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.
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.
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.
