Theists Have the Best P.R. Machine Ever II

In keeping with my request in Denver, that people work on making sure theism and theistic religion have a reputation that is at least aligned with what they actually subscribe to and promote, here is part of an exchange I had with an “agnostic” (read: atheist who doesn’t know he’s an atheist), who was arguing against my anti-theistic positions. He is a great demonstration of how theistic P.R. can make even secular people unreasonable when it comes to religious considerations. His comments are in italic bold:

Hey is this a gang bang or what? If I went on a Catholic thread and criticized the Church’s absurd position on contraceptives, I would not have been attacked so.

A reply is not an attack.

 I happen to have an advanced degree in law and am considered extremely intelligent by those around me, so your ad hominem attacks are futile.

However well you may do in field-X does not make you expert or even reasonable in field-Y. Your law expertise has no bearing. Nor does your intelligence, as many people have areas about which they are irrational, even though they are otherwise intelligent. Francis Collins is certainly no slouch, and yet he believes in things he doesn’t dare try to promote in peer-review, because he recognizes the evidence is not on his side, as just one example.

I have not seen any ad hominems aimed at you so far. Calling you unreasonable, after demonstrating clear flaws in your reasoning is not an ad hominem. It is a conclusion, in the same way calling someone a racist after you have demonstrated from their arguments that they support segregation of the races is not a ad hominem, but a supported conclusion. They may not like being labeled a “racist,” but the label is not applied as an “attack,” but as a summation of what they have demonstrated.

Someone above pegged me…agnostic. Bingo. I know some atheists will equate themselves to agnostics others don’t.

Any person who cannot say “I accept it as true a god exists,” is an atheist (one who does not believe a god exists). I don’t know of any atheists who do not identify with this position. All atheists are required, in fact, to not believe a god exists. They may go on to assert no god exists, but they still also do not believe a god exists. You are asserting an agnostic does not believe a god exists—but that is undeniably also the atheist position.

Without splitting too fine of a hair, the atheists who are so hostile to theists are the ones certain there is no God, while other atheists adopt a more neutral position, like me.

Your “neutral” position is atheism. You may also call yourself agnostic if you like—as I noted, that’s a sloppy usage that has come into vogue due to disinformation from theists, mainly. But people do use it that way—so feel free. However, it is undeniable such people are defined accurately as atheists—most accurately.

For all the hostility you claim is aimed at theists by anti-theistic atheists, you are the only person in this exchange who has labeled theists as “half-brained.” I have addressed problems with their ideology, but nowhere attacked the people themselves, as you have done—basically calling them idiots. So you lose the high ground when it comes to attacking, prejudiced perspectives held toward theists.

It is claimed above, that the posters are not denigrating theists merely because they are “irrational” theists, but are only “intolerant of faith-based thinking that can lead to real harm.” I find that denial to be disingenuous. “Real harm” can be caused by thinking arising from theists and atheists alike.

Theists, without ever applying their beliefs to doctrines, have already adopted a position that unreasonable beliefs that are not evidenced based, are OK to hold. It is evident that unreasonable beliefs not based on evidence very, very often lead to significant harm—and not just for the individual involved. The list of such harms is near endless.

However, I do not claim that all harm done by a theist is caused by their theistic beliefs. A good example is the Catholic priest cover up of child rape. That was not caused by theists, but by child rapists, who only happened to also be theists, abusing a religious infrastructure. Theistic religion did not cause that. But preaching in HIV ravaged African nations that condoms are a sin, is very much harm caused by theistic beliefs, that can be directly attributed to theistic religion. So, I am quite careful to not simply say “a theist did X, therefore I blame theism.” That would be confusing causation and correlation.

Page 1 of 5 | Next page