Some atheists insist on significantly overrating their own intelligence. Dev says that he “would like to see any of the theists try to tear anything in the first three paragraphs apart”, so I see no reason why we should not give him what he wishes:
Most of us know why theists cling so pathetically to their incorrect definition of the word “atheism”. And the clinging truly is pathetic– the atheists on this group state in plain English that they simply lack a belief in God like they lack a belief in other fictional characters. Theists know that when the burden of proof is shifted where it belongs–on them, for making the outrageous assertions in question–they are thoroughly fucked. Since they realize they cannot carry out a debate honestly–and let’s be honest with ourselves, none of them can–they cling to this strawman like a beloved childhood toy they can’t bear to part with.
First, the idea that there is “an incorrect definition of the word atheism” that is presumably in conflict with the correct one is an interesting assertion, given that the man he describes as “the great Sam Harris” has given multiple definitions of the word. I should be very interested to know which of those definitions – none of which correspond with simply lacking “a belief in God like they lack a belief in other fictional characters” – he deems to be likewise incorrect. Second, as we have repeatedly seen, one atheist’s definition of atheism varies greatly from another’s. Irratheists such as John Derbyshire and Kelly of the RRS insist that an atheist can believe in the existence of the tooth fairy, whereas the American Atheists insist that atheism requires a complete rejection of all that cannot be reduced to the material. Richard Dawkins, meanwhile, defines it as a gradient, which is also incompatible with Dev’s simplistic definition.
I don’t cling to any one definition of atheism. Indeed, I am quite happy to abide by any definition provided by the atheist with whom I am debating, mostly because the irrational nature of most atheisms almost require the arguing atheist to make use of a slippery and easily moved definition that will allow him to extricate himself every time he is cornered in a rationally untenable position.
As for the assertion of a theistic inability to debate honestly, I note first that it is atheists who consistently demonstrate a fear of debate and reading opposing material. None of the New Atheists know the Bible or the bases of other religions anywhere nearly as well as they pretend and they demonstrably don’t know much about the theological literature that has been produced over the millenia. I have been quite willing to debate any atheist who presents a challenge; it is my atheist opponents who repeatedly thump their chests just prior to making a wide variety of excuses for why they cannot be expected to defend their point of view. Second, a perusal of the published debates by the New Atheists or even the shorter debates on this blog shows quite clearly that if there is a difficulty with debating honestly, it tends to lie with the atheists. False accusations, moving targets, denials of previous statements and a reluctance to answer direct questions have been the rule, not the exceptions.
Finally, there is only a burden of proof when one makes a claim to another party. If I say to you that there is a God, then the burden of proof lies with me. But if you say to me that there is not a God, then you have made the claim and the burden of proof lies with you. There is no implication whatsoever that the evidence to meet this burden must be scientific, indeed, the term is a legal one in which the various forms of non-scientific evidence utilized to demonstrate a balance of probabilities is sufficient.
If there was one rule that theists should have enough discretion to place upon themselves in a debate it would be this: if the same argument for God could apply to pink unicorns, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Harry Potter or Spongebob Squarepants it is best left alone. Nonetheless, they can’t seem to live with this limitation. So they give an argument equivalent to saying Stalin didn’t believe in Harry Potter, therefore not believing in Harry Potter makes you an evil dictator. When the religious right tries to argue that a movie, band or video game inspired a kid to blow his head off just because he or she was exposed to it they aren’t moved by all the violence caused by people not exposed to the same alleged motivation factor. The strange thing about religion, in this situation, is that it is _explicitly_ the motive for so much needless bloodshed that these same “people” convince themselves that any atrocities that _aren’t_ explicitly the fault of theism are somehow an airtight case that theism is a good thing. They all, as I’ve said before, think they deserve a cookie for the people they _didn’t_ kill.
This is an unusually stupid argument. Even if we accept the baseless assertion that an argument for God that could be applied to Harry Potter is best left alone, the fact of the matter is that the arguments for God CANNOT be applied to Harry Potter or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is no evidence for these things, while there is a host of documentary and testimonial evidence for the existence of God, and as for Harry Potter, there is both documentary and testimonial evidence that Harry Potter is a fictional creation of a specific individual.
Regarding Stalin, none of the examples given provide for any identifiable moral standard of right conduct, whereas Stalin rejected both God and the Judeo-Christian moral standard given by God. And, of course, the “so much needless bloodshed” for which Dev claims religion is the explicit motive is largely the product of his imagination. While his point about movies and video games is a good one, he doesn’t realize how badly it also damns atheism for the historical crimes of atheist political leaders, for as I’ve demonstrated in TIA, the majority of atheist political leaders have committed atrocities whereas only a statistically insignificant percentage of theist leaders have done likewise. And yes, theist leaders really do deserve a cookie for avoiding the murderous temptation that history suggests is so irresistible to their atheist counterparts.
There weren’t actually any significant points in the third paragraph; he didn’t identify a single logical fallacy, example of hypocrisy or misrepresentation in TIA, except to strangely imply that because Sam Harris is tolerated today, the possibility that he might not be tolerated tomorrow somehow disproves a refutation of a Harrisian argument that is based on the fact that he is currently tolerated.
Meanwhile, I note with admiration that Kelly is grimly soldiering on. She’s made it through Chapter III, now can she survive the epic climb through Chapter IV that has defeated so many atheists before her?