true. For a Leftist, if you disagree with them, you are one of three things: 1) stupid, 2) evil/corrupt/racist, or 3) mentally ill.
They really have no other explanations. See, otherwise they would have to marshal actual facts and put forth rational arguments. But if you can be summarily dismissed as stupid, evil, and/or mentally ill, they don’t need to make a substantive argument at all! And it is much easier for them that way. Less effort.
Plus, this way they never put their beliefs and assumptions at risk. They know very well that a Leftist who argues a point often becomes a Conservative! So they can’t leave their “bubble” or “Circle of Safety” by rationally arguing a point–it’s far too dangerous to their beliefs!
And (said in a “whine” voice), “Logical argument is hard!”
cogitating this morning about how if you are not a theist, the ONLY other logical option is to be an Existentialist/Nihilist (OK, I’m odd). Quite a coincidence to see someone else talking about it! But I’m pretty “up” on such things, and it seems very clear to me that those are the only options.
So go ahead, make your choice. But if you choose Nihilism, you really have no moral leg to stand on. There simply is no Truth. ALL is just preference and a will-to-power. There IS no Truth! There IS no right or wrong. There IS no moral existence at all! At best there is mere mechanism, but just as a hammer doesn’t choose to hit a nail (and therefore doesn’t exist as a moral entity), YOU are merely a mechanism. YOU don’t exist as a moral entity! Maybe you are more complex, but you are still every bit as much of a mechanism as a hammer or a dishwasher or a USB hub.
See, without God and without moral agency, there IS no moral existence!
If you’ve read The Stranger by Albert Camus, the argument is quite clear: Sure. I killed him on the beach, but that was because it was hot and the sun was beating down on me, and that is no more or less moral or meaningful than not killing him.
Even you punishing me for the killing is meaningless.
ALL is vanity!
Sure, Camus tried to salvage some form of morality by ultimately saying that though you are literally in the place of Sisyphus, it would not be noble to kill yourself.
Really, Albert? So you spend years making an argument that there is no transcendent morality, and then at the end, ground your argument in… transcendent morality in order to make it work and to avoid a conclusion you don’t like? Wow!
But if His enemies had possession of His body or knew its location, they would have rolled it down Jerusalem’s main street as soon as the disciples began telling people Jesus was alive.
On a related matter, it seems to me that there is a big push all of a sudden to engage in a sort of neo-apologetics. To show that according to science (Meyer) and history (this) it is reasonable to be believing.
Now “apologetics” is often a term spat out with disdain and intellectual superciliousness, but I think that shows a very shallow (or at least incomplete) understanding.
Modern Apologetics is NOT about rationally proving the existence of God or arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Modern Apologetics is much more about showing that reason does not preclude belief, and that there are HUGE logical gaps in purely Materialist or Atheistic explanations.