Holy shit, I can’t believe people don’t get this

Awhile ago I found myself in the most inane debate I’ve ever experienced. Two theists were arguing to me than an atheist cannot use the unresolvable Problem of Evil in order to make any sort of point because it assumes the existence of objective evil, something many atheists (including myself) reject. I hope most of my readers can see how baffling such a statement is. One, if the argument assumes anything, it first assumes the existence of God, something atheists reject – not only is this baffling argument wrong, but the most logical starting point hasn’t even been chosen for it, thus making it is wrong in its wrongness. Two, the point of the argument is to say someone has belief A and belief B and those two beliefs are in conflict. To put it another way, say Joe Blow believes in the Muslim god and the Christian god. Mr. Blow believes they are separate entities that both constitute the only way to salvation. Clearly there is a conflict. But according to Theist Logic, no one is allowed to question this conflict without first accepting Joe Blow’s beliefs. “What?! You think I’m wrong? But you don’t even believe in the Muslim god! You can’t use something you don’t personally think is true in your arguments!”

As stupid as this is, I have had to explain it in the past. And to top things off, the argument once again has appeared on my Facebook page:

[Other FB user], without evil, the “problem of evil” doesn’t exist, therefore, it is asinine for someone who doesn’t believe evil exists to use “the problem of evil” as an argument against the existence of God. I understand that it is hypothetical, but that doesn’t mean it’s not ridiculous. You can’t use an argument that assumes God to make an argument against the existence of God.

The most bizarre thing about this is that it is somehow even more twisted. It first begins with the “You must believe what I believe in order to tell me what I believe is wrong” argument. In this case, what this person believes is that objective evil exists. Next he cedes that the argument is hypothetical. This is where he has lost the point. I mean, come on. How can someone effectively say, “Yes, I understand that your entire point is correct” and yet somehow continue? Theist Logic, I guess. And finally, he moves to arguing that the unresolvable Problem of Evil first assumes God. So he started with evil, which is wrong in its wrongness, then moved to God, which is right in its wrongness, but he only did this after being wrong. So I guess his wrong wrongness is rightly wrong?

Theist Logic gets out of hand pretty quickly.

Gasp! You mean it’s a changing document?

Unlike the purely political Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has some common sense:

Breyer told hundreds of people during an event in downtown Little Rock that a judge’s job is to figure out how the Founding Fathers’ values apply to modern issues.

“George Washington didn’t really have a view about the Internet,” he said, drawing laughter from the crowd of about 650 people at the Statehouse Convention Center.

It’s sad to think that more people, including the purely political conservative “justices” on the Court, don’t realize this utterly basic fact.

Thought of the day

Kiss was an awful band. Just awful.