Monday, May 4, 2015

Lying to Show Moral Superiority

Today we saw two good examples of Christian morals.  Both were intended to prove how much better are Christian ethics than atheist ethics.  Both were lies.

Let's start with Victor Reppert, a PhD philosopher and Christian.  He has been trying hard recently to make atheists out to be communists, complete with the guilt and moral responsibility for communist atrocities.  Well, actually he has been making these clams for years.  Despite many efforts to explain that people do those things because of their ideologies, and atheism is not an ideology in itself, he continues to say the same stupid things.  He knows it's not the truth, but apparently, one of his goals is to show that Christianity is better than atheism from the perspective of morality.  I discussed this in my previous post.

Now, apparently in a concession to the idea that ideology is what motivates people, he is trying to equate humanism to communism.
Actually, Marxism is pretty humanistic, if you think about it. - Reppert
Well, Victor, if you think about it, your education in philosophy should have taught you something other than "theism good - atheism bad".  But let us not accuse you of thinking about it.  You can look up these things on the internet and read all about any ideology you may want to learn about.  If you did that, you would discover that humanism is a far cry from communism.  The centerpiece of humanism is human rights, something that communists have shown little concern for.  But little details like having a basic understanding of various ideological world-views will never get in the way of your lying for your faith, will they, Victor?

And then there's Bob Prokop, who's not a philosopher.  He's just another apologist for his faith who is no less willing to lie.
I was especially struck by this passage: "I am very sorry if a crocodile eats a man, but I can't reproach the crocodile. He is not a moral being. So no reproaches can be made to the communists. Communism has destroyed any moral sense in them. They boasted they had no pity in their hearts." (my emphasis) I thought, now where had I read something similar to this not long ago? Then I remembered. It was right here, on this website. It went something like this: "I love life. I’m living life to the hilt, pretty much guilt free, primarily because my ethical standards aren’t as high." (again, my emphasis)

Question: How far is it from "no guilt" to "no pity"? - Prokop
He is referring to a passage from John Loftus, in which he explained that he was free of the guilt associated with the additional burden of guilt and obligations placed upon believers by their religion, such as the responsibility to pray, to tithe, to evangelize, etc.  But Bob chooses to take the low road, and present Loftus' words, out of context, as simply lacking in ethical standards.  And he expects his readers to conclude that he is ethically better than Loftus?  Well, I have no doubt that many of them will.  Just not the ones who are honest and able to think critically.

So we have two cases of Christians who, in their effort to prove the moral superiority of Christianity over atheism, have succeeded in showing that their own moral standards are dubious.  They both take the attitude that the ends justify the means.  If they are willing to lie for their faith, what other moral transgressions might they be willing to commit?  Do they approve of the genocide of the native Americans?  Of the execution of apostates and witches?  Of the torture of supposed heretics under the inquisition?  Of the molestation of young children by members of the clergy? 

If they think that atheists should bear responsibility for the crimes of other atheists who don't even share their ideology, then surely these Christians should bear responsibility for the crimes of their fellow Christians.  And along with that, they must admit that the morality they so vehemently defend doesn't live up to their claims of superiority.


  1. This has been a recurring theme at DI. The subtitled banner of his blog "...or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss", is the default premise that characterises the quality and quantity of the scuttlebutt he clearly enjoys indulging in. There is no doubt any claim of being guided by intellectual principles for clear and honest thinking that one would ascribe to a holder of a PhD, has been fatally compromised if not forfeited. It is a dreadful shame to see such intellect wasted on an illusion.

    Skep, your account, unlike that which is posted as an alleged permissible opinion piece at DI, would be prima facie evidence in a court of law.

    The level of debate and the content of the religiously-informed commentary at DI is a miasma of self indulgence, intentional misrepresentation, and intellectual dishonesty.

    1. Yes. And it appears to be an echo chamber as well.

      After excluding voices of dissent, they turn their attention to the next one with fangs bared. Witness the interaction with jdhuey here. He hasn't commented since. Then just today, it appears that DougJC (formerly DJC) may be next (here).

      It is clear that they are not interested in any kind of discussion. They only want to hear their own atrocious arguments, and if anyone disagrees, they will be shouted down.

    2. Crude and Yachov were acknowledged bottom feeders when I first entered the discussion at Dangerous Idea quite some years ago. And they remain, as ever, unconscionable mud shovelers to this day. The one I am most disappointed about is Bob, whom I once admired as a level-headed participant, even though we held and embraced opposing views to be true. He has by degree lowered his colours only to join their sullied ranks. In early days of commenting both he and I use to defend each others right to comment as we did, knowing it to be honourable, even to those in support of our respective arguments. Today the content and quality of his comments are indistinguishable from those of crude, Yachov and a number of regular but itinerant lurkers at the site.

      There is no doubt DougJC and jdhuey, if he again comments at the site, will continue to be subjected to the appalling attacks upon the content of their character. It is little more than a shameless display of unbridled ugliness from those who purportedly profess humility, respect, and decency as their guiding mantra. All this aided and abetted by Dr Reppert himself.