Aberrant Christianity Atheism against Religion Atheism: A Logical Analysis

The oxymoron called “Religious Thinker”

Yeah, that’s right. This is what I saw going around in a forum where a christian could not speak his mind because his atheist audience would not let him speak since they believed that a person being “religious” can not “freely” think as well.

This reminded me of the classic “No true Scotsman fallacy”.

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn’t like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

(the above example was taken from Wikipedia)

So there it is, if a person is really a free thinker, he can’t be religious, because all true free thinkers are non-religious? I wonder how true that claim is? And the problem is it all depends on the definition of the term “free thinker” and that varies. But I admit its a good line to have your opponent shut up because now you are attacking him rather than his argument. Its mean but with enough people around to chant behind you, you can get the job done and have your opponent quit trying to explain.

Atheism against Religion Atheism: A Logical Analysis Atheist Morality

Has secularism resulted in higher moral standards than religion?

Dear reader,

As per my posts on atheist morality, the argument  has now been pushed from “atheism is more moral than religion” to “Secularism has resulted in higher moral standards than religion.”

So I thought it is worthwhile to analyze this argument and see if we can find that “Objective Morality” that atheists claim only exist in atheism, however since they could not prove it conclusively with atheism, they have broadened the term to secularism. I do not think they are playing word games with me rather they naturally think within the limits of atheism that anything but religion can be good.

The purpose of my argument is not to conclude that religion has the sole key to higher moral standards.

My purpose is to find out whether secularism results in any higher moral standards than religion. On a upclose view i find the given statement actually errant, it is based on faulty logic, now don’t think I am trying to evade the question, I will explain it to you.