Arguments employed by both statists and theists

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Making a new vid exploring this interesting phenomenon, the way statists and atheists tend to use the same arguments without even realizing it.  It's late in the night so I'm still thinking but here's the first main one I have.

Creationists argue against the theory of evolution by claiming that all the wonders of nature are simply far too complex to have come about through chance alone, even though this is a strawman and that chance was only one of many forces acting upon it, and thus is itself proof that a designer far greater than us had to have been present.  This argument is of course easily refuted as it begs the question "Then who designed the designer?"

Statists argue against the ideas of liberty by claiming that the faults of man are simply too risky to be left to chance, even though this is a strawman and that chance is only one of many forces acting upon it, and is itself proof that watchers endowed with the authority far greater than ours must be present.  This argument is of course easily refuted as it begs the question "Then who watches the watchers?"

Anyone got others they'd like to contribute?

[MrBogosity]

Both use the Argument from Morality:

Theists say that one cannot be good without God, because how are you going to get a moral code otherwise?

Statists say that one cannot be good without government, because how are you going to stop people from committing heinous crimes?

The response to both of these is the same: if you need a God or a government to stop you from killing a bunch of people, you need serious psychological help!

Of course, they both have the same response: THEY'RE just fine, thank you very much, it's OTHER people who are the problem.

[Travis Retriever]

@Lord T Hawkeye:  The "who watches the watchers" bit is something a right-wing statist threw at me when I suggested the idea of private courts.
Stupidity and projection for the win.

@Shane:  As Mary J. Ruwart says, "War and poverty aren't caused by 'selfish others' but by our own reactions to them."

[MrBogosity]

How about, they BOTH falsely accuse you of blocking them?

And they both deliberately take actions that they KNOW will force you to block them, and when you do, they whine to others that you had no answer for their astounding arguments of genius so you blocked them instead?

We've even seen statists threaten false DMCA complaints, run thumbbots to permanently bury comments from users they don't like, and various other despicable tactics the creationists employ.

[Travis Retriever]

Indeed.

@Shane:  Congrats on your 2^10 post.

[Gumba Masta]

....Oh I see, you played the Atsuro path in Devil Survivor.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

How about, they BOTH falsely accuse you of blocking them?

And they both deliberately take actions that they KNOW will force you to block them, and when you do, they whine to others that you had no answer for their astounding arguments of genius so you blocked them instead?

We've even seen statists threaten false DMCA complaints, run thumbbots to permanently bury comments from users they don't like, and various other despicable tactics the creationists employ.

Kia did that to me.  Kept making long posts with no substance other than a stream of insults of how childish I am and how enlightened he was that refused to address any points I made so I stopped replying to him.

Surprise surprise, he took that as a victory.  Yeah, school yard arguing tactics.  His mother would be so proud.

[Travis Retriever]

Projection with strawman

Theist:  "You worship evolution; it's yer god!  You believe that killing people is a good thing which is what evolution says for you to do!"
Statist:  "You worship the free market; it's yer god!  You believe that there's an invisible hand guiding us to happiness; how can you call yourself an atheist?"

Because as we all know emergence is impossible, yes?


Killing decent (I hope I spelled that right)

Theist:  "If you aren't a Christian, you shouldn't be listened to because you're going to try to deceive and kill us.  If you don't just accept what we say, you hate America."
Statist:  "If you don't want the war on drugs, you want kids to take acid and people to die in the streets.  If you aren't for age of consent laws as they are now, you want to rape babies."

Group-think for the win.

Accusations of being unaccountable/immoral (similar to the above)

Theist: "You just want to be an atheist and believe in evolution so you won't be accountable to the creator.  You want to live a horrible sinful lifestyle; I'll pray for you immoral piece of scum."
Statist: "You just want to legalize drugs so you can smoke and inject everything in sight.  You only want to get rid of speed limits so you can drive at 250 mph down residential highways.  You."

Because it couldn't possibly be that evolution is a valid scientific fact that has more evidence than any other theory;
Or that we know that many of those restrictions are bogus that harm instead of help.

And even if those points about "just wanting to do X" was true, so what?  As long as there is no force or fraud, who the fuck are they to use force to stop me?

Outright stupidity:

Theist:  "Evolution is JUST a theory."
Statist: "Economics is JUST a theory."

...Do I even have to explain this? Vogter2100's cronies for the win!

Appeal to force/subtle threats

Theist: "When you're burning in hell, you'll be sorry."
Statist: "When society comes crashing down, you'll be sorry."

And people wonder why we call statism a religion...or at least a dogma.

[AHPMB]

Both Statist fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists share one thing in common, they are able to justify any atrocity in the name of a Greater Good.  You get essentially the same argument from a Communist when you bring up the war crimes of (name your Communist regime here) as you do from a Christian when you point out the atrocities in the Bible, or you press them on the problem of evil.  The argument they always make is that whatever atrocity was perpetuated it was for a greater purpose and a greater good.  That yeah, it's sad that family died in a tornado, but it's for a greater good.  And yeah, it's sad that all those Ukrainians had to die of starvation or get worked to death in Gulags but it served a greater purpose.  Ironically both will also point to any act committed by someone who doesn't share their views, regardless of why those acts were committed as evidence that you who disagree with them are similarly evil.

Both religious and statist dogma allow you to justify any means as long as it serves their ends.

[MrBogosity]

I've seen them both quote-mine the dictionary. I pointed out in How Evolution Is Scientific that the creationists did it, and commenters all through that video all agree that it's a very low, pathetic thing to do.

I believe it was on the League of Reason where a statist quote-mined the dictionary to make it appear that being against Prohibition meant being against laws against murder.

[valvatica]

And they both deliberately take actions that they KNOW will force you to block them, and when you do, they whine to others that you had no answer for their astounding arguments of genius so you blocked them instead?

Woohoo for the martyr complex! My favorite was when Vogter went on his "leave me out of your nonsensical libertarian bibble babble" cop-out even though HE was the one who butted in on the libertarian video exchanges uninvited and without knowing his shit.

I'll never understand these spam commenters. YouTube user Gratex once called them the "keyboard brigade": The kind who rarely (or not at all) make their own videos (especially not showing their face or narrating with their own voice), but will spend time commenting* you to death. It's obviously one of the many fallacies we've discussed, but it doesn't apply to the person who's defending their own video (they SHOULD be responding constantly, even on old videos-- I applaud you and AronRa for leaving the "Recent Activity" up on your channel pages).

* These types of commenters won't skip a beat and will spam-comment to death by leaving 7-part comments (since the limit is 500 characters) and will spend weeks in the comments section of the same video instead of actually making a damn video responding to what they disagree with. I'll never understand it. I saw it with that beechgrovejoe dickwad, the other guy who went on and on that drugs should be banned because his family ended up shit creek, and more recently that Ultramediacorps asshole who insisted that Pat Robertson really doesn't care what you believe, that America's a Christian nation, and that we must physically sign the Constitution or else it's not consented to. The keyboard brigade will claim the victory in the comments, but will never make videos. Sometimes they do, but they end up like MasterGhostKnight, who make PowerPoint-esque videos with MS Paint mockups on things the original video maker never implied or inferred.

[Travis Retriever]

Hey, at least me and Virgil0211 will post something of substance.


Anyways...

Moar projection:

Theist:  "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
Statist:  "I'm not ideal enough to believe in the free market."

[MrBogosity]

And also:

Creationist: "I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution."

I've heard statists MANY times try to equate the free market with a religion. It's pathetic.

[Travis Retriever]

!!!!!
That's a good one.

In fact...

Moar Projection part 2:
[insert the one you put with creationists above]
Statist:  "I don't have enough faith to be a free market fundie like you."

Creationist: "Don't be a typical quote-mining evolutionist."
Statist: "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque; a favorite of libertarians."

[valvatica]

Hey, at least me and Virgil0211 will post something of substance.

Wow I completely forgot about that. Well, in contrast you guys actually cite your sources, don't use homework fallacies, don't use ad hominems, don't use ad hominem recursuses, and don't fall victim to many of the other fallacies on this board.