In the wake of “all the religious scandals” of late I thought I’d point out some even more depressing news from the Atheist front. Since any act committed by someone with religious affiliation is used by atheists to argue against religion it seems to me they won’t mind if the same logic is applied to them.
Vienna has the lowest percentage of religious conviction of any Austrian province, therefore anything bad that happens in Vienna can clearly be attributed to atheism (don’t think too hard, just keep reading). And what has Vienna been in the news for recently??? CNN reports that:
- An Austrian man (from Vienna!) has recently confessed to killing his parents, wife, and 7-year-old daughter with an ax. Vienna police said, “He is completely matter-of-fact … almost without emotion.”
- Josef Fritzl, 73, confessed last month to holding his daughter captive in a cellar below the family home (Just outside Vienna!) for 24 years, repeatedly raping her and fathering seven children with her.
- Just two years ago in Strasshof (another Vienna suburb!) a young girl escaped from the basement of a house after being held there for eight years and being repeatedly abused by her captor, Wolfgang Priklopil, who killed himself by throwing himself under a train.
Hmmmm - need I say more?
18 responses so far ↓
pastelmoon // May 16, 2008 at 2:07 am
Do you really use this kind of logic? Its laughable yet sad at the same time. Grow Up.
Doug Beaumont // May 16, 2008 at 6:33 am
Nuh uh, is not . . . and I know because atheists use this kind of logic all the time, and as they will be the first to tell you they are the most rational people on earth, therefore it cannot be wrong. If the elegance and verity of this airtight deduction escapes anyone it can only be because they are religious fanatics who do not accept science.
Samuel Skinner // May 16, 2008 at 6:59 am
Let me get this straight- because Vienna has the lowest religious conviction in all of Austria, these crimes must be linked to atheism? Have you heard of statistics?
In basic statistics you learn about correlation and causation are NOT the same thing, a point that has escaped you.
Also… blaming this on atheists would make more sense if you proved that atheism CAUSED this. You can’t. Still, any evidence that these people where atheists would make your argument less crappy.
MGraham // May 16, 2008 at 10:05 am
Atheists never cease to amaze me. Seriously.
Doug Beaumont // May 16, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I have deduced from scientific principles that atheism should lead to these kinds of things and now I have the proof. Dawkins has done no better - I’m as smart as he is now! Woo Hoo! Critics be silenced!
Brian // May 17, 2008 at 2:16 am
Doug,
I can’t wait to read your next book documenting this incredible new discovery concerning atheism!
Thaddeus Dombrowski // May 17, 2008 at 3:12 am
Could you please try to use some logic?
Samuel Skinner // May 17, 2008 at 3:24 am
The great part about sites like this is I feel like I’m in the presence of Choas Space Marines. I mean, if you next post was titled “Sanity is for the Weak”, that wouldn’t surprise me.
Matt Barclay // May 17, 2008 at 9:44 am
Re: Comments on this post…
Wow. Just….wow.
http://www.sharptenor.com/meme/missedpoint.jpg
Nathan // May 19, 2008 at 3:55 am
Wow! I love how upset you just made some people. I guess humor and sarcasm do not exist in the land of uber-educated naturalists.
Doug Beaumont // May 19, 2008 at 9:21 pm
OK guys - let me save you some embarrassment by requesting a cease-and-desist on the negative comments. As more careful readers have noticed, this was clearly a sarcastic post showing the absurdity of an argument form that many theists use against religion. It’s a poor argument form that ignores correlation/causation issues (when consistent correlation can even be adequately proved), is a form of the ad hominem fallacy, and is a case of special pleading. So please stop making fools of yourselves by bashing me for making fun of other people’s faulty arguments.
Maybe I need to make a special “SARCASM” category to help those who cannot perceive it even when it is obvious in the actual article. (It would really be fun to mess with people by placing non-sarcastic articles in this category and see if they get the joke . . . nah, even one layer of sarcasm seems too confusing for some).
This reminds me of the infamous “Dodecahedron of Opposition” debacle of 2005 (http://tuquoque.blogspot.com/2005/07/dodecahedron-of-opposition.html) when all those goofy Open Theists spent hours “debunking” my joke response to Boyd and company (an event which in itself may be an argument against their view!).
Anyway, let it lie folks. BTW - I took critical thinking in my high School AP English class, made the top score in the Logic course my first semester in college, and have aced both Logic and Symbolic Logic classes in grad school. I even know what ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ means. So you haters can just back off!
[NOTE: this response has 0% sarcasm and may be taken to express my actual thoughts.]
Samuel Skinner // May 20, 2008 at 4:08 am
Sorry.
To be fair I see sites like this alot… and I previous got kicked a site for calling someone a Nazi… after he declared there was a conspiracy by the “atho-pagans” to undermine traditional morality and that people needed to stand up and fight back and…
You get the idea. Some people take things very literal due to being exposed to even weirder stuff.
OpenTheist // May 20, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Goofy open theists? Alan Rhoda is a goofy open theist? I read your post, and while humorous, Rhoda gave a thoughtful and charitable reply, in spite of the fact that your post was a spoof. Nearly any view is susceptible to having a ‘hoax’ version released, be it in computer science, philosophy (analytic or continental or even classical), etc.
I’ll admit, your post was pretty funny, but please spare philosophers like Rhoda, Alston, Swinburne, Van inWagen, etc from the term ‘goofy.’ They are anything but. And one hoax blog post that a few of them take seriously doesn’t warrant ‘an argument against their view’.
Doug Beaumont // May 21, 2008 at 12:13 am
Samuel
RE: “Some people take things very literal due to being exposed to even weirder stuff.”
I hear ya!
Doug Beaumont // May 27, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Open Theist,
I meant “goofy” in the way they responded - not as philosophers (i.e., “goofy-as-opposed-to-other-kinds-of-open-theists”). Tom was the guy who made the more outrageous responses, if I remember correctly, and we both had a good laugh over it so I don’t think anyone was being uncharitable in the end.
Casey // July 17, 2008 at 12:24 am
Actually, there are statistics that I just found that say that Vienna’s religious afflication is mostly Roman Catholic, at 49%, followed by Atheism at 29%, then other various religions.
Look it up for yourself.
So, basically, we can (by your logic that is) attribute that half of what you’ve listed is caused by Roman Catholics. But, by your logic, then many of these things have to have multiple religions involved.
I really hope that this is a joke. If you were to point out things Atheists did, rather than places where Atheists kind-of live, then it would’ve been relevant.
But… we can always point out things Christians did.
You know, Christians, like Hitler. Who was a Christian.
Doug Beaumont // July 17, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Good heavens I cannot believe I am still dealing with this.
Yes, Casey, it was a joke - an abusrd post to show the absurdity of many atheists’ arguemnts against Christianity. The point was to attempt to say something so stupid that even atheists would get the joke (kind of like calling Hitler a Christian - that’s about as absurd as well - nice one). Maybe next time I can make it even more obvious.
Morse // July 18, 2008 at 1:28 am
It’s called Poe’s Law.
Paraphrased, ‘no parody of religious fundamentalism is so extreme that someone won’t mistake it for the real thing.’
The same could hold true for atheists who use bad arguments. (As an atheist who tries to use good arguments, I recognize that those exist.)
Leave a Comment