Illuminatus Primus wrote:A friend of mine argued endlessly that Bush's new "no god no job" thing with the faith-based initiative was ok, because all religions could apply for the faith-based iniative, and thus no one was descriminated, and according to him organizated atheism could also apply, because he decided they were a religion too.
Naturally he thinks he knows words better than the dictionary, but I digress.
That's basically the knee-jerk response of most theists when they're arguing. Since atheists attack religion, theists try and bring atheism down to the level of just another religion so they divert attention away from logic and objectivity to subjective feelings (i.e. "It's impossible for atheists to be happy").
The pattern follows with creationists, who constantly harp about how believing in evolution requires faith so that they can move the focus from such trivialities like evidence, deductive reasoning and observation over to implications (i.e. "Evolution means that life is meaningless! Creationism must be correct!").
This is basically the debate equivalent of, "NUH UH!! THAT'S
YOU!!"
One wonders if these people realize that something is assumed non-existant until established it exists. "Disproof" is logically unnecessary.
God is always given special exemptions from any kind of rational thought processes, supposedly because he's "above" logic because our feeble human minds are incapable of comprehending his glory or other such nonsense. Essentially, many argue that God must be above critical analysis because critical analysis invariably shows that the concept of a God is a popular fairy tale with no more merit than children's beliefs in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Of course, this is circular logic, but God is above such human concepts as critical reasoning, remember?
