Atheist Ideology Brainwashes over Time.

Here is evidence that atheism slowly takes over one's mind with ideological brain washing.
 About five years ago "Fleetmouse" on carm was a very bright guy. He's still bright (now he's "Magritte") but he used to be open minded enough that he actual defended my cosmological argent on a message to other atheists. This is so rare for an atheist to defend a theists God arguments. Over the years he's been ceased by an every strong grip of atheist ideology until today he is about arguing that if one dares to argue for a view point he doesn't like that int itself is proof that it's wrong. Certainly his CARM post today shows that he's very narrow minded because he bases his appeal on two fallacies of logic:

Originally Posted by Magritte

This is a distraction and diversion from examining the claims of religion. It's a HUGE red herring, and the exact same tactic can and will be used in defense of homeopathy, scientology, spirit channeling, the planet Niburu, David Icke's lizardoid theories and God knows what else - when you have no reasonable evidence, throw the ball back into the doubter's court. Ask what a ball is and what a court is. How do I know I'm even asking you questions about your beliefs? Wow, what a sophisticated approach! You must be terribly learned and wise, not like that hamfisted unschooled skeptic asking you annoying questions.

 Here's what he says this in regard to: this is the post he's calling a distraction:


by Occum, who is explaining why he's not a presuppositionist.

 The distinction is that the presuppositionalist wants you to plant Christianity at the base of your worldview, while I'm trying to get you to plant something there that makes sense to you. I want atheists to systematize and organize their worldviews so that they can be assessed objectively. While the presuppositionalist is interested in the foundations of our knowledge in order to stop the discussion, I'm interested in the foundations of our knowledge in order to get the discussion going.

 This  is what he's saying is: "when you have no reasonable evidence, throw the ball back into the doubter's court. Ask what a ball is and what a court is. How do I know I'm even asking you questions about your beliefs? Wow, what a sophisticated approach!"

If he is saying that about Occam's post my point is obvious. He wont even allow one to explain a distinction in one's view and another view or to make arguemnt fro one's view. I have a feeling he will say he's talking peresupperism and not Occam's view. That's cool. I can sort of agree with him there. I have a feeling that does extend that to all Christian apologetic. Look at the comparison. There is no reaosn why he would draw the comparison bewteen homeopathic medicine and presupposition any more than he would between that and all Christianity. Occam seems to have undestood it this way too because he says:

Occam:

That's a very natural and understandable response.

However, I must insist that if you are going to criticize a worldview because it does not measure up to your standards of evidence, you should know what you mean by evidence. Maybe you think "evidence" is too deep and abstract as a concept to be honestly questioned, but then, what is the level of abstraction at which all inquiry must stop? Is this not contrary to true philosophy?

Ultimately, your stance is as anti-intellectual as the theist who never questions the existence of God because he does not trust his mind.

Here are the fallacies he's committing.


(1) black is white slide.

two opposites can be made to seem like the same thing becuase one or two points of contact.

(2) argument from analogy.

"groups I don't like reason this way, I see similarities in your reasoning, therefore, you must be wrong too."

these are the fallacies that make up this appeal. then you do a narrow minded thing where you just close down shop and stop thinking, disallow arguments, intellectual reasoning and the standard means of proving one's view.

IF you look at works there's a clear implication that "If you don't accept the premise of my ideology then you can't be right" which is to say "your view are off the atheist template nothing off temple can be valid."

You are also assuring that scinece proves truth you are assuming those other groups can't be right since they don't past muster on your litmus test of scientific proof for their views.

There's another major problem here. He says "when you have no reaosnable evidence throw the ball back into the doubter's court."  All that really means is he' carping about having to meet the same stadnards of evidence he wants accuse the theist of failing to meet. He wants a pass for being a Semitic. It's a standard ploy of the atheist rhetoric to assume their position is privileged and only the theist has to prove soemthing.