Yet more atehist logic, infussed with Fallacies

A comment appeared this morning responding to this post:

Monday, September 2, 2013

New Atheist Ideology Dissected and Disproved

The comment is by someone calling himself "sir Craig" here it is:

Sir Craig said...

Hmm...according to Mein Kampf, Hitler was most assuredly doing what he did to express his brand of religious belief, either Catholic or Protestant. To argue otherwise is to invoke the Not a True Scotsman logical fallacy! because most anyone can point to the religious influences in his writings.

However, even if Hitler were simply the most cynical man alive and had no actual belief in a god, it still cannot be denied that he would not have been able to carry out his actions without the driving force of religion to compel the rest of the German people. Religion was his tool and he used it thusly.

April 25, 2014 at 12:55 AM  

 Here was my answer:

Metacrock said...

Ok Students here we have several informal fallacies working at the same time. First is guilt by association:

"However, even if Hitler were simply the most cynical man alive and had no actual belief in a god, it still cannot be denied that he would not have been able to carry out his actions without the driving force of religion to compel the rest of the German people. Religion was his tool and he used it thusly."

In one case religion was used wrong so therefore religon is always used wrongly. that's just guilt by association.

It's also a doube bind becuase he say ok even if he wasn't religious he an example being a bad thing. Damned if you do damned if you don't. Every case is going to be one or the other but religion is always wrong even it's not really reilgion.

BTW we can also do the same thing with atheism. Even if communism isn't real atheist it still proves that atheism murders millions of people becuase the communists called themselves atheists.

Then of course we have the ever popular "no true Scotsman" always misunderstood and misused by atheists. The real idea says people get to be Scotsmen becsuae they are born Scotsman. So therefore, to say that one is not a true Scotsman becuase true Scotsmen will never behave ih a certain fashion is clearly wrong. But people become Chrsitians by choice. there is a code of behavior to live up to. There's no code of behavior for being a Scotsman there is for being a Christian.

so therefore wee can say so an so is not a true Christian. That is not a fallacy. the fallacy the atheist are committing is trying argue by analogy.

then of course we have a certain gullibility in trust what Hitler says in a propaganda piece. He wrote Mein Kampf as propaganda to persuade the masses he's a good guy. So what's he going to say "yes I am evil and want to kill you for your sacred beliefs becuase I hate them?" that would not be very effective propaganda would it.

Now do you know better than to believe a guy like Hitler? I do. I am from a state where elected Rich Perry three times and even I know not to trust Hitler.

April 25, 2014 at 5:21 AM

The Atheist Movement, Guilt by Association, and Personal Attacks

 
 Christians? Or Atheists marching?


There is a whole thread on CARM right now that exhibits exactly what I'm talking about:

Guilt by association is a fallacy and a lie. It's what people use to prove their *******. Eampels of guilt by association that we all dispose include "one black I know is lazy (so I think) thus all black people are lazy."

Yet most atheists will seem to argue for the proportion that if one Christian is a Nazi then Christianity must turn people into Nazis.

 Originally Posted by The Pixie

The vast majority of Nazis were Christians.

What's the point of saying it if he's not trying to imply something? the OP is implying that they are dehumanizing Christians by implying that Christianity is full of Naizis. So to counter this the guy says most Nazis were Christians. how is that a counter? How does that not imply that being a Christian makes you Nazi? If he is trying to deny it he's doing a stupid job becuase he comes back with even more indication that Christians are Nazis:

Originally Posted by The Pixie

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article....uleId=10005206
The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebit...spolicy2.shtml
One-third of Germans were Catholics and two-thirds were Protestants.

While the leaders had some strange ideas, the rank-and-file, the people working in the concentration camps were Christians.

Then HRG Steps in with a "common use argument" to again argue that these Hitler supporters were "true Christians" since that means nothing more than superficial membership in an organization:

Originally Posted by HRG

According to the common use of that term, many were Christians (baptized, paying church tax, going to mass etc.). You may set up your special definition by which someone who commits an atrocity is automatically removed from Christianity, but its self-serving character is obvious.

Just like there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, good Hindus and bad Hindus, good atheists and bad atheists, there are good Christians and bad Christians.

Although he does throw off the association by stipulating that there are good one's and bad one's. That goes to the deeper argument behind the guilt by association argument, that being Christian doesn't change your lfie or make you a better person. That argument can be answered efficiently by the studies on religious experience, the fact that he makes it is encouraging becuase he's not using it as a hate slogan to tar all Christians.

When I keep pointing out that he has to be saying this for the obvious reason, they finally just say stuff that implies "if shoe fits wear it."

Originally Posted by madmax2976

If I were to guess, it would be to try to get under the skin of Christians. I just haven't seen many do this in any significant numbers.

none of them will ever admit that they really think this (Christianity causes Nazism). they will back away and say stuff like "I'm not opposing the idea that true Christians can't be Nazis." That is equally deniable as a Christian belief.


Sreve Chase admitts to using the argument facetiously to force the other guys to think it through.


Originally Posted by stevechase

I have written such things. I do it in response to Christians claiming that evolution produced Hitler and the like:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...ist&highlight=

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...KKK&highlight=

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...her&highlight=

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...ans&highlight=

and many more.

I do it to parody the "logic" of many evangelical types.

I agree with you that their logic is equally odious. I did the same thing by arguing that atheism = communism. Atheists murdered 100 million in the 20th century and so on.

these are just games either way. we should stop playing them because we are not producing anything. It's not having the desired effect. It doesn't make people think it just helps justify their BS. 

Those types actually seem to think that their absurd declarations are true. So I mock their stupidity.

I agree with you that their logic is equally odious. I did the same thing by arguing that atheism = communism. Atheists murdered 100 million in the 20th century and so on.

these are just games either way. we should stop playing them because we are not producing anything. It's not having the desired effect. It doesn't make people think it just helps justify their BS.

When are we going to stop playing this stupid game?

If there were "true" Christians supporting Hitler that does not prove Christianity produces Nazis. that's just as much a guilt by association argument as saying that Stalin's atheism proves that being an atheist turns you into a torturing murdering commie.

If the stats suggest that the vast majority of Hitler supporters were Christians it does not prove that being a Christian makes you support Hitler.

* Most opposition to Hitler in Germany were Christians.

* The vast majority of people who kicked the Nazi's asses in the war were Christians.

* Hitler was an occultist who hated Christianity and he engaged the SS to find the holy grail not becuase he bleieve in it as a Christian (no one does) but he believed in it as an occultist.

*He also dispatched searchers to Tibet to find occult secrets hat help them in the war. Although that might be hard to prove. The ostensible reason may have been to compare Asians to Ayrians. They had an extensive study of sociologically based "racial science."

*The issue of what makes one a "true Christian" has to come into it. Atheist trying to deny that there is any deeper thing required than just superficial membership in organization. Yet Christian belief itself asserts that there are deeper requirements and surface level organization in membership does not fit the bill of Jesus' teachings concerning what it means to follow him.

The problem there is the term "Christian" since Jesus never used it. Jesus never said anything about being a Christian, he talked about being born again.

* The overall issue is nothing more than guilt by association. It's a cheap poly that atheists wont let go of because they have nothing very deep to say about the nature of christian teaching.

that's typical of the whole atheist movement and they way they argue on this board. all they ever do argue about is people, what people do, what's wrong with the way Chrsitians think what's what's wrong with the way Christians argue, how Christians are dishonest and can't think ect ect. that's all they know how to discuss most of the time.

Shameful Display of Athiest Emotional Blackmail and Fallacous Reasoning

 



Here's a great example from CARM of how the atheist ideology and brain washing function to produce seamless team work in using fallacious reasoning and emotional blackmail. Notice how the atheist arguemnt fit together they say the same stuff without having to explain to each other the nature of a battle plan. This is second naturer to them becuase they've learned to think this way thorugh those long windeed sessions of agreeing with mocking and rieicle.

The objective they are going for here is to further the stereotype that people who believe God will heal people are insane nut cases who always wind up hurting people. In order to make this point they are going to use one example, that's all they ever document. they will assert that it represents many cases and they will not actually say it but they strongly imply this is the logical conclusion that results from prayer.

A certain poster on CARM (DARKLADY) who every single day of the world comes out with some tear jerking horror story about how evil God is, how cruel the God fo the bible the Bible is a big pile of crap. I finally faced them down with liberal theology to stop the hysteria over the OT so she shifts to modern examples. The title is "So pray for the sick and this is what happens" as though it happens all the time. This is always the result. It's documented in NY "the Daily News.Thursday, September 20, 2012. A boy in Oregon died in agony because his parents didn't believe in modern medicine. The couple were part of a group called General Assembly and Church of the First Born, This group may be a Pentecostal offshoot it's clearly considered a cult. There are sites warning about it.. It's a little over 100 churches in 20 states. Yet Darklady wants us to think this is the typical result of belief in prayer. She quotes several passages from the NT claiming that God will answer prayer:

Mark 9:29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

John 14:13-14 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it





 then adds petulantly:

"the bible lies"

The implication is clearly that if you bleieve the Bible this is what will happen to you. her atheist comrades don't mis a beat in taking up the call:

Mark UK:

My first question: did the family abandon their faith as a result of this? Or did they go with "god must have had a purpose, and he's in heaven now, anyway" and dig themselves even deeper?

They should be prosecuted - he's a minor, and they're idiots (which isn't illegal, I know, but it bloody well should be).

Boneso:

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting! Having a son myself i dont know how anyone in this day and age can see their own child in agony and not seek professional medical care.

If they have not abandoned their faith after this then they should not be allowed to have anymore children!

Those sentiments of reproach are to be expected, even seconded. Then they don't waste any time getting to the point:

Boneso:

Even more disturbing to me is what is also in the article:

"In Oregon, faith-based healing isn’t a defense against manslaughter charges. The District Attorney’s office is working with churches to explain the law."

This tells me that there are states or regions in America where faith-based healing IS a defense against manslaughter, WTF?

now Christians are all Criminals using faith healing to commit crimes.

MarkUK

I searched for "USA faith-healing defense" and came up with an article titled "Oregon Senate votes to end faith healing murder defense", and many more on that theme. That means the defence must have been valid at some point. Appalling. If it's not a valid defence for first degree murder (in cases of human sacrifice), why does the parents' stupidity and credulity get them off the hook?

 Wait for it they start implying that this happens a lot.


 MFFJM2

 It is in fact the theists, especially Christians like the boy's parents, who must take the position thhat God has a plan, and that the boy's death though unfortunate is according to God's plan. The problem from a humanitarian perspective, regardless of your faith or lack of it, is that children need to be protected from parents that would harm them, even if the harm caused is due to fringe religious beliefs.

by the end of the thread Darklady has it worked out to a little formulation:

 Originally Posted by darklady

faith in the bible / faith in god / faith in prayer = dead child

the bible lies

as though  it's not a rarity it happens every  time.

 Diest:

 These people take the bible literally. They really are the honest ones. We see the result of believing the bible. 99.9% of Christians don't really believe the bible, and as Howard Homes said (where is he) are liars. They don't believe the bible because they take their dying and sick to hospitals and hope that HUMANS will heal them. Then, they have the unmitigated gall to say God worked through the doctor to cure their loved one, while the guy in the bed next to them had a prayer vigil and died a young man. Sick, sick thinking and humans are infected with this mental virus that I want wiped off the planet. That's why I post here.

 my emphasis. That's quite an endorsement for his objectivity hu? But atheists aren't a movement or anything. they are not a hate group now. they just want to wipe Christianity off the planet becuase they equate it with disease. That's at least that one guy (he's not the sharpest tool they have I'll grant you that I'm sure he doesn't speak for them all).



Originally Posted by JRT

So hold true to your faith and pray but hedge your bets with the best medical care available. Perhaps that is the way God will work her miracle. Instead of probationthey should have been sentence to be hospital volunteers for a year or two. The jails are two crowded.

 Notice how he tries to work up cognitive dissonance. To produce a sense of shame. "why do you use medicine if you believe in prayer?" Why do they want us to stop praying? I Gee I wonder!


 Such shotty reasoning. First of all he has no evidence of any kind that 99% don't believe the Bible. he's assuming so becuase he makes the idiotic assumption that if they believed the bible they would avoid modern medicine. of cousre there is no passage that says don't use medicine. No indications that most Christians understand the bible that way. No indication Luke gave up being a physician.

Look how seamlessly they take up the innuendo and imply the guilt by association without having to say to each other "let's do it this way." they just know becuase it's the natural outgrowth of the ideology then have indoctrinated with.

 A ridiculous and shameful display of the ind of pandering and emotional blackmail and fallacious reasoning that I associate with the right wing and the kkk .

The argument that God will guide the surgeon's skill or help the medicine work is a valid concept. That is not a matter of doubting the bible.

all of this is the result of the atheist straw man. We see at work here the atheist straw man to insist upon the most extreme most absurd cultist understanding o the most strident undies as quintessential Christianity.

emotional blackmail
argument from sign
guilt by association
straw man arguments.