Tu Quoque

A Christian Apologist walked into a bar….
No he didn’t.  Don’t be silly.  They don’t walk into bars.
He walked into a church and had some communion wine because
Jesus turned water into wine, and said alcohol is good for you.
He made some drunken accusations about a well-known Atheist.
I accused him of Tu Quoque.
(Which means Christians do the same things, but claim to be better than everybody else)
He denied it, and claimed that I was ‘projecting.’
He said – She said

The rest is THISTORY

Frustrated and angry about the ongoing actions and attitudes of Christians, Christianity, the Christian Church, and specifically the Catholic Church, P Z Meyers indulged in a little hypothetical hyperbole.  To present it as if you believed it literally, is either incredibly naïve, or an intentional lie.  Likewise, to take the angry rant of one Atheist, and present it as if it were somehow The Official Atheist Position, is also naïve or a lie.

You admit that Meyers supposedly has the same actions and attitudes that some Christians do.  To castigate the Atheist, and then even imply that Christians still hold the moral high ground is the Tu Quoque fallacy that I mentioned.  This is not projection!  This is cold, hard logic, and demonstrable fact.

You complained that Meyers advocated (he didn’t) burning down the churches of the very Indigenous People he tries to support.  These are the same churches which were thrust, unwanted, upon them – which stifled and strangled their native spirituality – and treated them like shit for centuries.  Meyers honestly believes that they would be better off without them.  Mentioning burning them down is a bit over-the-top, for effect.  I agree with Schadenfreude’s suggestion that they could be made much better use of in other, non-church ways.

As for the old Nazi-wannabe….  Meyers does not believe in Heaven or Hell.  He doesn’t think that there will ever be any final punishment for this man’s evil ways.  Even if God and Heaven were to exist, he can still sneak out through the Holy loophole by confessing his sins and asking for forgiveness.

Fair is where you take your pig to have it judged, but Meyers obviously feels that the universe would a little fairer place if this man suffered in retribution in the here and now – the only time and place that we can be sure that he will pay for his many transgressions.

Kevin, below, wants to write him a free pass because he wasn’t quite the asshole that Hitler was.  This was only through lack of ability and lack of opportunity, not through any lack of trying.  His ideology – his evil – his sin – is precisely the same.  Any difference in size is irrelevant.

In your follow-up post, you maunder on about Meyers putting someone through a wood-chipper.  He would not do such a thing!  He did not even advocate that anyone should do this!  What he PRECISELY said was, if all that Regnery did, was put one person into a wood-chipper, as horrible and gruesome as that might be, it would still be less evil and cause less pain and suffering to others, than what Regnery has achieved over many years.

Your rants might have a firmer base if you stopped assigning thoughts and claims to others, and studied and understood satire, sarcasm, and hyperbole.  But then, what’s the fun of dishing out the truth?  😯

WOW #7

Dictionary

The Word Of the Week is a totally new one to me, and quite useful, psychologically.  It is

PARALOGIZE

To draw conclusions that do not follow logically from a given set of assumptions.

Paralogize entered English from Medieval Latin paralogizāre, from Greek paralogízesthai meaning “to reason falsely.” It’s been used in English since the late 1500s.

I’ve mentioned that the examples given, often do not relate well to the chosen word. One example for this word is;

“A brick,” he retorted, “is a parallelogram; I am not a parallelogram, and therefore not a brick …” “Charley Lightheart, you paralogize.” Stewart Edward White and Samuel Hopkins Adams, The Mystery, 1907

I would like to object that the conclusion drawn is valid, but must admit that the authors are British, and members of a group which uses the word ‘brick’ in a very different sense.

Brick – a decent, generous, reliable person (1830s+ British students)

So it is the assumption which is at fault here, although I can’t imagine why Charlie would object to being called one.

Like the ‘No True Scotsman Theorem’, this is a term that I can use to label the Religiously Restrictive, when they play the ‘Who’s Going To Be Saved’ game. They claim, “I’m Christian, and I’m good! You’re not Christian, therefore you are evil!

This is like Super-paralogizing.  Neither any of the assumptions, nor the conclusions, are valid.

This week’s candidate was caught associating with the likes of; whiffler, muckrake, bonzer, juggernaut, and troglodyte.

A To Z Challenge – W

april-challenge

Whoo-whoo, you’re almost eligible for parole from this letter-perfect piffle.  But first, a word from – my dictionary, starting with

letter-w

Too many Fundamentalist (with the accent on mental) Christians play the definition game, whereby they decide what a word or name means, and use it as justification for hatred and harassment of those who don’t precisely agree with them.

One of the words that sets many of them off, is ‘Witch.’  Their infallible Bible tells them, “Suffer not a witch to live.”  They all know what a witch is, what they look like, how they act, and what they do. (Evil, evil evil!)  Ignoring Glinda the Good Witch in The Wizard of Oz, they focus on the ugly hag, the crone, who is stirring up a batch of bats’ brain, newts’ eyes and frog warts, to cast evil, harmful spells.

My daughter is a witch, and I’m proud of it.  Actually, she’s only kinda, sorta, Wiccan – but there’s many a Good Christian who’s only prevented from having her burned at the stake by strong, secular laws.  She believes in a unifying force of the universe, only she doesn’t believe that ‘It’ is male, and she doesn’t call it ‘God.’

If you’ve read my Rylah Reblog, you know that she’s as loving and caring a person as any judgmental Christian. She gets her morals and ethics from her heart and her mind, not from some list drawn up by a bunch of frightened old men, also listing what you can wear, what you can eat, and who you have to hate, because they’re different.

The witches that ‘they’ believe in, didn’t really exist in the past, and they don’t exist now.  Any witch that I know now, is usually a better, kinder, nicer person, and productive, loving, accepting member of society, than most of these superstitious buffoons.