Arguing with the Ignorant.

So I had an argument with the youtube muslim personality SamiZatari. He had a video that essentially proclaimed that morality, specifically the concept of what is evil, is, in his own words, "Atheism's big problem".

Now, I argued this point, and I noticed something about his argumentation style. He doesn't stay consistent with himself, and he'll keep arguing for hours straight until he finally gets something right. Allow me to explain, and address this blog, in part, at Sami.

I’m not perfect. Sometimes I get things wrong. Sometimes I make a screw up and don’t research something enough, and make a blunder…happens to the best of us.

But SamiZatari…is wrong 99% of the time. And dammit Sami, that’s just untenable.

So Sami and I had a little spat in the comment section of one of his videos. The video, for anyone who wants to see for themselves(provided he doesn’t remove any comments of mine or his) is “Atheism’s problem: evil”. Now, by the END of our little debate, he had finally gotten me on a point. What was the point? That the Code of Hammurabi is a religious text.

OH NO! HE GOT ME! Gah! I have thusly been owned. I might as well pack up my bags and leave youtube.

…Oh wait. That wasn’t what the argument was initially about, was it? See, the argument was a comment war that lasted over 13 pages, lasting 2 hours of us hammering back and forth at each other. In the process, I caught him in lies, I provided logical syllogisms he couldn’t refute, and I pointed out logical fallacies and errors he made en masse.

So let’s make a scoreboard. Sami, you start off with 1 point. You provided evidence I was wrong in saying the Code is a secular document. Well done.

The beginning of the conversation has me pointing out that secular morals are superior to theistic morals. His response is that secular morals are born of religious morals. I’d like to stop here by pointing out that this in no way refutes my point that secular morals are still superior, EVEN IF it were true. So I get a point there.[1] I mean, just because I’m born from my mom doesn’t mean I can’t become better than my mom, right? ;)

Now we’re even Sami…but wait…there’s more…a LOT more.

I pointed out that it was my understanding that secular morals came prior to religious morals, and religious morals stemmed from secular morals, and now secular people are taking them back.

Sami asked me to define my morals, so I did. Sami pointed out that the golden Rule, which is essentially a part of my moral structure, is a religious value. I pointed out that it’s not. It’s a Chinese value as put forth by Confucius. Sami said “Moses said it first!” and gave me a quote from either the bible or the Quran saying, “Love thy neighbor, and treat them properly.” And…that was it. Not even a reference mind you so I could look it up myself.

Well Sami, sad to say but “Love thy neighbors” isn’t the Golden Rule. So you failed at that refutation, and I pointed this out. Another point for me.[2]  Also, the fact STILL remains that Confucius is credited as the originator of the Golden Rule, at least the negative form that I was using, which is, specifically, “If you don’t want someone to do something to you, don’t do it to them.” And yes, that WAS the version I was using, as evidenced in our comments. I’l provide a link as evidence that Confucius came up with this, and it’s not a religious statement…just a philosophical one.

So I’m right on that point regardless. Another point. [3]

Another side issue we got into was the nature of consistency. Both consistency with his argument, and consistency with my morals. Sami made the claim that atheists are inconsistent with their definition of ‘evil’. I told him I have my own definition of evil, and I’m consistent with it. He then said, “But someone else could use your methodology, and come up with a different definition. So it’s not consistent.”

…Yup, he literally said that. MY definition isn’t consistent…because other people who think klike me won’t completely agree with it. Let me make an easy to follow analogy as to why this is horse shit. Sami is a muslim. He has a set of morals he claims he derives from Islam. Person B is a fundamentalist Islamic suicide bomber…that ALSO claims to derive his morals from Islam.

Now, that guy’s a musim too Sami, but you aren’t. Does that mean your definitions of morals and evil are inconsistent? No. Another point for me. [4]

The other issue with inconsistency was that I was saying that Sami’s morals are just as subjective as anyone else’s, and not superior in any way. His claim was “Well I’m not saying my morals are superior.” Which…kind of went against the theme of his video, and our argument thus far. So I pointed this out and he said, “God’s standard is superior to all standards. And I follow that standard.” So…which is it Sami? Are you saying they’r superior? Because you made a video about a problem you find in atheists morals that you think you account for, implying superiority, then deny you’re saying that…then claim you’re following a superior standard. So you’re either a liar, or just incompetent. Another point for me. [5]

Moving on, Sami responded to another person’s comment about how he feels that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don’t hurt anyone by saying that imposing such morals is just like being a dictator. I pointed out that this is no different from his God. He responds “God is not a dictator because he gives us free will to follow.” Well Sami, I can debunk that easily. God gives us free will like Mussoline gave people free will. “You are free to obey my laws. And you are free not to follow them, and free to be punished for them, and free to be executed(or in your god’s case, tortured forever) for doing so.

So…yeah, your god’s a dictator still. Another point.[6]

Sami accused me of being inconsistent some more and I told him “Look, even if people don’t agree with my morals, chances are good if I point out an action that is wrong under my definition, 99 times out of 100 people will agree it’s immoral, even if they don’t agree with my definition.” This is an obvious hyperbole I haven’t done the leg work to find out if that’s ACTUALLY true, and Sami accused me of ‘making stuff up’. So I challenged him and asked him if he thought rape was wrong. He said yes. I pointed out that rape was wrong according to the top comment, and 14 other people agreed with that,and I asked 4 of my family members and they all agreed. So 20/20 people agree with my morals about rape being wrong.  That’s another point for me by the way, as he soon changed the subject. [7]

He changed the subject by saying, “BUT! Rape was used in warfare by people who clearly didn’t think it was wrong!”

We argued for a bit and I pointed out to him that it was an acknowledgment of how monstrous it was to rape or be raped that caused people to use rape as a weapon in the first place. It was an acknowledgment of how immoral rape is, that led people to discover its psychologically damaging effects to their enemies.

Sami…apparently didn’t understand, and then spouted off some logical non sequitors. Oh yes, and when I point out a logical fallacy, I get a point each time. Sami said thusly, “If they knew it was immoral they owuldn’t have done it.” Non sequitor. People know they’re doing something wrong, and do it anyway all the time, usually they rationalize it to themselves in order to do it. [8] He then said, “IF they knew it was immoral they wouldn’t have enjoyed raping people!” Also a non sequitor. Rape is immoral, sure, but if you get your rocks off, it’s still pleasurable and enjoyable, even if you hate yourself afterwards. [9]

He went on to list some moral virtues, that being charity and forgiveness. Now, at this point he still holds the position that morals come from religion, bare that in mind. So I ask him how it is that animals can be charitable and share their food with eachother, and give their food to other animal’s babies. He never responded to that, so point in my favor. [10] I informed him that religion did nothing but PERVERT the idea of forgiveness by introducing the idea that someone can forgive someone for a crime they committed to someone else, which isn’t right. Example: Bob forgives Steve for punching Kevin. Another point for me.[11]

He argued more the point about soldiers believing that rape was ok by making another non sequitor: “They knew Rape harmed people, and determined that that made it GOOD TO DO!” How did he come to this conclusion? It’s anyone’s guess. My guess? Ramblings of someone who doesn’t understand logic.[12]

To prove my point about the people using rape as a weapon acknowledging the immorality of rape, and using that fact to their advantage, I constructed a syllogism.

1. They wanted to win wars.

2. Breaking people psychologically was an effective way to win wars.

3. Doing monstrous immoral things breaks people psychologically.

4. From 1 2 and 3, doing monstrous immoral things ought be done if they want to win wars.

He hasn’t refuted this except to state that he thinks people just plain don’t do what they find immoral. Ever. So…point.[13]

I constructed another logical syllogism about how humans clearly had SOME form of morals prior to any indication of religion

1. Humans are social creatures.

2. Social creatures must cooperate with each other in order to survive

3. Cooperation is a result of having morals

4. Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years

5. Therefore, humans have had morals for hundreds of thousands of years.

His response? “I don’t define morals the way you do, so you’re wrong.” Which…is funny because the way I defined it is the same way William Lane Craig, and…well..all philosophers define morals. “what we ought do, or ought not do”. Sami rejects this definition, which, I’m sorry, isn’t a refutation of my argument, it’s the equivalent of a 5 year old looking at an argument, crossing their arms and going, “Nuh uh!” Point for me. [14]

So finally we get to the issue  of the code of Hammurabi.  Now here you might be thinking, “Well, Sami ended up being right about this one.” But hold on, because it gets pretty good. See, we argued for at least 9 more pages about the Code of Hammurabi before he provided any ACTUAL evidence that it wasn’t a secular document. Until then, he said some pretty fun things, NAMELY that it’s a religious document purely because the society it was written for…was religious. So, we have non sequitor number 1. And another point for me[15] Non sequitor number 2, if a religious person writes something, it’s therefore a religious text. Sorry, but unless you’re saying, “The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe” was a religious text…or perhaps Newtons writings of Newtonian Mechanics were religious texts, you’re blatantly wrong. [16] He shifted the burden of proof, saying it’s religious until I prove otherwise [17] and he said my syllogism arguing for its secular ity was wrong because…my definition of secular is used thousands of years after the fact. That’s just…so stupid it…I don’t even know what to say. [18]

So there you go Sami…18 to 1. I wonder how proud you still feel about yourself.

An annoying strawman.

Recently while I was googling, a BlogSpot showed up in the search that caught my eye. The post was entitled "Just a day in the life of debating an atheist." by Seeker of Truth. I shrugged, my curiosity getting the better of me, and I clicked on it. What I saw made me want to hit myself over the head with a keyboard.

The summary is this. The theist claimed that atheists only believe in what they can see, and that indeed anything that cannot be seen, or proven with the scientific method should not be believed in, or should be outright denied as being even a possibility. He claims that atheists must hold to the belief that the scientific method is perfect, and that since it is not, seeing is believing is incorrect.

This is the biggest bunch of bologna I've seen in the past month.

Look, I, like many other atheists I know, trust the scientific method as being the best tool possible from discerning truth from fiction. It's the best way we have, and it's a good way of gathering evidence for a given proposition.

However to think that I believe "If the scientific method can't prove it, it ain't there," is completely asinine and rediculous.

Let me clarify something before I continue, or this might confuse some people. Atheism, as I define it, is simply a lack of belief in gods. This covers all levels of atheism. And before I get the objection, "But rocks fall into that category!" Yes, I know they do, and I don't care, because it doesn't matter.

A lack of belief means that I in no way have to deny the possibility of ANYTHING, even God, to be an atheist. I just have to remain unconvinced of the truth of the claim.

Got that cleared up? Alright, now to tackle this attacker of innocent strawmen.

The post goes on to say that because the scientific method cannot be applied to a historical event, that makes it imperfect.

I'm not sure how dumb an argument can get. This person doesn't even realize that the scientific method can indeed be applied to historical events, by gathering verifiable empirical evidence that the event happened. The man gave an example of his brother twitching his nose after finishing a bowl of rice, though he never saw it happening. Using this example he says, I can't use the scientific method to see if that happened. So should I deny it did?"

Firstly, YES YOU CAN, secondly, did your brother make the CLAIM that he twitched his nose after finishing his rice? If not, what exactly are you denying? And if so, are you not aware that that counts as a credible witness to an all too natural and possible event? How about this: Has he had a habit of twitching his nose after finishing a bowl of rice? That is evidence that can be gathered to determine the probability of him twitching his nose.

Ok, after telling this story he brings up another atheist strawman, I'll just summarize it, "But that's dumb, using that logic I can just say the flying spaghetti monster exists until you prove he doesn't!"

He then tackles this strawman sloppily, lazily, and dumbly, by saying, "Irrelevant, the brother still twitched his nose."

Let me just say, that that was extremely poor, and I hope if this was a real conversation, both men would be ashamed of what they said.

As if thrown in specifically to piss atheists off, I'll copy paste the response his strawman atheist gave to his "Ah hah, but that's irrelevant" bullshit.

"

Atheist: Hmmmm, quite a point. I'm stubborn though. I still cling to my belief that anything not proven by science does not exist. Note that I didn't say "may not exist". There's a difference. It's just safer, in a way to just stick to the belief that only physical evidence is reality.

"

Firstly, does not that first line just piss you right the hell off? "Quite a point." No, it really wasn't. "I'm stubborn though." You're an idiot. "I still cling to my belief that anything not proven by science does not exist." WHO THINKS LIKE THAT? I don't know a SINGLE atheist that holds that belief, not a SINGLE one.

He then goes on to say, "Ah hah! But there are three types of realities! You only accept one, the physical. The three are physical, mental, and spiritual."

Firstly, I think we can all agree no atheist doubts that they have thoughts, and the Cogito is a logical proof that thoughts necessarily exist, so good job screwing up your "Science and logic can't prove everything!" argument before it takes off.

Next, he goes on to explain what a spiritual reality is. I’ll quote him, because I don't like making strawmen.

"

Spiritual reality can be defined as a supernatural event that does have physical evidence or credible witnesses, but cannot be explained by science or reasoning.
"

...Holy shit, seriously?

Let me let you all in on a little secret. If something has physical evidence, or credible witnesses? Guess what you're doing by gathering all that data. USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Oh, and you know what he used as an example for a Supernatural Event? The Fatima Miracle.

For those that don't know, this is the 'miracle' claimed back in 1917 where a gathering of people watched the sun because 3 shepard children said "At high noon, the Virgin Mary will appear in a field." somewhere within Fatima. While people waited for that to happen, some claimed to have seen the sun come towards the earth in a zig zag pattern, that the sun was strangely duller than usual, and others claimed to have seen apparitions of Jesus and Mary and Joseph blessing people.

That's right, the thing disavowed by the Catholic Church, and many scientists brushing off as anything from retinal distortions caused from...oh I dunno, staring at the friggen sun, to people simply seeing a parhelion, is used as an example of a supernatural event.

Here's the fact to know about this miracle claim. Not only were there believers and skeptics alike present, who didn't see anything, but this miracle is disavowed by some believers, it is highly debated amongst researchers and scientists, and at this point, can quite easily be brushed off as a simple illusory effect.

Oh! Oh! See what I'm doing here? Applying the scientific method to a historical event!

Yes, I know, we still don't really know what the "miracle" was, but there is indeed not NEAR enough evidence to conclude it was truly a miracle.

He then keeps going arguing about the existence of mental reality, which he seems to think atheists have a problem with. And I suppose to a point I do, I don't call mental reality, a mental reality, I just call them thoughts.

And then we descend into another blatant strawman attack that just pissed me off worse than the last. Again, let me quote him.

"

Theist: The scientific method is an effective way to search for truth, yes, we theists do believe in that.

What we disagree with is the atheist belief that the scientific method is the "only" way to verify existence of something or someone. It is not. It is only one way to get the truth.

Atheists make it an absolute rule that only science can give the truth.

"

NO WE DON'T. That's so fractally wrong it's mind bogglingly stupid. We do NOT believe that the scientific method is the "only" way to verify existence of something. I PERSONALLY believe it's the BEST way, and it is, unless you have one better.

And no, we don't make it a friggen rule that only science can give truth. This strawman is making my brain hurt with the stupid.

And he closes with the coin in a box argument, and claims it's a popular theistic argument that works, when it doesn't.

The coin in a box argument is essentially "I put a coin in a box, and put it under a cave. Say I go to a scientist and ask him 'Do you believe there's a coin under a cave or not?'"

The trick here is that he made an extremely unlikely occurrence happen, and then said that the scientist, having not been given the chance to investigate, must answer if he believes the coin's under a cave or not.

If we're being intellectually honest here, you should know that the scientist would be fully right to say, "No, I don't believe there's a coin under a cave."

It doesn't matter if that's not correct, it's the correct answer, if one wants to be intellectually honest. The theist raises his fists in the air in victory and goes, "Ha ha! But there IS a coin under the cave! You're wrong!"

My answer: So? If I was given all the data, I could discern there is indeed a coin under the cave. If I was allowed time to investigate, I could indeed discern there's a coin under the cave. What this is, is an argument for faith. "Believe the coin's in the cave, despite having no reason to believe so, because it's the right answer."

Sorry, but no, that doesn't cut it, and never will.