Call one of these ignorant, and usually uneducated preachers what they really are and you'll get blasted by many vehement accusations of breaking some moral principle of "niceness".
Of course, according to atheist uh hum "logic", objective morality doesn't exist, seeing there is no "ultimate foundations for ethics" and morality is "an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate,” and “the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.”
Hey, we can thank evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson for that bit of ill tasting codswallop.
But here's the thing: why should anyone care when atheists point fingers at theists for calling them vidiots1 , hypocrites, or whatever, when it's true?
They contradict themselves by such accusations and never see the contradiction. If you point it out to them what do they do? Well they resort to pretending your comment is a strawman! Apparently they don't know what a strawman is. They don't know that following the laws of logic, it's been shown many times by many philosophers that atheism necessarily leads to the conclusion that no objective values exist and relativism is all that remains.
Yet accusations of a moral nature are found constantly foaming out of their mouths. This is in fact almost ubiquitous amongst the wild tribes of atheist fundamentalists.
They can be found invading en masse discussion forums wherever they feel the need to evangelize for new converts to their empty world view. Perhaps they simply feel insecure in their "beliefs" that they feel they must defend feckless atheism wherever anyone at all is making any kind of religious statement at all.
One of the more recent alleged arguments against atheism being itself a religion I've encountered is something different from this but just as ill reasoned.
I've encountered a couple of atheist fanatics telling me that atheism is not in fact a religion at all. Curiously once I pointed out not only the evidence that says it is a religion - at least for the types of atheists I'm describing here - but even court rulings in the USA officially calling atheism a religion, what do they say?
Well here's the newest intellectual folderol they hand me:
Ex., "Why is atheism a religion but stamp-collection is not a religion?" or "Not believing in God isn't a religion. Not playing tennis isn't a sport"Incredibly enough, the dupes that wrote these "rebuttals" could not see the error in their thinking. Yet they used such as mockery, as though it were bright. So what else is new? Why am I not surprised by such nonsense. Obviously they were assuming or rather pretending that the New Atheist version of atheism is that it's simply a "lack of belief"; the new, but meaningless and cowardly, way they trivialize their position in order to escape having to defend it.
In case you're too lazy to examine the above statements yourself or can't see the errors yourself allow me to explain.
The statement is a logical fallacy known as a category mistake or error.
A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which "things f one kind are presented as if they belonged to another. Alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.
We may also point out that these statements also contain fallacies of equivocation.
How so? Atheism is a metaphysical position. Stamp collecting is not related to any metaphysical stance at all, unless one worships or fanatically preaches it. Tennis anyone? Well using "not playing tennis isn't a sport" is the same error. Tennis is not a metaphysical position, nor is not playing tennis. Atheism on the contrary is adhered to and, as the cases before us, preached religiously.
So NOW you're saying, "Gee that was obvious". Well I hope you were because it is obvious.
As in other posts on this blog it is not mere lack of belief. Atheists love to trivialize their position as a non position. But they speak and act as though it were of vital importance to the world to convert to it!!
1. Vidiot - a person whose main source of knowledge on anything comes from TV, movies and video games