Thursday, July 02, 2009

Mariano is angry at atheist bus ads again

Mariano over at Atheism is Dead is once again ranting against the evils of those atheists who wish to place more ads on city buses. Take a good long at his arguments and criticisms, and you'll get an idea of just who is really illogical and plain stupid here.

A letter to the editor of the Indiana Daily Student presents a wonderful poster boy example of atheist “logic” and the disparity between their attempts at putting a public relations happy face on atheism on the one hand and what they are really about on the other.

The hoopla revolves around yet another atheist group, Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign, who are collecting donations, “Help us reach a goal of $50,000!,” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone but in order to attempt to demonstrative just how clever they think themselves to be.

I'm getting tired of idiots using the recession as an excuse to say people shouldn't be spending on this and that, or that those who ask for donations are just greedy bastards. Get a hint, morons: it's not your money they're spending, which already means it's absolutely none of your business to begin with, and the fact that the current economic downturn is putting a stranglehold on their funds is no reason for them not to spend it as they wish. If people want to donate cash to whatever organization they wish, even if it's risky to their financial well-being, it's their choice, and organizations who are simply asking for donations aren't doing anything wrong in the slightest. Really, get some perspective.

The letter claimed that the ads, which are to read “You can be good without God,” say “nothing about the virtues of religious people”? Really? It means that, in this regard, their religion, not to mention their God, is irrelevant.

Okay, first off: why is it those who argue so valiantly against atheism never seem to be able to understand plain English? What part of "You can be good without God" directly translates into "God is irrelevent"? That's not the message at all; only illiterate (or blind) fools would think so. The message means you don't have to be controlled by God to do good things. You can choose to be good, by yourself, without some omnipotent deity at the reigns. It makes no statement as to said omnipotent deity's relevance. God could still be there, and matter, yet you would still be able to make your own decisions to be good. Sheesh.

Moreover, “You can be good without God” is an answer to an argument that no one has made, in a manner of speaking. This is because theists, let us speak of Christians, would argue that people who think themselves to be “without God” are not so, since God still motivates them to do good through having placed His laws in their hearts. Thus, the argument is not that atheists cannot be good without God.

Now he's being blatantly and patently blind and foolish. "An argument that no-one has made"? Oh please. Go to any forum, anywhere, that talks about morality and the concept of Right & Wrong and the origins of morality, and it's 99.95% guaranteed you'll find several ideologues and assorted twits who claim openly that God and/or religion is the source of all morality in man, and that an absence of God or faith would inevitably lead to evil, hedonism and various types of kitten-eating. Truly, to ignore this means you're either quite dishonest, or unbelievably dense.

And as for God having placed his magical laws in everyone's hearts whether they believe in him or not: uh-huh. If only that wasn't completely and thoroughly debunked by the fact that morality has been proven, time and time (and time?) again, to have evolved and developed with human society, perfectly without God's supposed influence. Hell, I've read and heard of reports (I'll post some links if I find them) that seemed to indicate that the very first appearance of what we may call "morality" seemed to appear in humanity's ancestors (think Homo Habilis and the such), creatures which couldn't even understand the concept of God in the first place.

What this tells us is that even inhuman (or, perhaps, pre-human) animals had some rudimentary concept of Right & Wrong in their minds. The conclusion of this would be that either God placed morality in inhuman animals (considering Homo Habilis and the likes weren't human by any definition), which directly refutes the claims of humans being the apple of God's many eyes, or that he didn't give us morality, period, and we simply developed it as an evolutionary asset to "guide" us into making the choices and decisions that were more apt to increase the chances of our species' survival (such as helping ourselves instead of "every man for himself" and such).

Logic: can't defeat it, brother.

The letter claims that “You can be good without God” is a “a positive message about atheism”? This message, as usual, defines atheism strictly as a negative position; it is atheism as anti-theism. Why can they not make a statement that does not besmirch theism?

Again, it's only interpreted as an anti-theism or anti-Christian message if you really dig deep looking to extract some hidden meaning (of which there is none, may I point out). It means you can be good without God telling you what's right and what's wrong. Nothing more is inferred.

Note that morality describes what is; whatever people, a society, agree upon while ethics prescribes what should be; the ethos. Atheist can certainly make assertions about morals based on subjective personal preferences and arguments from outrage but cannot provide an absolute ethic: they can make epistemic statements but not provide ontological foundations.

More unfounded claims and hot air. Atheists (those worth speaking to and/or of, that is) make claims out of knowledge, experience, and evidence. Along with rationality and logic (but those aren't ever far away, anyway). Morals come, as I've said before, from evolution. They help our species help itself by making the right choices that lead us to prosper. Ask any anthropologist worth his/her salt, for starters.

The atheists and their bulldog, the ACLU, should certainly advertize as much as they please for at least two reasons: 1) Their claims should be heard as much as possible since they discredit themselves.
2) Atheists from the UK to the USA have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds of donated money during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they think themselves to be: need any more be said?

1) Obviously it's working quite well, seeing as how atheist numbers are swelling quite rapidly with no sign of letting up – and also judging from how angry and upset religious morons seem to be getting about it.

2) ... What? So we spend cash to promote awareness for atheism, because we ... wanna show how clever we think we are?

o_0 Seriously, that couldn't make less sense if you tried.

Mariano goes on and on about how atheism promoters are just putting on a "PR happy face" (...) and showing illogic, yet without showing a shred of logic or a cohesive (or coherent) argument himself. Truly a basketcase.


Post a Comment

You can post any sort of feedback or questions you like, just as long as you abide by the rules detailed in the About section. =)