Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[Lion IRC]

It's not a logical fallacy to associate atheism with totalitarian communism.
Communism practically depends upon the suppression of religion.

Neither is it a logical fallacy to argue that (since) atheism entails the total absence of;

a) A transcendent, absolute moral umpire of equally transcendent and enforceable moral laws
b) An inevitible, inescapable afterlife punishment of sin/evil

...therefore atheism has no basis on which to oppose the excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b).

In fact atheism is often seen in the midst of unfettered will-to-power and the sort of hedonism one would expect from a society that lives like there's no tomorrow.

This claim is not a tu quoque. Atheists shouldn't be embarassed about humans with selfish genes.
And I don't imagine bonobo apes are ashamed of their perfectly natural behaviour either.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not a logical fallacy to associate atheism with totalitarian communism.
Communism practically depends upon the suppression of religion.

Neither is it a logical fallacy to argue that (since) atheism entails the total absence of;

a) A transcendent, absolute moral umpire of equally transcendent and enforceable moral laws
b) An inevitible, inescapable afterlife punishment of sin/evil

...therefore atheism has no basis on which to oppose the excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b).

In fact atheism is often seen in the midst of unfettered will-to-power and the sort of hedonism one would expect from a society that lives like there's no tomorrow.

This claim is not a tu quoque. Atheists shouldn't be embarassed about humans with selfish genes.
And I don't imagine bonobo apes are ashamed of their perfectly natural behaviour either.

I think you're completely wrong. Lenin/Mao style Communism is a result of Christians trying to be atheists. Communism is just a secular version of Christianity. But without the hypocrisy. That's where it fails.

"A transcendent, absolute moral umpire of equally transcendent and enforceable moral laws"

Sure, communism has this. It's called "scientific socialism". Marx argued that there are absolute and natural moral laws. But they're derived from nature. And just like Christianity, they're based on nothing but "Because I said so". Just like Christianity there's no way to figure out what this transcendent law is. No, the Bible is not the answer. Because you're stuck with proving that the Bible is the source of divine law. That's far from obvious. Soviet communism had their source of divine law, Marx's Das Kapital, which they creatively and cleverly re-interpreted whenever the need arose. If you study 19'th century communism it's striking how it's modelled on the Christian church. Each Christian institution is replaced by a communist equivalent. Complete with priests and everything.

"An inevitible, inescapable afterlife punishment of sin/evil"

Communism has this as well. It's called the collective. By becoming a member of the collective your would be part of a divine and eternal body that would live on forever. Communism makes as little sense as Christianity in this regard. Also, completely without any logical or evidential support.

And if you study Communist roots this link becomes all the more apparent. The first totalitarian moral collectives were born in the reformation. They all rejected materialism. Only someone hard working and poor can attain salvation. Calvinism was first I think. From their it spread. Evangelical religion is part of this tradition. The Boxer rebellion in China was led by Christian revolutionary. Albeit, a really weird version. It's often forgotten that Christianity has been going strong in China about as long as in Europe. The leader called himself the second coming of Jesus. It was collective, enforced poverty and totalitarian.

Communists have nothing in common with rationalist atheists. Because they are two completely different traditions. Rationalist atheism stems from liberalism. It's all about freeing the thought. Both communism and Christianity is about controlling the thought. Which is why when France became atheistic, what happened? We got totalitarianism and the "reign of terror". All due to it's Christian traditions.

Nah, Communism IS Christianity. It's the same shit with a different name. Far far removed from any free thinking rationalist type atheism.

In fact atheism is often seen in the midst of unfettered will-to-power and the sort of hedonism one would expect from a society that lives like there's no tomorrow.

Step 1) Read Nietzsche
step 2) understand Nietzsche
step 3) ask about the stuff you don't understand
step 4) use Nietzsche's concepts in a sentence.

Nietzsche was not a hedonist. He's way way deeper than that. Look up "affirmative nihilism" if you care. "Will to power" is just the strive all life has. It's the inbuilt instinct of everything. This theory comes from Darwinian evolutionary theory. But it's a pretty empty goal. Nietzsche recommends we try to break beyond it. That's where his affirmative nihilism comes in. We have instincts and we need to respect them. But with our advanced minds we can sublimate that drive, into more productive areas.

For example, Nietzsche sees our will to live forever in Heaven as the dumbest kind of will to power. It's the will to conquer death.

Please ask if there's more about Nietzsche you're unsure about

 

[Keith&Co.]

It strikes me right now, to wonder why the apologists are here?

On the Skeptics Annotated Bible, there were various flavors of Christain posting there are any given time. But I noticed that while they would all join a thread to pound on a perceived atheist mistake, they studiously avoided attacking each other's heresies.
Pretribulationists would threaten us with a rather specific horrific future, and postrtribuluationists would threaten us with a different but still specific fate, but neither would point out the other's doctrinal errors., or misreadings of scripture, or failings of tradition. It's like, as long as you're christain ENOUGH to beat up an atheist, we won't get involved.

They certainly wouldn't defend another faith's heresies, but they wouldn't attack them, either. Seemed like they didn't want to show any cracks between the traditions where the atheists might see.

Creationists, of course, would not hesitate to calibrate evolutionists AND creationists who were incorrect in their age of their earth, their rationale for beating up dating techniques, their various attributions to various authority. Seems it was more important for them to be right than to present an apparently unified face against the evolutionist threat.


But here, this is just 'tell us something stupid some Christain said that got your goat' or 'made you roll your eyes' or 'stunned you with the level of stupidity.'

Why would anyone feel a need to challenge that? Why the draw to rebut something so stupid, whether it's a commonly offered or rarely voiced opinion?

 

[Treedbear]

It's not a logical fallacy to associate atheism with totalitarian communism.
Communism practically depends upon the suppression of religion.

Neither is it a logical fallacy to argue that (since) atheism entails the total absence of;

a) A transcendent, absolute moral umpire of equally transcendent and enforceable moral laws
b) An inevitible, inescapable afterlife punishment of sin/evil

...therefore atheism has no basis on which to oppose the excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b). ...

That's like the pot calling the kettle black. Its only use is as an argument for theists to beat up on atheists. Theistic governments are the originators of totalitarianism. Theism only works within a secular democracy.

 

[Rayschism]

What kills people in countries like the former Soviet Union, is not economic policies or religious or non religious beliefs, its Authoritarianism and statism.

Which is the authority of the state can do no wrong and you must obey or be stomped. Which is a behavior that noi one country has a monopoly on.

I sometimes wonder if this authoritarianism is just another form of absolute morality.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Christopher Hitchen's apptly pointed out that the society that best lives up to Christian ideals is North Korea. How more totalitarian could a state be, than one where your thoughts are read.

And has no Christian ever wondered what the cult of personality around God and Jesus is? It's just like the cults of personality around communist leaders. They turned out to be... well... evil. If God really existed, what chances do you think that God might also be evil? If God was a stand-up guy, why all the propaganda to say that he is? Shouldn't that be self-evident?

Where's the Christians trying to convince us God isn't evil? I think its something that needs arguing for?

 

[blastula]

It's not a logical fallacy to associate atheism with totalitarian communism.

Communism practically depends upon the suppression of religion.



Neither is it a logical fallacy to argue that (since) atheism entails the total absence of;



a) A transcendent, absolute moral umpire of equally transcendent and enforceable moral laws

b) An inevitible, inescapable afterlife punishment of sin/evil



...therefore atheism has no basis on which to oppose the excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b).



In fact atheism is often seen in the midst of unfettered will-to-power and the sort of hedonism one would expect from a society that lives like there's no tomorrow.



This claim is not a tu quoque. Atheists shouldn't be embarassed about humans with selfish genes.

And I don't imagine bonobo apes are ashamed of their perfectly natural behaviour either.

CHECKMATE AHEISTS!

 

[abaddon]

.... Neither is it a logical fallacy to argue that (since) atheism entails the total absence of;

a) A transcendent, absolute moral umpire of equally transcendent and enforceable moral laws
b) An inevitible, inescapable afterlife punishment of sin/evil

...therefore atheism has no basis on which to oppose the excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b).

It's a logical fallacy, and idiotic, to conclude "no basis on which to oppose" [the behavior of totalitarians] from a "total absence" of totalitarian ethics and fear of a celestial totalitarian.

In fact atheism is often seen in the midst of unfettered will-to-power ...

The will to power is about vitality. It has nothing to do with the subjugation of other people. It's psychological and applied to oneself, it's not political.

"Here we must avoid a major and frequent misunderstanding: the will to power has nothing to do with a lust for power in the world, a desire to occupy some important position or other. It refers to something quite different. It is the will to intensity of experience, the will to avoid at all cost the internal wrenchings that I have described, which by definition diminish us, so the the powers cancel each other and the life inside us stagnates and weakens." (Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought, pg. 176).

and the sort of hedonism one would expect from a society that lives like there's no tomorrow.

But there is always a tomorrow. This is a feature of Christianity that made it different from many heathens of earlier times and later times too: the me-centeredness of it. The Greek Stoics found a strong enough sense of immortality in the fact they're part of nature and can align their values to accord with how nature is. They survive death in the sense they don't just exit instantly from out of nature at the change of state called "death". Christians basically said "screw that! I, me, my personal self, wants to live forever as ME!" So they put the promise of the thing they wanted into the mouth of a "personal savior". The religion is a variety of egotism that says a big Fuck You to reality, for hating it and wishing it into being very different than it is.

This claim is not a tu quoque. Atheists shouldn't be embarassed about humans with selfish genes.
And I don't imagine bonobo apes are ashamed of their perfectly natural behaviour either.

"Selfish genes" don't justify selfish people. You know that, right?

 

[Rayschism]

It's not a logical fallacy to associate atheism with totalitarian communism.
Communism practically depends upon the suppression of religion.

Neither is it a logical fallacy to argue that (since) atheism entails the total absence of;

a) A transcendent, absolute moral umpire of equally transcendent and enforceable moral laws
b) An inevitible, inescapable afterlife punishment of sin/evil

...therefore atheism has no basis on which to oppose the excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b).

In fact atheism is often seen in the midst of unfettered will-to-power and the sort of hedonism one would expect from a society that lives like there's no tomorrow.

This claim is not a tu quoque. Atheists shouldn't be embarassed about humans with selfish genes.
And I don't imagine bonobo apes are ashamed of their perfectly natural behaviour either.

Yes it is because it is a lie. It was not just religion that was oppressed within Authoritarian regimes, it is anybody who dared to disagree with the party line. None of that was logic, just trying to twist things against the atheist to make them out to be the bad guy.

Religious people always think of themselves as the only victims that matter. Absolutely nobody else does.

And besides, any belief can be a religion.

 

[abaddon]

It strikes me right now, to wonder why the apologists are here? ... I noticed that while they would all join a thread to pound on a perceived atheist mistake, they studiously avoided attacking each other's heresies.... Seems it was more important for them to be right than to present an apparently unified face against the evolutionist threat.

But here, this is just 'tell us something stupid some Christain said that got your goat' or 'made you roll your eyes' or 'stunned you with the level of stupidity.'

Why would anyone feel a need to challenge that? Why the draw to rebut something so stupid, whether it's a commonly offered or rarely voiced opinion?

They seem intent on displaying how rational they are. So it's important to find holes in 'atheist logic'. Inter-denominational squabbles wouldn't serve that purpose. I don't know if they're so much interested in being right as in being superior. Atheists unsettle their sense of certainty, they need to shore it up by proving they have rational grounds for their sense of certainty (and that atheists have none).

I'd respect Christians better if they admitted to a leap of faith. It'd be much more true to the heart of their religion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's not a logical fallacy to associate atheism with totalitarian communism.
Communism practically depends upon the suppression of religion.

And what of Rome or Tehran, where Christianity and Islam oppressed people. Seems like the issue isn't the religion as each was used to oppress, but rather people.

 

[Rayschism]

Also the oppression in modern day Africa. In 1994 Christians massacred 30,000 non Christians in Rwanda.

Some places in Africa even have police forces that specialize in finding witches.

 

[remez]

Show me the argument. Please be specific. Clear premises and conclusion.

Just scroll back.
You're misquoting the point made in this very thread for the purpose of pretending the claim is something other than the one actually made, just so you can scoff.
Which makes it clear to me there's no actual point in surfing the web to find an example of the idiocy, as you'll just intentionally weasel out of that, too.

really....

Just scroll back.
You're misquoting the point made in this very thread for the purpose of pretending the claim is something other than the one actually made, just so you can scoff.

I observed three statements cited as Christian arguments that were not actually Christian arguments. Followed by commentary that stated these alleged arguments were known lies. So I asked for a reference.

Why is it scoffing to ask for a citation?

Which makes it clear to me there's no actual point in surfing the web to find an example of the idiocy, as you'll just intentionally weasel out of that, too.

The context for your alleged Christian argument matters.
I have witnessed here on this board, counters that were offered against atheistic positions, presented as Christian arguments out of context. Producing a straw man of the actual Christian position.


Example; not long ago someone was trying to claim the WLC was arguing that since evolution does not account for morality then God exists. I asked for the reference and it turned out to be Greg Koukl (not WLC) solely offering the counter that evolution cannot account for morality. He was not arguing that since evolution could not account for morality therefore God exists. Straw man?

Is exposing a fallacy or in the case, exploring a potential fallacy, weaseling?

 

[remez]

And what killed people in USSR and China wasn't the atheism but the idiotic economic policies. You can have one without the other. Sweden is atheistic and our economic policies are doing just fine

Precisely, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. That would be like arguing that Christianity necessarily poisons everything.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why is it scoffing to ask for a citation?

Because you asked for a citation for a statement that was NOT made.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think you're completely wrong. Lenin/Mao style Communism is a result of Christians trying to be atheists.

You said it!
To become atheists.

In fact atheism is often seen in the midst of unfettered will-to-power and the sort of hedonism one would expect from a society that lives like there's no tomorrow.

Step 1) Read Nietzsche
step 2) understand Nietzsche
step 3) ask about the stuff you don't understand
step 4) use Nietzsche's concepts in a sentence.

1. I've read Niettsche. 2. He is pretty easy to understand. 3. Such as????
4. Ambition and achievement and striving to maximise ones own power is more important than obeying God.

...Nietzsche was not a hedonist.

Yes he was.
I think YOU should read moar.
FYI - not all hedonists agree on what is desirable. eg. Some hedonists are non-smokers.

...He's way way deeper than that.

Being "deep" is not the opposite of being a hedonist.

...Look up "affirmative nihilism" if you care.

No. I don't feel like being bored.

..."Will to power" is just the strive all life has.

'Just' the strive all life has. Ho hum. Move along folks nothing to see here. LOL
You seem pretty dismissive of Nietzsche.
You're not trying to disown him are you? LOL

...It's the inbuilt instinct of everything. This theory comes from Darwinian evolutionary theory.

You say that as if you are the first atheist I've ever met.
I am familiar with natural selection and survival of the strongest, fastest, smartest.
Why do you think our selfish hedonist Nietzsche was so in love with the idea?

.... But it's a pretty empty goal. Nietzsche recommends we try to break beyond it. That's where his affirmative nihilism comes in. We have instincts and we need to respect them. But with our advanced minds we can sublimate that drive, into more productive areas.

Not everyone has an advanced mind though, do they. Some are masters and some are slaves.
...still haven't met an atheist who could tell me WHY slavery is 'wrong'.
...still haven't met an atheist who can tell me Who endows humans with inalienable human rights.

...For example, Nietzsche sees our will to live forever in Heaven as the dumbest kind of will to power. It's the will to conquer death.

Of course he does.
He doesn't want to wind up at The Pearly Gates and discover that there is an even Higher Uberman.

...Please ask if there's more about Nietzsche you're unsure about

Um no. Thanks anyway but I don't need another random dude on the Internet to splain stuff.
I've got books instead.

 

[bilby]

It's not a logical fallacy to associate atheism with totalitarian communism.
Communism practically depends upon the suppression of religion.

Yes, it is most certainly a logical fallacy. You are Affirming the Consequent. Soviet Communism implies Atheism, but that does NOT mean that Atheism implies Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism implies callousness toward human suffering, but that does NOT mean that Atheism implies callousness toward human suffering.

You don't appear to have much of a grasp of what is or is not a logical fallacy.

Neither is it a logical fallacy to argue that (since) atheism entails the total absence of;

a) A transcendent, absolute moral umpire of equally transcendent and enforceable moral laws
b) An inevitible, inescapable afterlife punishment of sin/evil

...therefore atheism has no basis on which to oppose the excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b).

That's is also a logical fallacy; There is no reason to think that there exist "excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b)." - But you assume that these do exist. As you appear to be attempting to demonstrate that atheism 'has no basis on which to oppose the excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b)', this is a clear case of Begging the Question.

Again, you are making a fool of yourself by your clear failure to grasp what is or is not a logical fallacy.

In fact atheism is often seen in the midst of unfettered will-to-power and the sort of hedonism one would expect from a society that lives like there's no tomorrow.

Perhaps it is; But once again, to assume that Atheism causes 'unfettered will-to-power and the sort of hedonism one would expect from a society that lives like there's no tomorrow', would be Affirming the Consequent

This claim is not a tu quoque.

No, it's not; But that doesn't imply that it isn't logically fallacious, as I have pointed out above.

Atheists shouldn't be embarassed about humans with selfish genes.
And I don't imagine bonobo apes are ashamed of their perfectly natural behaviour either.

Selfish genes exist; They are no cause of embarrassment - and nor are they a cause of selfish humans. Your deep misunderstanding of this concept is leading you to some very poor conclusions - although it doesn't explain your equally poor grasp of logic and its attendant fallacies.

You need to learn how to use logic, unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself by presenting obvious logical fallacies prefaced with the phrase "It's not a logical fallacy to..."

 

[bilby]

This is an interesting claim:

a) A transcendent, absolute moral umpire of equally transcendent and enforceable moral laws
b) An inevitible, inescapable afterlife punishment of sin/evil

[...] atheism has no basis on which to oppose the excesses and atrocities which are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b)

What excesses and atrocities are logically permissible in the absence of a) and b)? I would argue that none are - the existence of a judge, and/or a punishment does not imply that the crimes that are judged and/or punished are permissible, moral, acceptable or allowable.

The idea that, in the absence of a God or other absolute judge of morality, anything goes, is a deeply flawed idea that only someone with a dreadfully weak grasp of logic could conclude. And even a person who is unable (or unwilling) to use logic to conclude that this must be false can simply use observation - The hypothesis makes the testable prediction that, where atheists are the majority, moral behaviour will always occur less frequently then it does where theists are the majority. Any instance of a majority atheist polity where high moral standards are commonplace (in comparison to the moral standards of polities with a majority of theists) disproves the hypothesis - and such instances are many. The entire nation of Sweden forms an excellent example of this.

In short, this claim is utter drivel; and it's very obviously utter drivel.

 

[DrZoidberg]

1. I've read Niettsche. 2. He is pretty easy to understand. 3. Such as????
4. Ambition and achievement and striving to maximise ones own power is more important than obeying God.

You've demonstrated that you didn't understand Nietzsche. So I guess he wasn't easy to understand for you.

I have no clue how you managed to take that away from his books. Are you sure you read the same books? Nietzsche isn't about gaining power. That's not what he means by "will to power". He doesn't uphold it as an ideal. It's just what happens. Nietzsche says that it's important to see that drive and remove yourself from being a slave to it, or a slave to anyone or anything.

Obeying God isn't about God. Since God doesn't exist. Obeying God is about obeying God's proxies. That's when you get situtations like obeying Kim Il Sung. It's better to teach people not to submit to anyone. That's what Nietzsche means. Obeying is easier than living. Life is hard. So it's easier to submit to another humans will. Which is what obeying God means in practice.

His ideal of the most successful human was Richard Wagner. Hardly a powerful man.

...It's the inbuilt instinct of everything. This theory comes from Darwinian evolutionary theory.

You say that as if you are the first atheist I've ever met.
I am familiar with natural selection and survival of the strongest, fastest, smartest.
Why do you think our selfish hedonist Nietzsche was so in love with the idea?

Lol. You have failed to grasp the most fundamental aspect of ToE. It's not strongest, fastest or smartest. It's the fitest.

I think your lack of understanding of Darwinian evolutionary theory has skewed your reading of Nietzsche. The Nazis did the same mistake. Because the Nazis were Christian.

I think it's easy for Christians to slide into this line of thinking because their main argument for why God should be obeyed is because God is powerful. He can beat anybody up.

Most often in evolution the most successful species is the one that cooperates the best, with other species and members of the same species. Because a cooperative species gains better fitness in the long run.

I suggest re-reading Nietzsche. I first read Nietzsche as a teenager, and got it all wrong. Then I re-read him as an adult and got it. You seem to need the same.

.... But it's a pretty empty goal. Nietzsche recommends we try to break beyond it. That's where his affirmative nihilism comes in. We have instincts and we need to respect them. But with our advanced minds we can sublimate that drive, into more productive areas.

Not everyone has an advanced mind though, do they. Some are masters and some are slaves.
...still haven't met an atheist who could tell me WHY slavery is 'wrong'.
...still haven't met an atheist who can tell me Who endows humans with inalienable human rights.

Nietzsche's moral theory is really simple. We're against anything that we don't want done towards us. If we don't want to be slaves, we're against slavery. But he also believed that if we're in positions of absolute power, it will start to corrupt us. That can explain why Catholic priests so often rape little boys. It's an unhealthy and corrupting relationship from the get go. And why people who have nothing have no moral problems with stealing other peoples stuff. Why people who hate themselves are dangerous and have less of a threshold to kill and hurt others.

For Nietzsche, if we want a moral society we just have to make sure to design a society where everybody is physically and mentally safe, everybody has stuff they value and want to keep and they have hope. If we do that we don't have to teach anybody anything. It'll just sort itself out by itself.

...For example, Nietzsche sees our will to live forever in Heaven as the dumbest kind of will to power. It's the will to conquer death.

Of course he does.
He doesn't want to wind up at The Pearly Gates and discover that there is an even Higher Uberman.

ha ha ha. That's not at all what Uberman means. Nietzsche is a moral relativist. He argues that most people are stuck in their little local area and compare themselves to others. If their neighbour has a prettier fence, it means that their fence is ugly. The Uberman has the ability to look a bit more dispassionately and objectively at things and can rise above local hang-ups. It's a metaphor. That's all Uberman means. He did NOT mean the Uberman is inherently superior to anybody else. The only reason that interpretation still hangs around is thanks to the Nazis. It's wrong, and a pretty bizarre interpretation of it.

...Please ask if there's more about Nietzsche you're unsure about

Um no. Thanks anyway but I don't need another random dude on the Internet to splain stuff.
I've got books instead.

I think you do need help. Because you don't seem to get it on your own.

 

[bigfield]

...still haven't met an atheist who could tell me WHY slavery is 'wrong'.

You're obviously full of shit. Anyone--whether they be atheist or theist, could tell you that all humans have a right to be free from slavery.

It's even included the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although that is not a requirement for something to be considered a human right.

...still haven't met an atheist who can tell me Who endows humans with inalienable human rights.

Humans endow humans with inalienable human rights. And over time, we change our minds about what things count as human rights. The very concept of human rights is incompatible with the notion of an absolute authority that defines our morality.

Christians are kidding themselves if they think their religion has anything to offer on the subject of human rights. Yahweh, like many other characters in the Bible, is an abuser of human rights, and the rules that Yahweh sets out are contradictory to human rights.