1/11/10

ITS NAME IS DOOM — PZ Myers’ A Priori Presuppositional Presumption of Atheism

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , ,

7 comments:

  1. WhatevermanJanuary 11, 2010 at 8:57 AM

    Mariano wrote the following: this is nothing but what one would expect, that an atheist to presuppose atheism

    Atheism is not presupposed, ever. Not ever. Depending on the definition of the term you favor, atheism is either a default condition (re. lack of belief) or a conclusion (re. belief of lack).

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/presupposition

    An effect presupposes a cause. Atheists do not assume prior to knowledge that God doesn't exist.

    Your intent in misusing this word, by my estimation, is to equate Christian theology with atheism (re. both are belief systems, both are religions, both require faith, etc ad nauseum). If you would only consult a dictionary, you'd discover why people here often reject your arguments out of hand.

    ReplyDelete
  2. bossmanhamJanuary 17, 2010 at 5:57 PM

    Same lame arguments, Whatev-man? Really? I've dealt with this and you're still peddling it around. You know the claim "there is no God" is as much of a truth claim as "there is a God." The former assertion requires as much justification as does the latter. The default position, therefore, is not atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. WhatevermanJanuary 18, 2010 at 12:02 AM

    I'm "peddling it" for no other reason than it being correct. Atheism in general requires no faith, although the same can't be said for Strong Atheism.

    Atheism, a lack of belief in God, is never presupposed/assumed prior to acquiring knowledge. You know this, Mariano knows this, but both of you are too deeply buried in the pride of your own opinions to be capable of admitting it.

    If atheism requires faith, then every statement of knowledge / opinion requires faith - rendering "faith" a meaningless term.

    Really, you should consult a dictionary more often. Understanding the words you're using is a skill lacking in nearly every fundamentalist I've ever met, and your comments (and Mariano's blog in general) illuminate this fact without hesitation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJanuary 18, 2010 at 6:05 AM

    Here comes the usual schtick of internet atheism. The fact is that most "strong atheists" tactically try to pass themselves off as "weak atheists" because they're patently afraid of having to defend a positive statement on the subject. Precisely because they know that not only will such an argument be damn hard to make, it's going to come out worse than the arguments for theism.

    It's amazing how many supposed "weak atheists" - people who only lack belief when it comes to God - have a knack for talking about the likelihood of God existing, that certain things were or were not an act of God (note: Something being 'natural' does not rule out it being done by God or according to God's desires), etc.

    In other words, whateverman: Please cut the bullshit. Stop trying to pass off agnostics as "atheists". What's more, stop confusing the acquisition of knowledge as rendering faith void. Unless you have knowledge that actually demonstrates God's non-existence, then believing God does not exist is a faith position. And if your position is merely that you have no belief in God and therefore don't believe God does not exist or believe he does, then "knowledge" just isn't what you have on hand. My lack of belief in martians cannot rightly be called "knowledge". My belief that there are no martians perhaps can be, but still requires some measure of faith, however well-grounded.

    And thanks to the blog authors for continuing to expose New Atheist nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WhatevermanJanuary 18, 2010 at 4:39 PM

    Ah, here comes the usual schtick of anonymous Christian conservatism...

    More seriously, "Anonymous" wrote the following:

    Unless you have knowledge that actually demonstrates God's non-existence, then believing God does not exist is a faith position.

    I have such knowledge: unsubstantiated believer claims.

    * Jesus returning to judge the non-believers (and failing to do so, despite this claim being made for the last 1900 years)

    * Claims of natural disasters being the hand of God, when every single event examined can ultimately be attributed to Natural causes

    * "Jesus" being invoked in prayer for every petty desire known to man, and no evidence of that prayer being effective, etc.

    * Christians themselves disagreeing upon the nature, behavior and desires of the very being they claim to know.

    These things constitute strong evidence that God does not exist as he is described by faithful Christians.

    And for what it's worth, I'm not an atheist. You'd like to impose a dogmatic definition for atheism, and the sad fact is that you have to ignore reality in order to do so. Although there are variations, atheism at its core is a lack of belief in God(s).

    ReplyDelete
  6. bossmanhamJanuary 19, 2010 at 3:17 PM

    Jesus returning to judge the non-believers (and failing to do so, despite this claim being made for the last 1900 years)

    Not evidence of no God.

    Claims of natural disasters being the hand of God, when every single event examined can ultimately be attributed to Natural causes

    Not evidence of no God.

    "Jesus" being invoked in prayer for every petty desire known to man, and no evidence of that prayer being effective, etc.

    Not evidence of no God.

    Christians themselves disagreeing upon the nature, behavior and desires of the very being they claim to know.

    Not evidence of no God.

    Huh...still don't have the evidence there, bra.

    And you're fudging with your definition of atheism as well. Atheism is the positive belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is the stance that can have a 'hard' or 'soft' application.

    Hard Agnosticism: "I don't know if God exists and no one else can know either."

    Soft Agnosticism: "I don't know if God exists, but it's possible for someone to know."

    The definition you have contrived isn't asserting anything. It's making no claim and denying no claim. It's simply stating your psychological state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. WhatevermanJanuary 19, 2010 at 11:05 PM

    Me: Jesus returning to judge the non-believers (and failing to do so, despite this claim being made for the last 1900 years)

    Bossmanham: Not evidence of no God

    Me: Yes, it most certainly is. Consult the history of the religion you identify with: predictions of Jesus' return have been made for the last ~1800 years. Here we sit in the year 2010, marveling at the abject failure of such predictions to have been realized.

    The Christian God does not exist as he's described by believers. That's evidence for his non-existence; for you to pretend otherwise is dishonest but not entirely unexpected.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)