And an abuse of philisophy

Given my need to use a link within a recent post, I clicked over to Punching Bag Neil’s site. I found one of his traditional trolling Red Herring Theist posts where he says atheists have no grounding for atheism. Quoting another Red Herring Theist, he poses this question:

Here are some questions you can ask Richard Dawkins (and by extension any new atheist) the next time you sit next to him on a bus:…

• What makes your moral standard more than a subjective opinion or personal preference? What makes it truly binding or obligatory? Why can’t I just ignore it? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?

I know Neil has this nasty habit of insulating himself from most outside criticism – it’s a common thing in the Christian blogosphere – but I would like to turn the question back on him and his silly little Christian brethren. What makes your moral standards more than subjective? How do you objectively know God exists? How do you objectively know anything in the Bible is true? Are you God himself? If not, then what method are you using to get outside yourself? After all, if you’re using a human brain to interpret anything, you can’t possibly be doing something which is not 100% subjective.

So why are you raising yourself to the level of God, Neil? Aren’t you being disrespectful to your particular, cultural icon?

More abuse of science

It’s a common tactic for anti-gay bigots to distort science. One of their favorites ways to do so is to find studies which are limited in their scope to ‘traditional’ families, but then they take a wrecking ball to the science by pretending that they’re looking at something comparative. I documented one bigot who did just that.

But that isn’t their only tactic. So long as they can distort a scientific study in some way, they will. Take this instance of an anti-gay bigot from the Congressional hearings on the repeal of DADT.

This is common not only of Christians, but much of the conservative movement. So long as a citation is being made, they think they’ve proven their case. Who cares if their source actually contradicts what they have to say?