Apologists don’t like fair fights

unfair_fight

In my previous post I addressed the flaw in the religious assertion of objective morality due not by any failing of the tenets of that morality nor the most common objection which is to challenge whether this god (or gods) even exists, but by the very practical problem of demonstrating that the morality alleged to come from this god (or gods) actually did come from that source.

The stated point of the author’s article was to see if atheists could defend against the claim that to be an atheist, you must accept being a nihilist, but the obvious point of the article was to claim moral superiority for theistic morality over any atheistic morality. I say obvious because, assuming the author’s claim of receiving (and refusing to post) angry and rude comments from atheists is true, many atheists saw that point and naturally took issue with it.

You could say I took issue with it as well, only I basically gave him what he wanted upfront, that narrowly speaking atheism does point to nihilism as there isn’t any inherent meaning to life, no objective morality, but what I also said (and he simply dismissed without addressing it) was the theist’s claim that there is inherent meaning, or more specifically that they know what it is, is nothing more than pure, warrantless assertion. Why did he dismiss my comment? To put it simply, his game, his rules. That means he only wants a one-sided game where atheists must provide warrants for any claim to objective morality but theists have no such burden. That simply is not a fair fight, but sadly how many times do we see that from apologists? There’s your ends justify the means in action, folks. Such action seems self defeating if one is making any claim to moral superiority, but I digress…

Atheist Spot Bookmark and Share

8 Responses to “Apologists don’t like fair fights”

  1. Apologists don't want fair fights because they can't win them.

  2. When I first read this guy's article and he mentioned his university, I assumed he was a student because of the tone and shenanigans. Amazing that he's a professor! Well, I guess not that amazing, just like how it's not so amazing that he set up a one-way only discussion.

    I've been having an interesting exchange with some clown on a Catholic site who wants to tell me what an atheist is. Priceless. I'm guessing he has a script designed for juuuuust the right kind of atheist (ie – one of the many straw men atheists apologists like wrestling with) and is quite frustrated by dealing with actual ones. That's not in the script! ;)

  3. I disagree. I have found that Christians can be surprisingly accurate in their characterization of atheists. For instance, the banana is my worst nightmare.

  4. Booo!

    <img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_e1EHc-YzkCQ/TSvcdCrltrI/AAAAAAAAAOA/TNfRjWMsY5k/s1600/banana%2Bsavior.jpg"&gt;

  5. Eeeeeeeehhhh!!!!

    Michael Jackson on a banana!?!?!?

    Proof there are no gods.

  6. I believe he'd utter more of an "eeeee-Heeeee"

  7. I'm surprised a certain somebody hasn't commented here yet to complain about all the atheist bloggers who have banned him.

  8. If you're referring to who I think you're referring to, then he wouldn't bother with my low traffic site.

Leave a Reply