A Simpleton Argues Against Atheism


Again from examiner.com, but this time from a Muslim. Nice to know that regardless of the brand, religious arguments are intellectually vapid and their presenters are laughable. So first, let me address Khan’s post…

I think I’m beginning to understand the point of writing for the Examiner. You make false assertions, insult, and otherwise provoke people into commenting, which drives traffic to the site which subsequently raises the rates examiner.com can charge for advertising. There simply is no other answer, because otherwise it’s completely irresponsible to have people like Khan and Jones write such ridiculously ignorant and obviously false statements.

No one seems confused on the definition of atheism other than the religious. Atheism is the rejection of god claims because they’re unwarranted. The day anyone’s god(s) becomes demonstrable will be the day you won’t have atheists.

Atheism appears in religion sections because it addresses claims made by religion. To suggest then that atheism is a religion would then imply the police are a criminal organization for they address criminality.

The claim that atheists don’t deny the existence of gods, but rather defy their authority is simply false, and is one of the oldest straw man arguments in the theists’ playbook.

I’m sure what we should stay tuned for in your upcoming postings would be more illogical conclusions, asserted myths, and a heaping helping of provocative nonsense, since that’s what drives traffic, right?

Take a look around you from where you sit. You will notice that everything in the room is ‘made’…

Next, get a load of the link he has at the end of his article. Before the second sentence is even concluded, the game is exposed – watchmaker fallacy, and what follows is a litany of old and tired nonsense. Come on, really? Honestly, I think a good reason why we don’t generally bust the balls of the Muslims, aside from the enormous fact that here in the US we don’t have Muslims causing shenanigans like the Christians day in and day out, is that it’s really unfair. Christians have managed to develop tricky arguments and other tactics to champion their faith against critical attacks, but Muslims? They’re simply ill-equipped since they haven’t had to face that. At best, they’ve faced challenges from other religions, but that’s simply not going to prepare them for atheists.

Now to be fair, we get such nonsense from Christians, too, and just like Muslims, it seems that such basic gameplay is usually indicative of someone who hasn’t met hard critical scrutiny and has been safely isolated (ie – see “red states”) or is what the arguer knows will work when addressing isolated and thus, ignorant people; however, we can generally expect more challenging confrontations from Christians, especially champions of that faith. From Islam? I’ve yet to see it. Watchmaker? ‘Look at the trees…’? Argument from incredulity? Really? Is that your “A” game? No wonder you usually just behead and blow people up.

Atheist Spot Bookmark and Share

13 Responses to “A Simpleton Argues Against Atheism”

  1. Thought this pic might sum things up.
    http://media.richarddawkins.net/images/2009/victor-stenger-bus.jpg

    P.S. congrats on getting Cassell

  2. lol….well put Philly, well put!

  3. We’ll see if Cassell lives up to the hype. 2nd round pick for a young 3,000+ yard passer AND a veteran LB? Nice. Now let’s see Denver trade away Cutlet and have to rely on Chris Simms. :)

    I think SI showed me that image before. I like it.

    What was well put? I’ll assume everything.

  4. Yes, I think QF meant the post was “well put”.

    It kind of makes you wonder about our supposedly superior European secularist brethren. They are actually having problems with Muslims comparable to the problems we have with Christianity here? Really? The Islamic apologia is circa 1150 C.E.

  5. Well the short answer is Europeans are pussies. :)

    The longer answer is they’re not battle tested, either. The irony in Europe has been that establishing a state religion actually kills religiosity. The official religion, after competition is gone, gets fat and lazy and doesn’t need to push it’s crap. Over time, that apathy breeds apatheists, people who may claim to be atheists or agnostics but really don’t give a shit about gods or religion at all.

    As an aggressive belief system like Islam rolls in, both are completely ill-equipped to face it. Further eroding their defenses is some ridiculous, despite good intentioned, sense of political correctness.

    Imo, here in the US, Islam could never take root like in other places. First off, the Christians would never allow it, and they certainly are not fat and lazy like their complacent European counterparts. They’re fighting every day in competition with other Christian churches, occasional non-Christian encroachments, atheists, and of course for control of the government. They’re in perpetual fighting form, so Islam wouldn’t stand a chance. Then, of course, there’s us. Last but not least, is good ol’ American “fuck you”-ism, the sentiment of fuck your ways, fuck your laws, fuck your religious requirements, this is America and you do things the American way.

    So yeah, all they’ve got is flying planes into buildings, because there’s no way in hell the US would bend over and take it like the Europeans are, and we can only hope they wake up and start listening to Pat Condell.

    Btw, I should note that the French have been consistently giving a big “fuck you” to the Muslims because they’re perhaps the biggest pricks when it comes to preserving their national identity.

  6. Paragraphs 2,3,4,5(relevant to something recent),6&7 were well put.

    1&8 I thought had some funny generalizations or stereotypes, but I'm not sure if they fit observational evidence though:

    "Nice to know that regardless of the brand, religious arguments are intellectually vapid and their presenters are laughable.….funny image of a clown with a burka or turbin in my head, but I’m not so sure. It, however, just takes 1 objective proof of God and then that proves it once and for all.

    “it seems that such basic gameplay is usually indicative of someone who hasn’t met hard critical scrutiny and has been safely isolated (ie – see “red states”) or is what the arguer knows will work when addressing isolated and thus, ignorant people;….where do I even begin on this one

    “we can generally expect more challenging confrontations from Christians, especially champions of that faith.” ….I seriously doubt it, I’m not expecting it at least

    “From Islam?….No wonder you usually just behead and blow people up.” ….I wonder what percentage of the Muslim population actually does this sort of thing

  7. Who really wrote that Examiner post? The guy in the photo or his five-year-old kid?

  8. Imo, here in the US, Islam could never take root like in other places. First off, the Christians would never allow it, and they certainly are not fat and lazy like their complacent European counterparts. They’re fighting every day in competition with other Christian churches, occasional non-Christian encroachments, atheists, and of course for control of the government. They’re in perpetual fighting form, so Islam wouldn’t stand a chance.

    Darwin smiles on you, Sir Philly.

  9. Philly,

    I don’t think that assessment of Islam’s growth in Europe is quite right.

    Particularly in the UK, unchecked immigration was an unforeseen consequence of decolonization, with embarrassed officials keen to atone for their predecessors’ misadventures in far off lands. The second and third generations of these immigrants have since become British without either integrating with the rest of Britain or each other, or recognizing that British culture is one of positive values, not an anything goes blank slate. Consequently Islam has grown within these pockets, and has become indigenous without ever having become Anglicized. Combined with a sore memory of genocide and the path down which right wing politics leads, political leaders are petrified of being seen to criticize minorities in any shape or form. With a hyperactive and increasingly shrill media keeping the organs of state in check, politicians have become self-regulating, and extreme political correctness is its own raison d’etre. When leaders can garner support by calling their opponents ‘racist’, the non-offensive is a vote winner. It amounts to groupthink, and it obfuscates the real and important differences between racial prejudice and questioning religion. And hence, Islam has been allowed to grow unchecked.

    FS

  10. "Further eroding their defenses is some ridiculous, despite good intentioned, sense of political correctness."Did I not say this? I believe I did. Furthermore, the UK is not Europe, just part of it.Have a nice day

  11. Well, pretty much the same statement can be applied to France, Germany and most especially the Netherlands – as FrodoSaves says, our (European) colonial past has much to answer for when it comes to the modern influx of Islam. That said (and I’m scaling back to speaking from a UK perspective here), I’m far from convinced that Islam in Britain is anything like as big a threat as the Daily Mail and the Sun would like us to think it is. Certianly the “zOMG Muslim Terrorist Atrocities!!one!eleven!” over here are nothing compared to the prolonged IRA campaign of the 70s and 80s, and unlike the Christian Right in America, Muslims have almost no major political figures in their ranks. We are not under threat from the Islamification of Britain, as there is simply no such beast – it’s a media monster concocted (as with Khan’s “Ray Comfort” style argument) to bring in the figures and hence the advertising revenue.

  12. Philly,

    Yes, you did mention the political correctness angle. But in understanding the spread of Islam through Europe it’s important to recognize the context in which the PC culture operates. You mentioned the growing apathy towards state religions and the resulting inability to oppose the spread of aggressive religion. While I’m sure that’s part of it, I think the consequences of colonialism and genocide are much more recent and therefore operate more significantly in people’s minds.

    FS

  13. “Atheism appears in religion sections because it addresses claims made by religion. To suggest then that atheism is a religion would then imply the police are a criminal organization for they address criminality.”

    Is a very good analogy, I’ve saved a copy for future reference.

Leave a Reply