due to chance”).
    “Whether irrational or not, it does unfortunately seem plausible that, if someone sincerely believes in God is watching his every move, he might be more likely to be good.”

    Then Dawkins goes on to say that it may not be just belief in a god watching you, but the threat of hell that change behavior. Then he goes onto write “Terrifying as hell is, there doesn’t seem to be much clear evidence that religion makes people behave either better or worse.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=q1qBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=%E2%80%9CWhether+irrational+or+not,+it+does+unfortunately+seem+plausible+that,+if+somebody+sincerely+believes+God+is+watching+his+every+move,+he+might+be+more+likely+to+be+good.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=3BiP4e0UQu&sig=ACfU3U1Po-BIHRg7G0MAjKNCb_yUaPWgCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ6ITLhpzlAhUlmeAKHQ4pDroQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CWhether%20irrational%20or%20not%2C%20it%20does%20unfortunately%20seem%20plausible%20that%2C%20if%20somebody%20sincerely%20believes%20God%20is%20watching%20his%20every%20move%2C%20he%20might%20be%20more%20likely%20to%20be%20good.%E2%80%9D&f=false

    Of course, you want to now claim I read too much into your claims. Nope, you have claimed that atheism leads to certain actions, like adultery. You claim this “Yes, I do think atheism can make it easier to sin” which means atheism can make it easier for certain actions e.g. “sin”.

    So, do atheists have morals, Michael? You say you aren’t claiming that they don’t.
    People can be stupid when emotions are involved and atheism doesn’t prevent, and no one has “destroyed” his career. Such wishful thinking.

    “I am not trying to establish atheism as a cause for certain actions.” And then we have “Yes, I do think atheism can make it easier to sin”. No shadows at all. And no, you weren’t just addressing a “popular atheist”, you were trying to attack atheism “If Krauss is correct, he has given us good reason to think his atheism and scientism is a myth”

    I’m not bothered with exposing your false claims at all, Michael. And the only thing “creepy” here is your inability to read what you’ve written. It’s always cute to see some one who has consistent made false claims now trying to blame the victim with one more false claim that I’m looking to be offended. That’s such a classic bully’s excuse.

    Well, I suppose you can retcon what you’ve said all you want, Michael. It would have worked if you hadn’t decided to claim that all of atheism was affected by one person’s actions. When you fall into the false claim that somehow famous atheists are all atheists, you fail.

    Ah, still trying so hard to associate atheism and pedophilia. Such a TrueChristian™ you are! You said this ““If atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god, are you admitting that pedophilia is atheistic since it too doesn’t involve a belief in god?”

    Here is my response that you seem to be trying to ignore for some reason “Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Pedophila is “a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child”. You want to claim now that pedophila is atheistic because it doesn’t involve a belief in your god. Hmmm, we could rewrite your silliness as “If atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god, are you admitting that playing soccer is atheistic since it too doesn’t involve a belief in god?” See how silly you are? Playing soccer is no more atheistic than pedophilia since neither is concerned with a god at all.”

    So, is soccer “atheistic”, Michael? Why or why not?

    I didn’t respond to other people because their responses to me haven’t shown up in my wordpress feed of comments. I’m guessing that they actually responded to your comment in the string of comments and I can’t see them because of that. But I’ll respond to them if you’d like.

  50. and again, where are these “ad hominems” and do explain how they work with the definition of what an “ad hominem” argument is.

    IF you cannot, then all we have again is your intentional action to make a false claim.

    I do love that we’re now back to Micheal’s insistence that atheism has something to do with morality. And this is after you’ve claimed that you’ve never said that atheists don’t have morals.

    It is not always wrong to lie: see Anne Frank. The bible has repeatedly that this god says it is always wrong to lie (summed up nicely in Romans 3). You have lied.

    Hmmmm.

  51. I commented on this michael. It has a link with what Dawkins said in his new book. I will be back to see if you’ve released my post.

  52. “Oh, and I noticed that many others have replied to you. Is there a reason you are ignoring them? Don’t you think that is kind of rude?”

    So, Michael, those posts are in moderation. Are you intentionally keeping them there do you can falsely claim I’ve not responded to people?

  53. “Oh, and I noticed that many others have replied to you. Is there a reason you are ignoring them? Don’t you think that is kind of rude?”

    those posts have not shown up since you are holding them in moderation. Are you intentionally holding them so you can make a false accusation as above?

  54. Michael says:

    Let’s focus on one of club’s paragraphs as it nicely illustrates the problem.

    I originally stated, “In Christian theology, there is a reason Christ died on the cross. But I don’t sense a productive discussion with you about such matters.” Club responded, “You don’t want to discuss it since it will lead to more examination of the failures and false claims of the bible.” So I replied, “Nah. I just don’t think you are capable of exploring this issue in an open- and fair-minded manner (as there is no evidence you can). So it’s not a good use of limited time.”

    And now to Club’s latest response:

    Then we have you trying to lie about me and insisting that I can’t discuss something in an “open and fair-minded manner”. That’s such a lovely excuse that you’ve invented for yourself and it does an excellent job that you have no problem in ignoring your bible when its inconvenient. It does say that lying about others is a no-no in several places, Exodus 20, Romans 3, etc. It doesn’t bother me at all that you ignore your bible.

    According to club, when I wrote, “Nah. I just don’t think you are capable of exploring this issue in an open- and fair-minded manner (as there is no evidence you can),” I was telling more lies about him.

    Yet, in reality, club is leading with his chin and twisting my words to do so. Expressing the opinion “I just don’t think” becomes me “insisting.”

    What’s more, I was clearly focused on “exploring this issue.” Club turned that into “something.”

    According to club, I insisted that he can’t discuss something/anything in an open and fair-minded manner. In reality, I was simply explaining that I personally don’t think he can discuss this issue an open- and fair-minded manner, which is why “I don’t sense a productive discussion with you about such matters.” I guess having that opinion makes me a damn, filthy liar in club’s eyes.

    But here’s the thing. Is there anyone out there who thinks club can have an open- and fair-minded discussion about Christian theology? Anyone? ANYONE?

    Didn’t think so. As I noted, there is no evidence club can carry out an open- and fair-minded discussion about Christian theology. None.
    Zero. Zilch. Nada.

    As far as I am concerned, club is done here. His primary purpose for posting here seems to be all about coming up with ways to twist and reshape my words and points so he can condemn me as “lying.”

    Of course, if club can find evidence of his ability to be fair and open-minded about these issues, I’ll let that evidence see the light of day.

    Along with the unicorns.

  55. Michael says:

    and again, where are these “ad hominems” and do explain how they work with the definition of what an “ad hominem” argument is.

    Rather than address the points I raised, you personally attack me as a liar. To turn me into a liar, you have to change the meaning of my words and somehow read my mind.

    Given the way you read between the lines and twist my words, the person who is most likely to be lying around here is clubschadenfreude.

  56. Ilíon says:

    O, now! club is clearly so good at reading between the lines of what you write that he doesn’t *need* to read what you actually write.

    ANYONE?

    What we’ve seen is a demonstration, in real-time, of the truth of my position that until a God-denier — and that includes the so-called ‘agnostics’ — admits that God-denial is false, he has no place at “the grown-ups’ table.”

  57. Jane Ravenswood says:

    Grand to see evidence of a Christian trying to lie about another person on the blog Club Schadenfreude in the post Christians say the darndest things.

    I’m happy to say that I’m club schadenfreude and Vel.

  58. Dhay says:

    > It does say that lying about others is a no-no in several places, Exodus 20, Romans 3…

    > The bible has repeatedly that this god says it is always wrong to lie (summed up nicely in Romans 3).

    That’s an impressive level of non-comprehension.

  59. John Branyan says:

    If you read the description of the people riding the bus in C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”, you’ll find them all to be Clubschadenfreude. She is depravity wrapped in skin. In my numerous conversations with her, I’ve never noticed even a trace of kindness, patience, gentleness, self-control, joy, or rationality. I’ve continued to allow her to comment on my blog because she helpfully demonstrates the futility of a godless worldview. When I say atheism makes people insane, many Christians think I’m just being dramatic. Club always proves that I’m not.

  60. Ilíon says:

    The reason that “atheism makes people insane” is because the ‘atheist’ has to continuously lie to herself (*) about the nature of reality (**) in order to maintain the pretense of honestly believing that God is not.

    (*) I used ‘herself’ in mockery of those namby-pamby people who like to lie to themselves that “gender inclusive language” is motivated by anything other than hatred of men … and who are always careful to use the incorrect-for-English pronoun only when reflecting positively on the generic person referred.

    (**) If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then certain other facts logically follow from that First Fact. However, not only do we not observe those logically entailed facts when we consider ourselves and the world around us, but we observe the opposite of what we should observe were it true that God is not.

  61. Dhay says:

    In his 22 October 2019 blog post entitled “Atheism as a fandom” PZ Myers berates those “insular atheists” who claim that “all atheism is is a disbelief in god”:

    Have you ever heard an atheist declare that “all atheism is is a disbelief in god”? Think about it. That’s an argument that’s going to win no one over; it’s certainly not going to persuade anyone outside the core fandom that “Hmm, maybe I ought to give that a try”. Yet it’s the go-to claim of insular atheists to shut down any substantive discussion of goals and principles!

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/10/22/atheism-as-a-fandom/

    I presume that that last sentence refers to those atheists seeking to shut down substantive discussion of morality.

    It’s just his opinion, of course, but he used to have a huge following among atheists, he was an opinion leader whose opinion carried huge weight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.