Ignorant, hateful, builder of straw men. Wait … me??

“A former 40 year atheist” rips the hell out of my post (and book chapter) Good Without Gods.

I was smarting under all this expert flaying until I looked at some of his other posts.

Challenge to Atheists: Prove that there is no God

Challenge to Evolutionists

In this last one, there’s a response by the author to a reader comment (emphasis mine):

Evolution is one of the secular holy tenets, which will destroy you if you touch it. No evolution doubter is allowed to instruct or to publish. Evolution is the third rail, which must not be touched. What makes it so? Why is any “science” Holy? It is not the purely inferential conclusions that are drawn from single instances of existence. It is not the empirical data (which does not exist).

This is why the ACLU will spend millions on defending evolution against all comers; it is why Atheists choose evolution as their mantra. The idea that there is no creator to have bestowed any human rights on humans has just one justification: evolution. It is the dogma of the statists.

This is the bit that always catches my attention: If you’re mounting a spitting attack on scientists (or atheists) for some sort of philosophical or factual wrongdoing while simultaneously USING THE LANGUAGE OF RELIGION, you’re basically saying “The stuff you believe is just as stupid as the stuff I believe. You’re making the same mistake I make.”

It’s like yelling over the fence at your neighbor, “Hey, dog owner! Your dog SHITS IN THE YARD!! Just like mine does!”

What makes it so is the utility of the theory for social engineering in the Nietzschean/Dewey/Alinski tradition. The influence on society of this non-empirical science is due to its devaluation of humans to animal levels, and the “Will To Power” which accompanies that, not its negligible influence on biology.

Well, but there are also us evil environmentalists who take the reverse tack — raising animals to human levels. You know, insisting that chimps and elephants and wolves (for instance) have the right to survive.

But evolution has no…NO…scientific merit of the empirical variety. It is purely extrapolative, speculative, inferential story manufacturing. The vaunted science has only speculation to back it up.

So I will continue to poke at the nakedness of this non-empirical emperor. It is not a closed case. It cannot prove its speculations. If it were not tied to a social agenda it would not be allowed by reasonable scientists to be elevated to the secular deification it now enjoys.

I can almost see this one brave man, a “former 40 year atheist” who has seen the light of Jesus, blogging into the night so the darkness of atheism and evolution will not topple Western Civilization.


  • Randomfactor

    But he MUST be right; he CAPITALIZED the word “NO” when he claimed there was no science in evolution.

  • wunelle

    You can’t argue with crazy. There’s no point debating someone bereft of rational thought.

  • kraut

    I am confused – to not claim something does exist demands proof?
    I do not claim that leprechauns exist – do I have to prove it?

    Quite funny his contention that yes, religious organizations make mistakes because they are institutions run by humans. But then he also defends a morality proclaimed by a deity…but received and written down by humans…who claim they communicate with the deity? Or how else did those moral commands enter the consciousness?
    Does anybody else see some problems here?

  • Andrew G.

    For bonus crank-points he’s also an AGW-denialist.

    Always a bad sign when someone claims to care about “Truth” with a capital T – especially when they have links to the likes of Breitbart, Watts, and Denyse O’Leary in their blogroll.

  • Pingback: When Religious People Accuse Us of Being Religious, As An Insult | Camels With Hammers()

  • John Phillips, FCD

    Well whoever Martin is he deserves a VC for putting up with the obfuscation and moving of goalposts in both of the threads I have looked at. Stan manages to trot out nearly every fallacy and strawman under the sun while dismissing the relevance of a mountain of empirical evidence with just a hand wave. If he truly was an atheist for 40 years I imagine he must have suffered some really severe brain damage to end up the maroon he now appears to be.

  • Andrew G.

    I tried taking a potshot at his commission of the fallacy of composition in the CS Lewis thread. We’ll see how that goes (only response so far has been a digression from Martin)

  • Andrew G.

    Aww, I think he’s decided to hide behind comment moderation.

  • mishcakes

    I just wasted most of my afternoon reading through that garbage. Stan clearly hides behind big words and complicated logic games just so he can continue to believe in Sky Daddy.

    Not ONCE did he concede to any point made by his dissenters. Just continued to nitpick small logical errors while completely missing the big picture. Ugh.

    Hardcore religionists are retarded.

  • MTiffany

    Poor Stan, if he understood science in the slightest he would know that

    It is not a closed case.

    is not a fatal flaw of a scientific theory, it is the underpinning of science itself; it allows for the possibility that new discoveries can invalidate long-held, consensus theory.

    Of course with Stan and his ilk, failure to understand the topic they are expounding upon isn’t a weakness, it’s a virtue. The virtue being what you don’t understand, you must ascribe to a god, so the less you know, the more pious you are. Glory be!

  • Pingback: blue ofica()