The Great Chain

The Great Chain

Friday, January 7, 2011

Do Theists Have Any Idea How Many Freebies We Give Them?

We are constantly accused of being angry and militant and mean and harsh and all manner of nastiness.  But looking at our debates, looking at the methods we employ to argue with theists, looking at the ground we regularly concede to even engage with theists, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that if anything we are too generous to theists.

Do theists have any idea how many freebies we give them?  How many assumptions we grant them?  How far we go in assuming their points arguendo?  Do they realize how nice we are being?

We regularly grant them the assumption that some manner of god exists and then proceed to dismantle theism from there.

We regularly grant them the assumption that their specific god exists and then proceed to dismantle theism from there.

We regularly grant them the assumption that their preferred sacred text is true and then dismantle its internal structure, logical consistency and factual accuracy from there.

We grant theists every possible courtesy and every possible point of argumentation and still have no trouble dismantling their theology and somehow WE are the assholes?  Damn logic and those pesky facts and their atheistic bias.

One would think that theists would recognize this generosity, would recognize our charity in going along with their assumptions for the sake of argument and would occasionally reciprocate.

But there is no reciprocity.  Ever.  In fact, unless we tacitly accept many of their assumptions at the outset, many theists simply will not or can not engage at all.

Perhaps there is simply no way around this.  Perhaps this is because as soon as theists allow themselves to make atheist assumptions, the shield of faith and the sword of the spirit are no longer viable defense mechanisms and they find themselves utterly defenseless.

Do we make these assumptions because as soon as they start making our assumptions we win?


  1. Thanks for making your blog I love it, reading these types of blogs really saves me much time thinking about this myself. I'm assuming you are from the US, in central Europe religion is just a joke these days (forget statistics that say otherwise).

    Back to my anatomy textbooks made of science not fairy tales.

  2. My pleasure.

    A world where religion is a joke... Sounds delightful.

    I like my books made of science. It's so much more enjoyable and meaningful. Not to mention right.

  3. Our biggest problem, is giving the nonsense a misplaced 'respect'. The believers want respect, even demand it. Respect is something religious belief does not deserve. Respect suggests credibility and the whole nonsense show enjoys way too much of that already.

  4. "Reading these types of blogs really saves me much time thinking about this myself."

    Holy shit, that's the scariest thing I've read in a while.

    Nobody acts more like a theist than an atheist. Nobody preaches better than an atheist, either.

  5. You may not realize it, but theists grant atheists a lot of assumptions as well, though the ones you are arguing with simply may not know any better. Do you realize that religion grants atheism a great deal existentially? All you seem to care about at times are philosophical terms like 'logic'. That seems to be your only weapon. Well, allow me to dismantle it with a question. Can you prove logic's worth to me?. You will quickly understand that you can't. Logic cannot prove itself to be truth, it needs a higher point of reference. But if I granted a higher point of reference, well, we all know where that may lead to. If I grant that there is such a thing as evil, then there must be good. If I grant such a thing as good, then there must be a reference point with which to differentiate between good and evil. If I grant the reference point, then it must have had a cause, for something cannot explain itself. That would be circular logic. But the cause of such a reference point would win me the argument. I would be able to provide evidence based on logic that God does indeed exist, that he MUST, that he is the first cause to many existences who cannot be their own creators. I think I grant YOU too much, by letting you try to separate the terms 'religion' and 'logic' simply by repetition. For surely, if you affirm that God is illogical for long enough, it must become truth.