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