Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?

[Cato]

But good can't exist unless God exists.

Unsubstantiated bullshit, as always.

[Alex K]

So evil can't exist unless good exists. But good can't exist unless God exists.

I'll give him that for the sake of argument, for suitable definitions of good and evil

In other words, there can be no objective evil unless there is objective good, and there can be no objective good unless God exists.

As above, let's grant that that's in line with the definition of good and evil we use here

If evil is real—as the recent headlines from France plainly reveal

And BAM - he's begging the question by assuming that what he and we perceive as evil in the colloquial sense is actually an example for the divinely based concept of evil he promotes.

—then God exists.

[Mudhammam]

"However, the existence of evil turns out to be a bigger problem for atheists to explain than for theists."

Hear that theists? The bar is set.

[Norman Humann]

Some people are jerks.
Evil explained.

[Brian37]

Some people are jerks.
Evil explained.

"Evil" is an argument of ignorance, it is our species comic book excuse to avoid challenging social norms.

Yes evil exists, no shit. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not the labels we invent and hide behind to keep social pecking orders.

[Mudhammam]

As corporations continue to kill innocents, they provide more fuel for the oft-made nutritionist claim that fast food is unhealthy. Nutritionist Dan Dix condemned the recent attacks on healthy living by tweeting, "No, all corporations are NOT equally bad. Some have never made poisonous food. Some gave it up centuries ago. One corporation conspicuously didn't."

Dix is right that some corporations and fast food have consistently perpetrated high cholesterol. Nutritionists often use this fact to support nutrition. However, the existence of poisonous food turns out to be a bigger problem for nutritionists to explain than for fat people. The kind of food Dix and the rest of the civilized world abhor doesn't disprove health—it disproves nutrition.

While it's commonly thought that only fat people have to explain the success of fast food, the truth is every worldview does. Eastern farmers try to get around the problem by denying that fast food even exists. Fat is an illusion, they say (and according to them, so are you!). Fat people say fast food is good and try to explain how fast food and health can coexist. Nutritionists tend to be caught in the middle. In one breath they are claiming there is no single absolute healthy or fatty food because many diverse things exist—we are diverse machines "with a need to eat different things" (as Dix himself put it). In the next breath they are outraged at the great injustices and harm done by corporations in the name of healthy living.

Well, nutritionists can't have it both ways. Either absolutely bad food exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then nutritionists should stop complaining about the "unhealthy" things corporations have done because they haven't really done any. They've just been "eating different things." If nutrionism is true, all foods are merely a matter of preference anyway. On the other hand, if bad food actually does exist, then nutritionists have an even bigger problem. The existence of quadruple cheeseburgers with ice cream actually establishes the existence of health.

To explain why, we need to go back to Chubbystine who puzzled over the following argument:

Moderation can include all things.

Quadruple cheeseburgers are a thing.

Therefore, moderation includes quadruple cheeseburgers.

How could a healthy and moderate person eat quadruple cheeseburgers? If those first two premises are true, He did, and this is a moderation problem. So healthy living must not be moderation after all. But then Chubbystine realized that the second premise is not true. While fast food is real, it's not a "thing." Quadruple cheeseburgers aren't unhealthy on their own. It only exists as a lack or a deficiency in nutritious thing.

Fast food is like rust in a car: If you take all of the rust out of a car, you have a better car; if you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing. Or you could say that fat is like a cut in your finger: If you take the cut out of your finger, you have a better finger; if you take the finger out of your cut, you have nothing. In other words, poison only makes sense against the backdrop of health. That's why we often describe poison as negations of healthy things. We say someone is a fat ass, a slob, a piggy, obese, etc.

We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can't be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be health without poison, but there can't be poison without health.

So poison can't exist unless health exists. But nutrition can't exist unless health exists. In other words, there can be no objective bad food unless there is objective good food, and there can be no objective good food unless healthy living exists. If poison is real—as the recent headlines from McFatties plainly reveal—then healthy living exists. The best fast food can do is show there's a devil out there, but it can't disprove healthy living. The very existence of fat boomerangs back to show that healthy living exists.

C.S. Pubis was once a nutritionist who thought fast food contradicted healthy living. He later realized he was stealing from healthy living in order to argue against it. He wrote, "[As an nutritionist] my argument against healthy living was that the food seemed so tasty and good. But how had I got this idea of tasty and good? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this food with when I called it tasty?"

Stealing from healthy living is what nutritionists tend to do when they complain about fast food sold in healthy living's name. Dix is correct that corporations have made poisonous things, but his nutritionism affords him no objective standard by which to judge anything as healthy or poisonous. So he steals nutrition from healthy living while claiming it doesn't coincide with poison. Fuck Dan Dix.

Just what is this healthy living? Chocolate jelly donuts aren't a candidate because, according to the label doctrine, chocolate jelly donuts are sugary and thus can't be the unchanging standard of nutrition. The true healthy living is the healthy living of the Burger Prince Inc. who is revealed as the unchanging ground of all nutrition.

Dan Dix and other nutritionists might object, "But how can the healthy living promoted by the Burger Prince be the standard of nutrition? Don't they make nothing but fat and grease? And why would a healthy person allow such food to go into their mouths?" Those are some of the many questions I address in my new book, Stealing From Health: Why Nutritionists Need Health to Make Their Case, from which this column was adapted. Look for more here in the coming weeks.

Undefeated logic.

[Crossless2.0]

If you want to have some laughs, watch the debate between Hitchens and the op-ed's author, Turek. It's like watching a grown man spar with a child but infinitely more satisfying.

[FatAndFaithless]

If you want to have some laughs, watch the debate between Hitchens and the op-ed's author, Turek. It's like watching a grown man spar with a child but infinitely more satisfying.

There's two of those debates I believe. In one of them he literally say to Turek something like "I'm sorry that you can't understand my writing, but that's not what I wrote."

[Crossless2.0]

If you want to have some laughs, watch the debate between Hitchens and the op-ed's author, Turek. It's like watching a grown man spar with a child but infinitely more satisfying.

There's two of those debates I believe. In one of them he literally say to Turek something like "I'm sorry that you can't understand my writing, but that's not what I wrote."

Lol. The debate I have in mind has them seated in front of some church group. Throughout the debate, Turek seems so . . . angry! He looks like he's constantly on the verge of losing his cool. Hitchens, of course, is nothing but urbane and cool throughout, which makes Turek look all the more ridiculous.

In any case, as regards the op-ed, it's disappointing (but not surprising) to see that Turek's reasoning skills haven't improved. The pathetic thing is that he pops up sometimes on Christian radio (AFR?) as one of their resident 'intellectuals'.

[Darkstar]

Oh boy... Here we go:

While it's commonly thought that only theists have to explain the existence of evil, the truth is every worldview does.

Is that so? As has been stated before, so people are jerks. Is it really that hard to wrap your head around?

If atheism is true, all behaviors are merely a matter of preference anyway.

Not really, no. That's an extremely ignorant thing to say that betrays the philosophical ignorance of the writer. I'm not sure if he is truly oblivious to any moral theory aside from "god said so" or if he just denies their existence. The existence of morals cannot be reliant on the existence of god (Euthyphro Dilemma) as anyone who has taken an introductory course in philosophical ethics can tell you.

While evil is real, it's not a "thing." Evil doesn't exist on its own.

That's right! It's just a concept used to describe certain things.

It only exists as a lack or a deficiency in a good thing.

-nononononono... no. Doing something immoral is not simply doing something that isn't moral. Merely not doing something nice for someone is not the same (usually) as doing something malicious to them.

That's why we often describe evil as negations of good things. We say someone is immoral, unjust, unfair, dishonest, etc.

In some of those cases, yes, but not all of them. Saying that immoral = evil is just being tautological, but it shows something about how evil is not merely the lack of good. There are moral actions, things that are actively good, and immoral actions, things that are actively bad. But, there are also amoral things, things that are neither moral nor immoral. Is it morally right or wrong to tie my shoe? Is it nice to give money to charity... or even just random people? Does that mean that it is evil to not randomly hand out money to everyone you meet? Of course not, that would be absurd.

We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can't be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can't be evil without good.

This is a poor analogy. In both a world of pure good and pure bad, people would have no basis for comparison. However, a lack of pleasure is not the same as pain just as a lack of pain is not pleasure. Even if all that existed was evil it would not follow that the suffering that arose from this would somehow be negated since there was nothing to compare it to. Pain is pain. A world of pure good would be the same in this regard. The people would prefer pleasure to lack of pleasure just as those in the evil world would prefer lack of pain to pain.

So evil can't exist unless good exists. But good can't exist unless God exists.

I've already established that these are both false.

In other words, there can be no objective evil unless there is objective good, and there can be no objective good unless God exists.

What is meant by 'objective' good and evil here?

If evil is real—as the recent headlines from France plainly reveal—then God exists.

What? You're equivocating badly here. You say that atheists don't believe in 'evil' but 'objective' 'evil' requires 'objective' 'good' to exist, so maybe they believe in non-objective evil? These headlines prove nothing. Until 'objective' is defined in this context, we can't go any further.

The best evil can do is show there's a devil out there, but it can't disprove God.

Nope, Satan isn't real either.

C.S. Lewis was once an atheist who thought evil disproved God. He later realized he was stealing from God in order to argue against Him. He wrote, "[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?

Well, it sure wasn't a magical inter-dimensional man, that's for sure.

A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"

A man does not call a line straight unless he has some idea of a crooked line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it just?

This is too easy.

Richard Dawkins is correct that religious people have done evil things, but his atheism affords him no objective standard by which to judge anything as good or evil.

As if religion provides a good standard for judging right and wrong? How absurd! Once again, this relies on the (false) assumption that a god is required in order for there to be morality. Even if the Christian god did exist, I would hardly call is standards 'objectively' moral. Everything this god says seems to be an Argumentum ad baculum.



It has occurred to me that I have worded some of my responses as if Turek were actually reading this. Meh, whatever.