ExChristian.Net Has Been X’d, part 2

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on ExChristian.Net


  1. To be honest, you're using the worst of Atheism to represent the majority. Which, in itself is a fallacy.

    For example, I could use Nazi Germany, Witch Huntings, The Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition to represent Christians as a whole and I would be just as wrong as you are for cherry picking the worst possible examples to represent the whole.

    What about the Good Atheists? What about all the ones who have improved the quality of life and devoted their lives to making the world a better place? What about all the secularist artists, scientists, charities, philosophers, and leaders?

    What about Pat Tillman, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, Douglas Adams, Will Wright, Lance Armstrong, and the numerous others who have done the world so much good?

    Christians are always quick to point out all the good their believers do, but are often quick to discredit and downplay any good a nonbeliever does.

    You're claiming the few are the same as the whole.

    Given enough editing and picking the right quotes, anyone can be made to look bad, and that includes Jesus.

    For example, take the recent portrayal of the New Jersey public school showing children singing about Barack Obama. This is portrayed on Fox as evil brainwashing.

    The truth of the matter is that it was one line out of a song about many presidents. It was done during Black History month, in a play done on President's Day. Copies of the song were sent out and approved by parents, the School Board, and no one complained before, during, or after the event until the news organization got involved and performed a bit of creative editing.

    This is exactly what you are doing. You're taking the worst quotes you can find, often out of context, and using them in a dishonest way to support your personal agenda.

    You're committing the same fallacy you're complaining about. Ad Hominem arguments against the worst individual posts you can find to represent the entirety of the argument without actually addressing the substance of the argument itself.

    Yes, some of them are guilty of the same thing. However, it does not justify the use of the same tactics and leaves you committing the same fallacy you're talking about here. The word that comes to mind is 'Hypocrisy'.

    Stating "They said these mean things, so they're unreasonable" is an argument against the 'man' and thus Ad Hominem.

    Near as I can tell it isn't a character debate, so it's really irrelevant to begin with. What were there arguments, and what was wrong with them.

    It's not that most Atheists are idiots and like this, it's that most -people- are.

    Christians are not more reasonable and level headed on the whole. They're just as guilty of disrespectful and idiot arguments as any other group on the whole.

    Yeah, they were making fun of you, being sarcastic, and using logical fallacy.

    It's the internet, you can find a lot more examples of Christians behaving in such a manner as Atheists. Not because they are more prone to such behavior, but just because there are a lot more of them.

    You're misrepresenting nontheist in general, the website ExChristian, and your standards are unreasonable to begin with.

    No one has to respect your religion. Others must only tolerate it. Not every idea is equally valid and worthy of respect.

    To tolerate does not mean to respect. It simply means to put up with. No more, no less.

    Not respecting the validity of your beliefs and not respecting you personally are not the same thing. Though many people do not see the difference. That's unfortunate, but true.

    "It does me no harm for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." — Thomas Jefferson

    "No one can hurt your feelings without your permission." - Unknown

  2. Conceptually, atheism is dead for various reasons including that their ultimate answer...

    Um, no.
    That won't wash.

    Atheism is dead.
    That's what you said.
    There is no sub-title tucked away in brackets somewhere underneath saying (Conceptually speaking!).

    Atheism is dead.
    When did this happen? Why has nobody alerted the media?

  3. To be honest, I can't fault him for the name 'Atheism is Dead'. It's metaphorical, even if it's not literally true.

    I'd say it's a statement of his ideals about Atheism rather than a literal indication of the state of the belief system.

    It's not a religion, Atheism is a religion as much as bald is a hair color.

    It's also not 'dead', in the same manner as a rock is not 'dead'. It was never alive to begin with, so it can't really be 'dead'.

    No belief system is living or dead. Not Christianity, Islam, or any other faith, or lack there of. It's an idea, and ideas are not living things and cannot suffer 'death'.

    Given the context as a metaphor though, it's not really an inaccurate statement as it relates to his beliefs on the subject.

    The literal statement of 'Atheism is Nonliving' just doesn't have the same ring to it.

    Of course, you could say the same thing about Christianity, as it's also 'nonliving' to begin with.

  4. Thanks for the comments:

    First Anon,
    It is simply fallacious to charge me with “using the worst of Atheism to represent the majority” since I clearly state that I am dealing with one certain group of atheists on one certain website.

    Cedric Katesby,
    You are committing the very ad hominem which the ExChristianites were.

    Moreover, note that no matter how one interprets “Atheism is Dead”: in the way that I know I meant it or in the way that you claim to know what I meant by it.
    It is still an ad hominem to claim that the contents are faulty because the title is faulty.