You’re a coward, Jack Hudson

In continuing his Ken Ham tactics of creationist cowardice, Jack Hudson is quoting from other blogs without linking directly to them. Maybe he’s afraid his following of 3 fellow creationists won’t be able to handle it?

Saying, “Nothing can be caused by atheism because there is nothing within atheism TO cause anything.” is like saying that cutting the breaks on a car won’t cause it to crash because brakes don’t cause cars to move, accelerators do.

This is a direct quote from a commenter on FTSOS’ Facebook Page. In most circles, not giving credit where credit is due is known as plagiarism. But then, it’s okay to lie so long as it’s for Jesus.

It may be true that atheism didn’t cause Maoists, and Stalinists, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Ill and Fidel Castro to kill, torture and imprison tens of millions of people; however it was certainly atheism that allowed them the freedom to completely disregard human rights and human worth and reduce entire populations down to political chattel. This isn’t a matter of conjecture, but history and fact.

This isn’t history; it’s just poor lying. Jack starts by admitting that the arguments he has been parading around the Internet for years are wrong – atheism didn’t cause Mao or Stalin or anyone else to act in any way – but then he pretends like atheism somehow allows for more evil. It doesn’t, that’s non-sense, and it runs counter to the extensive arguments that have been presented on FTSOS without addressing any of them. Atheism is a descriptive claim. It literally cannot allow or disallow for good or evil any more than a claim that rocks exist allows for anything. Jack, like so many other dumb Americans, is incapable of distinguishing between descriptive and normative claims.

Of course, New Atheism, being primarily an emotional response, is not concerned with either history or facts.

This non-sequitur does a couple things. First, it aims to cry “You’re emotional!”, thereby evoking an emotional response. It is an attempt to bring people to emotion because the reality of the situation is that people like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and Richard Dawkins just aren’t going there. Maybe if people like Jack lie enough then a sliver of emotion will push through, thus justifying his lying claim. (Maybe he was also trying to get an emotional response when he texted my cousin.) Second, Jack’s lie is assuming that emotion is somehow invalid. It isn’t. Emotion is an important aspect of the human experience and it can act as an aide in argumentation. Look at John Kerry and George Bush in their ’04 debates. Kerry destroyed Bush on the facts, and I think was later vindicated by the rest of Bush’s failed presidency, but Bush came out looking much better in the latter debates because he was emotionally assertive in his responses. That alone wouldn’t have won him points – he did present actual arguments, and those acted as the primary catalyst to his improved debate image – but they were key in his success (and the country’s failure, but I digress).

The funny thing about all this cowardice is that it was Jack who actually influenced me to use my real name on the Internet. In some ancient message board he would point out that anonymity was an excuse to hide from one’s words. This was a reference to my use of a secondary name in an effort to finish a discussion that had begun under a different name. In reality, I was forced into doing this because the board had banned my first name (how dare I say homosexuality wasn’t a choice!) and it would have been stupid and pointless to come out and say “Look! I’m the guy you just banned!”, so Jack’s criticisms actually made no sense whatsoever in that context. However, his broad point was an important one (again, just not to the situation, despite his silliness). It seemed to me his was saying, ‘Own up to what you say’, and I agree with the sentiment. It’s just ironic that he now rejects it.

2 Responses

  1. We already know what a piece of lying crud Jack Hudson is. He supports murder, etc. as long as his HayZeus approves of it. He is equivalent to a terrorist

  2. As I’ve said before, theists don’t seem to understand that such a position undermines objectivity in morality. If a god can arbitrarily change right and wrong, then morality is just left hanging in the wind.

    Besides all that, it is a subjective claim to say God is objective in the first place. The theists can’t win this one.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: