Study in Fallacious Reasoning and Intellectual Dishonesty Concerning Atheism: Sacerdotus Sacerdotvs - Part II

This post is a continuation of a presentation about fallacious assertions often made by class II apologists concerning atheism.  While the discussion of the particular article used for this post stands on its own, the background of the article, and why I chose it are contained in part I, as are various statements directed to its author concerning comments and my use of the article for this critique.

With that out of the way, lets continue.

For this part of the discussion I am referencing an article written by  +Sacerdotus Sacerdotvs  (SaSa) entitled Atheism as Default Fails. (first published on 10 April 2013 in SaSa's blog, then posted to the Theists vs Atheists Discussion, Google + community on 10 December 2014)

SaSa's premise for this article is quite obvious: atheism as the default position in a discussion about the existence of a god or gods fails. SaSa backs up this assertion with the following statements:

Statement 1:"However, no human being is born with an infused intellect or conceptual knowledge.  No person is born having acquired knowledge from stimuli outside of the womb."

Statement 2:"Even after birth, the brain still does not have experience and needs those around [sic] in order to learn."

Statement 3:"Atheism is a social script, not a default of the human condition at birth.  No one is born atheist [sic]or possesses [sic]  an absence in [sic] belief of God.  In order for one to not believe something, one must be first [sic] aware of that something."

(The rest of the article contains various explanations about how babies are formed and semi-correct statements on how they react with their environment following birth.  These explanations don't really add anything to the premise and seem to be attempts to offer some sort of validity to SaSa as someone to listen to on the subject. A thinly veiled appeal to authority, if you will.)

While these statements obviously contradict each other, and refute SaSa's assertion by themselves, I will address them individually, and then together, to make this even more clear.

I basically agree with the first statement in that humans are not born with any particular beliefs, or innate knowledge as we generally understand such things.  They don't have a specific moral code or belief system, and, as statement two implies, these things have to be taught.

In order to place these assertions into context with SaSa's premise, I offer the following definition of atheism from the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language:

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"

So, atheism can be a refusal to believe, or a lack of belief in a god or gods.  Since babies don't yet have an opinion on the subject, or even a concept of the subject, they can't very well "refuse" to believe it.  However, for the same reasons, they do posses a lack of belief, and are therefore atheists.  Since they are born with this lack of belief, they are born with the default position of a lack of belief.  Clearly a refutation of SaSa's original assertion.

SaSa then goes on to make a series of rather fallacious baseless statements in defense of the position, he himself, has already accidentally refuted.

He starts with:

"Atheism is a social script, not a default of the human condition at birth."

This is obviously a misrepresentation of what atheism is, as shown in the definition above.  That aside, he gives no explanation of what he means by "social script", but I assume that he means that a lack of belief has to be taught.  This would imply an innate belief to have been present for there to be something to be taught not to believe in.  As, SaSa has correctly pointed out, no belief exists upon birth, so there is nothing to be taught not to believe in. There is merely a lack of belief. See how self-defeating the whole idea becomes?

He follows this with:

"No one is born atheist or possesses an absence in belief of God."

Here SaSa is at least giving an accurate definition of atheism "an absence of belief in god."  However, by inference he is saying that babies are born with a belief in god, thus contradicting an earlier correct assertion that babies are born without beliefs.  If a baby is not born with an absence of a belief, then it is born with said belief.  You can't have it both ways, either a baby has no beliefs i.e. an absence of belief, or it has beliefs.  As SaSa, and more reliably, actual science, has already established, it is the former.  So, again he has affirmed that babies are born with an absence of belief in gods, and are therefore atheists.

But he isn't quite finished:

"In order for one to not believe something, one must be first aware of that something."

This statement would (to some) seem to make sense, but it is illogical and factually incorrect.  There are any number of things which many people don't believe in without being aware that they don't believe in them. 

For instance: A purple unicorn named Fred living on the dark side of the moon whose feces taste like strawberries.  Did anyone reading this believe in such a being before I made you aware of its possible existence?  I hope not, because I made it up.

Of course, now that you are aware of my asserted creature, you have a few obvious choices:

• You can ask for evidence to support Fredism (the belief in Fred the unicorn)
• You can assert that Fred is not real, and be faced with my reply of: "prove it, you non-believer!"
• Or, you can stick with the default position of Afredism,(the lack of belief in Fred the unicorn) that you and everyone else was born with.

So there you have it. Another in a long line of failed assertions that atheism is some sort of "truth statement", "belief affirmation", or some other assertion.  Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods.  Even those who believe in a god or a set of gods are atheists when it comes to gods they don't believe in.  The problem most theists have with this concept is an unconscious manifestation of cognitive dissonance:  They have to believe that atheism is a statement of belief so they can deny it without having to supply evidence for their own belief.  It is far easier to say someone is wrong than it is to have to prove one's self right.

I would never say that there aren't atheists who make the claim that gods (or a particular god) do not exist, or that such a person would not assume the burden of proving his or her assertion.  But such an assertion is not atheism (a lack of belief), it is in itself a belief:  the belief that gods do not exist.  Sure, an atheist can hold this belief, just as he or she can hold a belief in UFO abductions, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness monster.  But such beliefs assume a degree of the burden of proof, whereas a lack of belief in such things does not, as it is merely the default position we are all born with.


To read SaSa's original article in full you can find it here:

http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/04/atheism-as-default-fails.html

Study in Fallacious Reasoning and Intellectual Dishonesty Concerning Atheism: Sacerdotus Sacerdotvs - Part I

I have recently had the pleasure of engaging a person going by the Google + identity of, +Sacerdotus Sacerdotvs (SaSa).  During our debates, SaSa presented some good examples of the type of class II apologist arguments concerning atheism that one is likely to come across all over the internet, so I figure he and his arguments can make for good examples of such.  SaSa came to my attention with the posting of links to two of his own Blog posts in a Google+ community to which I belong:  one entitled Atheism is Stupid and the other Atheism as Default Fails  As these links were provided under the category of "discussion" in a community with the word discussion in its name, I tried repeatedly to discuss them with SaSa, but, as expected, only received replies such as :

"If you insist on trolling, I will have to report you for spam and block you.  I really do not have time for ignorant folks." 

When I continued my pursuit of discussion, SaSa deleted the posts, and reposted with comments disabled.  So, I linked to the reposts, and tried once again to discuss them.  SaSa continued to reject discussion, and instead tried threatening me with having my account suspended:

"Please stop reposting my posts.  Google will flag you for spam for duplicate posts."

" +Ron Nicolas Why risk getting your account suspended?  It makes no sense. "

So, since SaSa continued to try and block dissenting opinion, and the weaknesses in his assertions were so many and so extensive, I have decided to show the weaknesses in his "arguments" here on this blog.  The original blog posts remain his intellectual property of course, but within actual copyright laws and policies, I will dissect his material (with all due citation) and show how illogical and invalid said property is.

Before I begin:  I want to assure +Sacerdotus Sacerdotvs that he will have the ability to post any and all replies that he wishes to make.  Comments are of course moderated on this blog due to the number of illiterate morons roaming around the blogosphere, but I promise that any and all comments submitted by SaSa will be posted unedited.  I welcome his input, but given his reluctance to discuss such things on the original postings, don't expect much.

(This post is Part I of a two part series on this, and discusses only the first article.)

So, lets proceed...

First up we have the article, Atheism is Stupid.  (First published  23 January 2013 on his blog then posted to Theist vs Atheist Discussion, Google + community on 9 and 10 December 2014)

In this article, SaSa tells us that he used to be a particularly confrontational atheist, who, eventually, started studying physics and came to the realization that " God may not be a bad explanation after all for the causality of everything."  Without explaining how any legitimate study of physics would lead someone to such an illogical conclusion, SaSa then goes on to list 8 points which show why atheism, from his viewpoint, "is stupid."  These eight points are:

1. Free Thought
2. Denial of Causality
3. Abuse of Science
4. Misrepresenting History
5. Contrarian Position
6. Filter
7. Strawman
8. Atheism is Stupid

I will examine each of these individually:

Number 1 Free Thought:

"Atheists pride themselves in claiming that Atheism is all about free thought.  However, I began to question this for the mere fact that Atheists do not give time to the God concept.  They are quick to dismiss it as a "sky fairy" superstition.  As a science student, my career involved investigating, questioning and theorizing.  I could not simple state, "There is no God, it is superstition."  This would be intellectually dishonest and a cop out.  Atheism is NOT a haven for free thought."  (Atheism is Stupid-para 6)

At this point, SaSa's claim to have been an atheist starts to lose traction, as "the God concept" is an integral part of why atheists are atheists. No atheist in the Western World past the age of 6 could escape from this contemplation.  SaSa goes on to assert that because he could not state that there is no god that this problem led him to believe that atheism doesn't allow for free thought.  Here SaSa commits a number of logical fallacies including the forming of a strawman in the form of what atheism is (according to him; a denial of his god's existence instead of the actual non-belief in his god), and the false dichotomy that one either blindly accepts the possibility of gods, or is close minded.


Number 2 Denial of Causality:

"Atheists are quick to dismiss God as the causal factor of all that exists without evidence to support this claim.  They hide behind the different theories surrounding the "Big Bang" or the "Big Splat."  However, they completely ignore that these events need a trigger.  Things do not just happen, there is reason for them.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.  Atheism does not answer the question of causality and therefore cannot be taken seriously, scientifically speaking." (Atheism is Stupid-para 7)

SaSa continues showing his capacity for fallacious reasoning with his statement that "Atheists are quick to dismiss God as the causal factor of all that exists without evidence to support this claim."  This is clearly fallacious as he is claiming that the dismissal of an unsupported assertion is a contrary statement.  This is a very common mistake that people tend to make when talking about atheism in general.  SaSa, and many others don't seem to recognize that the statement:

Do not believe A

Is very different from:

Believe not A 

The first statement is the base or neutral position, for any assertion.  There are any number of things which everybody applies this to, such as:   'Oranges taste good.'  If someone says that he or she doesn't believe that oranges taste good, but hasn't yet tasted one, they are merely stating a lack of belief in the assertion (oranges taste good) based on a lack of evidence.  If after tasting an orange, the same person says "oranges don't taste good" he or she is making a statement of opinion based on evidence he or she has collected (the tasting of an orange).

This same principal applies to the assertion that SaSa's god is the "causal factor of all that exists."  Dismissing such a baseless assertion due to a lack of evidence, is very different from asserting the opposite without evidence. In one case a person would be dismissing something for which no reason has been given for acceptance, and in the other the person is asserting something for which evidence would be reasonably expected.

The late Christopher Hitchens put it best with his statement:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

The rest of the point is something of a strawman, based on an apparent ignorance of the field of physics which SaSa claims to be a student of.  Science and atheism are two distinctly differing things.  Neither requires support of the other, and both stand on very differing planes.  In fact there are many religious sects and people who accept the given scientific facts, and there are a few scientists in those fields who still believe in, or at least accept the possibility of a god. 

The ignorance part comes in with the notion that "scientifically speaking" one must accept causality for the Universe.  Many prominent physicists assert the exact opposite with Hawking, and Krauss being two which immediately come to mind.  Any actual student of physics would know this, and would also know that "scientifically speaking" one cannot make an assertion of causality without evidence.  Since science hasn't reached an understanding of the cause (if any) of the Universe, no such assertion can be made.

Number 3 Abuse of Science:

As with the last point, SaSa starts out with a highly fallacious first sentence:

"Atheists pretend to rely on science to support Atheism; however, nothing in science actually supports Atheism." (Atheism is Stupid-para 8 sentence 1)

As I mentioned earlier, science and atheism are separate entities and neither claims to support or draw support from the other.  They exist separately and stand on their own merits.  The rest of the point is basically the same as the preceding one, and fails on the same grounds.

Number 4 Misrepresenting History:

This one is rife with misunderstanding and a clear ignorance of history which is most clearly shown with the statement:

"The crimes of those who were put to death were disobedience and heresy, not scientific progress"  (Atheism is Stupid-para 9 sentence 5)

The most famous case of the Church's suppression of scientific progress is that of Galileo, who was charged with heresy by the Inquisition for continuing to espouse the idea of a heliocentric solar system after the Inquisition had ruled such teachings to be contrary to scripture.

 Clearly SaSa's assertion about who is misrepresenting what could be viewed as something of a tu quoque.

Number 5 Contrarian Position:

This point is basically a modified ad hoc fallacy wherein SaSa asserts that atheists don't accept the evidence given them which is why they don't believe, without having shown the validity of the evidence asserted.  Not all evidence is equal.  If I reject the existence of a blueberry as evidence of a unicorn I am not rejecting valid evidence, in the same way that if I reject a specific passage from the Bible as proof that Unicorns exist I am not rejecting validated evidence.

He further states that this shows that atheists are clearly not "free thinkers" because they don't blindly accept any and all evidence given.  SaSa never explains why such evidence should be blindly accepted.

Number 6 Filter:

Basically a rewording of point 5 which fails for the reasons already given above.

Number 7 Strawman

Simply an unsupported assertion that all atheist arguments against "Faith, God, and Religion [sic]" are based on misrepresentation of what these things are.  I agree that this does sometimes occur, but it is hardly the norm.  Generally the contradictions, inconsistencies, fallacious reasoning, lack of evidence, hypocrisies, etc. inherent within these ideas and institutions are what is presented, and the counter is generally (though not always) a No True Scotsman reply and accusation of a Strawman.  However, either side of this point is, to this point, merely opinion, and I'll just leave it at that since I (like SaSa) don't have enough empirical evidence to say reasonably prove otherwise.

Number 8 Atheism is Stupid:

This is obviously just a restatement of SaSa's assertions in the title of the article and his fallacious "points."  It is quite telling though how this final point is contradicted and refuted by his own preceding points:

"The idea that God does not exist or that there is no evidence is unfounded. For centuries philosophers, religious thinkers and scientists have offered all kinds of proof for the existence of God.  The suggestion that there is no evidence for God is simply not true.  There is indeed evidence for God. Whether or not one wants to accept it, then that is another issue.  Nevertheless, the rejection of evidence does not invalidate that evidence."

This violates point 3 wherein SaSa asserts that atheists are making statements without supporting them.  According to SaSa the assertion of something without giving supporting evidence shows the assertion to be invalid.  No evidence for the validity of this assertion is given anywhere within this article.  Clearly SaSa doesn't read and/or give validity to his own assertions.

SaSa ends his points with the assertion that by not accepting his baseless assertions in point 8 that atheists are exhibiting a fear of learning.  And concludes his article with:

"As a student of science, a mere "I do not believe" is not enough for me.  I am a seeker of truth, not a denier of anything that might be truth.  Atheism was not for me.  Atheism is for the intellectual sloth who does not take the effort to find answers to questions."

I'll just let that one sit for the reader to ponder.  As you try to figure out how he justifies this statement, I only ask that you consider everything he said prior.  Good luck.  I have yet to figure it out.  Maybe you can.

In part II we will discuss SaSa's Atheism as Default Fails article.


As of 10 December 2014, all quotes in this article are from SaSa's article Atheism is Stupid which can be found at the following link:

http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/01/atheism-is-stupid.html

References to his other article Atheism as Default Fails  can be verified at:

http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/04/atheism-as-default-fails.html


And Finally:

Since SaSa likes to try to intimidate using an ignorance based threat of copyright infringement I offer the following explanation of fair use when in a non-commercial and editorial platform:

"Under the "fair use" rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights. If you write or publish, you need a basic understanding of what is and is not fair use.

Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses

Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:

• Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.
• News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report.
• Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations.
• Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.
• Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way."

Source:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

Toying With Apologists: Absolute Morality

By far, my favorite debates are those with a proponent of absolute morality.  No other component of the modern apologist's assertions is, to me, weaker or more easily refuted.

The idea of absolute morality is that there is a moral code that is somehow innate within us all or at least beyond the realm of opinion.  Simply put, it says that something is good or bad regardless of what our individual opinion on it may be.  Coincidently, this code always comes from the proponent's version of their god, and exactly mirrors their own morality.

Despite the fact that any basic review of human history shows this idea to be utter nonsense, a majority of apologists, both amateur and pro, still hold onto the idea.  However, they never seem to be able to show evidence for it which isn't summarily destroyed by simple historical cultural reference, or even just their own comments.

The following is a short example of how such a debate generally plays out, and how easily it is shot down:



(The redacted portion was a reply to another comment poster)

In this exchange Ebenezer (E) and I have been going back and forth for a couple of days.  To this point, E had tried using "murder" and "rape" as the morals for discussion.  As usual, I summarily shot both down as subjective legal terms which could not be used as an example of morality.  E apparently did some research, and came back with the "torture a baby" question, which seems to have become a standard with these guys.  It is a question which would seem to invoke some emotion, and what they apparently assume is a slam dunk.

E starts well enough by simply asking if it is morally ok to "torture a baby" to which I answer:  "for me: no."  At this point his entire ploy falls completely apart due to my qualified answer.  Note that I don't simply say "no."  It is this simplistic answer that E, and all of the other users of this ploy, expect.  But to say simply "no" would be to admit some objective source for my answer, which doesn't exist, and would be dishonest as my morals are, like everyone else's, purely subjective and only apply to me.

Also note that I immediately make reference to definitions.  A very common problem with debates like this, is that the two sides are often using differing definitions for the same word or phrase, so it's important to remove this obstacle at the earliest possible time. So far everything is going according to script.

But then, in an attempt to bypass my qualifier, E makes the fatal mistake.  With his next question he brings in other societies and asks: 

"is it ever morally OK to torture a baby, in any society."

His obvious assumption is that my answer will be the same.  But the question is about other societies so my answer is an obvious yes.  I say obvious, because, by my definition, which hadn't been given yet, the morally accepted practice of infanticide by 'exposure' in many cultures, shows that in those cultures the torture (intentional infliction of undo suffering) of babies was often accepted as moral.

The answer obviously confuses E, so he asks me the initial question again, and I give the same answer I gave the first time.

E asks the same question for a third time, obviously still confused.  This time he is starting to show annoyance and frustration which manifests with his condescending definition.  Ignoring the attempted slight, I answer the question for a third time.

At this point E could ask about the answer to his other question, but seems to have spotted his mistake, so he moves on to the inevitable fallacious conclusion:

He starts immediately with a presupposition that has absolutely no basis.  And then goes on to make another fatal mistake by unintentionally giving a usable definition of subjective morality followed by a slippery slope argument.  The following was my reply:

At this point E stopped replying.  Note that the second paragraph of my reply was not accurate, as he didn't actually say that I had advocated torturing a baby.  I put this in there because I knew that he was likely finished, and couldn't respond to what followed.  It, admittedly, was a cheap attempt to pull him back in so I could continue to thrash his point.

And, it worked:

E repeats his assertion that my answers, somehow show that I believe in exactly what I told him I did not believe in.  While this may look somewhat silly to many onlookers, it is a common strawman-like tactic employed by most of the people I have debated this subject with.  It is, as far as I can tell, an attempt to either confuse their opponent, or try to rescue their own validity.

He immediately follows this assertion with a comment which contradicts it, and brings his god into the fray with a syllogism.  Syllogisms are a common tool used by people like E and other followers of the William Lane Craig school of what they think is 'logic.'  Most of the time these syllogisms are severely flawed and poorly constructed like the one E uses here. 

To explain:

Syllogisms like this one only work if both P1 and P2 are factual.  Since P1 hasn't been shown to be factual, and P2 had already been shown to be not-factual then there is no way to reach the conclusion (C) which has here been mistakenly called "3."

In my reply to this I pointed out that the name for any mythological being could be used in place of "god." and it would have the same amount of validity (none).

E follows this failure of a syllogism with a set of horribly illogical assertions about how, while I don't believe in his god, I am somehow questioning this god's morality.  This too is a very common play by such people.  It is an attempt to shift the burden away from themselves onto their opponents by setting up a discussion on the morality of their god, instead of having to defend an already failed premise:  that objective morality actually exists.  In this case, as in all others, I merely replied that I don't believe in his god, and reminded him that he still hadn't proven his initial assertion about the existence of absolute morality so there was nothing for his god to be the "foundation" of.

He then gave another farewell, along with the obligatory (and disingenuous) statement about "looking forward to" further discussions.  Oh, and a blessing.

Generally, such discussions are stretched out a lot more than this one, but they always contain the exact same amount of evidence for their case, and, as I mentioned in my post about WLC, ultimately end in a very similar way.   To many, it would seem that such conversations are useless, since no new information is ever offered, and they always end the same way.  However, it is important to remember that there are always onlookers, and it is to them that I always aim my refutation of these silly claims.

Get to Know an Apologist: William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig:  Class III Apologist

In this post I would like to introduce a class III apologist of the highest order: one William Lane Craig.  Craig is not one of your run-of-the-mill fanatics like Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist fame, or an unabashed defender of creationism like Ken Ham.  No, Craig has managed to create the illusion that he is a true theologian, and actively preys on his followers who pay to hear him babble, and buy his books.  While, I can't say for certain that Craig is a pure con-man, his tactics and assertions would certainly seem to show that if he does actually believe his own nonsense, that it is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

Anyone who has had a discussion with someone who relies primarily on circular reasoning, dodging questions, and presuppositions of a god's existence as their only evidence, has come across the entirety of William Lane Craig's form of apologetics.  He relies solely on dodgy debate tactics, and purely circular presuppositional reasoning to state his case.  And, while these tactics can drive an otherwise rational and sane person to homicidal thoughts when debating in a structured venue, they are quite easily refuted when encountered in a venue where one has a moment to actually think about what is being said, and the time to reply to it.

Craig, and his disciples, rely on a carefully structured combination of three main arguments to state their case:  Absolute morality, the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Universe, and the Ontological argument for the existence of his god.  As all three of these arguments must be coordinated for the idea as a whole to function, so anyone trying to discuss a single one of the three parts with someone, will constantly be dealing with the subject being changed to one or both of the other two.  So, when dealing with these drones, it is important to understand the inherent weaknesses all three. And, when ever possible, stay on, or return to, the original subject.

 

Absolute Morality:

In general terms, absolute morality is the idea that there is a moral code which is totally separate from any kind of subjective idea or interpretation:  an action is right or wrong in and of itself regardless of anyone's opinion on the subject.  When you add in Craig's (and most other Christians') perspective, the source of this objective code is his god.  Coincidentally, this objective code will always mirror the proponents moral code, and changes according to the person with whom you are talking.  On its face, the argument looks sound.  However, even a cursory examination of the idea reveals just how unsound and easily refuted the argument is.

The biggest problem with this argument, is that an objective set of morals for humanity has never been shown to exist.  In fact; basic knowledge of history and modern societies quite clearly show that it doesn't.

For instance: A common argument in favor of objective morality is to say that all societies agree that murder is wrong. However, murder is by definition the unlawful taking of life. So, for this argument to have any validity, all societies would have to agree on which types of killing constitute murder, and even a cursory review of human history and modern society show that this is not the case.

Infanticide, which, seemingly, would be universally reviled, was perfectly acceptable to the Romans and Spartans. Human sacrifice has been practiced by cultures around the world, as has capital punishment. The slaughter of civilians in war was widely accepted until fairly modern times. Some cultures did not consider it murder to kill people from other nations. In feudal Japan, samurai had wide latitude to kill peasants over the slightest discourtesy. And, gladiator games were little more than a morally acceptable form of killing for sport. 

Unless there is at least one type of killing that is universally considered to be murder, it cannot be argued that all societies agree that murder is wrong in any meaningful sense.  Similar problems exist for rape, theft, and any other action which can be viewed morally.

When confronted with points like this, the proponent of objective morality will tend to strawman what you are saying, and/or, play an appeal to emotion: "you are saying that it is ok to murder a child just because the Romans did it.  I find that terrible" or something to that effect.  They may also try a slippery slope argument to the effect of :  "if that's true, then there is nothing to prevent us from running around doing whatever we want."  It is easy to get lost in their arguments, and can be frustrating to deal with, but all one needs to do is sit and think for a second.  Any of their flimsy defenses can easily be answered with  pointing out that we have subjective laws to deal with such things, and we are still here as a species.  It should also be pointed out quite emphatically, that these arguments in no way show the existence of any absolute code of morality, and that the opinions being expressed are 100% subjective, until such a thing can be proven.  Don't worry:  it can't.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Craig's most annoying, and circular, argument is his assertion about the existence of the Universe.  It is a variation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which has it's roots in Islamic philosophy which states that the Universe has a personal first cause.  Craig's version is basically:

P1-Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2-The Universe began to exist
C-Therefore, the Universe must have a cause.

With a few more steps, this cause is stated as Craig's god.  For believers this argument seems self-evident, but it, like all of Craig's arguments, is severely flawed from the start.

The Gap left for God is an infinitesimally
 small dot at the left of the diagram

First up is the statement that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  The obvious question that pops up is something like : "then what caused god?"  But alas there is the standard answer that this god is eternal and therefore has no beginning, so this question becomes a circular argument from which there is no escape.  However, for everything else, quantum mechanics and things like radioactive decay clearly show that not everything which exists has a "cause."  Craig and his more astute followers try to dance around this problem with something Craig calls "probabalistic causality" which is just a fancy way of saying accidental causes.  This in and of itself contradicts the idea of a predetermined or designed creation, and renders the whole idea to using circular reasoning to avoid the idea that the "cause" can be purely a natural one.

Then there's the presupposition that the Universe has a "cause."  There is simply not enough evidence to show that this is the case.  There are many ideas which would show that this is simply not the case.  The more well known of these are:

1-Before the expansion of the universe began it may well have been in an eternally stable state.
2-The Big Bang could have been preceded by a "Big Crunch" in an eternal cycle.
3-Multiverse theory
4-Something else which hasn't been thought of.

We simply don't have enough knowledge to make a definitive statement one way or the other. 

Even if we accept that there was a cause, we have no knowledge about the nature of the cause, so can't definitively ascribe it to a god, as it may well be some natural cause that we have yet to discover.  Since everything else can be shown to have a natural cause, there is far less reason to assume a supernatural cause than there is to assume a natural cause.

The entire argument cannot be logically supported because it immediately commits the logical fallacy of begging the question with the assumption that a god is the cause; goes into special pleading by removing that god from the "everything" part; and finishes off with an appeal to ignorance, or as it is most commonly called:  a god of the gaps argument wherein the point that we don't know something this god creature is presented as the explanation.

A fun way to circle the whole argument back to them is to offer the following:

P1-Everything which is sentient has a cause
P2-The Biblical god is said to have sentience.
C-The Biblical god has a cause

The typical answer will be a form of moving the goalposts, so always be vigilant, and move them back.

The Ontological argument for the existence of god:

When discussing either of the previous two points a glaring hole immediately appears in the arguments:  the presupposition of the god.  Craig gets around this hole by using the Ontological argument which goes as follows:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.

When first confronted with this silliness, a person is usually rendered unable to reply, because it appears logically sound.  But, as with everything else Craig puts forward, a little thought renders it useless.  There are several flaws with the premise with begging the question in point three being the biggest.

Simply put if it is possible for this being to exist, it is also possible that this being doesn't exist.  The word "possible" is the fatal flaw.  Since the being cannot be proven to exist before this point is asserted then there is an equal possibility that it does not exist, as shown with the following:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then there is some possible world where a maximally great being does not exist.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. A maximally great being does not exist in every possible world (from 2).
5. Therefore, a maximally great being (God) does not exist.

This moves the burden of proof back to point one that a "maximally great being" exists in the first place.  Something for which no empirical evidence exists, or the whole argument wouldn't have had to be presented in the first place.  The best place to start with this argument is by asking for a definition of the being asserted in point one and support for the idea that a being could exist.  The whole thong will, undoubtedly devolve into special pleading and circular reasoning. And, end with one of their standard endings like "you are too stupid to understand it" or "you refuse to look at the evidence."

Conclusion and tips:

It is rare that Craig's arguments will come at you in full from one of his followers.  Generally, he or she will start with one of the three parts, and continually shift around to the others when you corner him or her.  Craig himself is a master at using them.  You need only watch a single debate with him to see that he never actually answers anything directed at him.  He usually throws a scattershot of ideas and assertions at his opponent, who due to the structured nature of the venue is unable to answer all of them.  Craig then seizes on the ones his opponent didn't address and focuses solely on those from that point on.  He then continually makes strawmen and further scattershot assertions.  All the while ignoring the rules of the debate. Wash, rinse, repeat.

These arguments and his style of delivery have never been shown to sway anyone who doesn't already believe in his or her god, but they look and sound good to his followers, who then buy his books.  This is why he is listed a class III apologist, as he is preying on believers who he helps create.
 
Unfortunately (for his followers), due to their illogical nature Craig is the only one who can manage these arguments.  Whenever you encounter one of his followers outside a structured format, it is quite easy to find and exploit the inherent weaknesses in these arguments, and render their proponants to angry babbling idiots who soon dismiss you as "unworthy of further engagement", or simply start cussing you out or throwing a tantrum  It just takes patience, and a little foreknowledge of their arguments, and the gaping holes in those arguments, for such engagements to be rather enjoyable, as well as, informative for onlookers.

Classification of Creationists

Creationists are a particularly interesting group of apologists.  These are the people who try to maintain their delusion by applying Iron and Bronze Age mythology to modern understandings of our Universe.   These attempts to merge the ideas of a culture who were trying to figure out where the rain came from, with a culture who has put men on the Moon, are sometimes amusing, sometimes sad, and always feeble. 

As annoying as these people are, it is important to remember that the people spreading this confusing jumble of detritus are not all created equal, and, as such, should not all be treated in the same way. Once one understands which type of Creationist he or she is dealing with, he or she can then decide how best to treat that person.

To that end I offer the following classification system for creationists along with my personal take on how to deal with them.

Basic Classification:

Class I - The Ignorant
Class II - The Wilfully Ignorant
Class III - Those Who Create and Prey on the Others


Class I Creationists:

These are the truly ignorant creationists.  They honestly have not been exposed to actual science or the mountains of evidence and logic which shows their particular view of where the Universe came from to be purely fictional.  This class includes homeschooled children and the like. 

Pity and education are usually the best things one can direct at these individuals.

Class II Creationists:

These are the creationists who have been exposed to the evidence showing their mythology to be wrong, but have suppressed this knowledge in order to maintain what they now know, or at least suspect, is a delusion.  This is, by far, the largest class of Creationists and includes the parents of homeschooled children, the people who don't really care one way or the other, Fox News hosts, most politicians, and roughly 99% of the people one encounters in online discussions about the issue.

There is no standard way to treat such people, as they are an extremely varied group.  In general, some education would be a good place to start, as long as you don't expect them to accept it.  Pity is good, but should never be shown, as all this does is remind them that they are suppressing knowledge and their cognitive dissonance reactions will kick in.

Class III  Creationists:

These are the scum de la scum of the Creationist community.  Some are undoubtedly also Class II, but many appear to be pure con artist.  These people are the ones inventing and disseminating the arguments to support the mythology and in return are raking in huge profits through the sale of books, DVD's, and other assorted items like t-shirts with stupid catch phrases, to the Class IIs, and "instructional" material for the creation of more Class Is.  These are you Hovinds, Hams, Comforts, and Camerons. 

These people should be treated with as much disdain and vitriol as it is possible to disseminate.  They deserve every form of disgust that can be thrown their way, and then some.  There is no form of religious apologist, predatory pedophile, or  disease carrying vermin lower than these dregs, and they should be treated as such.


While there could easily be sub classifications for Class II Creationists, the above basic classification system should work for the most part when one is trying to figure out what type of person he or she is dealing with, and how that person should be dealt with.