Atheist guru PZ Myers gets religion

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This Seth Richardson bloke sounds like a real dumb fuck...

Without a smiley that looks very close to being an attack on a member.

[Animavore]

This Seth Richardson bloke sounds like a real dumb fuck...

Without a smiley that looks very close to being an attack on a member.

Seth Richardson isn't a member. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 47#p761447
Attacks against him are fair game.

[pErvinalia]

This Seth Richardson bloke sounds like a real dumb fuck...

Without a smiley that looks very close to being an attack on a member.

Seth Richardson isn't a member. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 47#p761447
Attacks against him are fair game.

Thank you ani. Beat me to it.

[amused]

I'll condense it down to the basic argument's flaw.

...
The only thing that science can say about the existence or non-existence of God is that there is insufficient critically robust scientific evidence in the record upon which to base any conclusions, pro or con.
...
Value evidence and engage in reason, by all means, St. Thomas Aquinas and a host of other philosophers have done so, so you’re in good company, PZ. But do not succumb to what I’ve coined the “Atheist’s Fallacy.”

This fallacy is a fallacy of circular reasoning in which one of the premises of an argument against the existence of God is drawn from one of many human-created theistic claims, which premise is presumed to be true in reaching the conclusion that God does not exist:

* Premise: Christians claim that God created the earth 6000 years ago.
* Premise: Science has proven that the earth is 4 billion years old.
* Conclusion: Because the first premise is false, God does not exist.

The error in reasoning should be obvious.

Yes, the error in reasoning is obvious. What is not obvious to the writer is that nobody is making that argument. The writer makes the same mistake that many christians make, he sees religion and christianity as being synonymous. When a christian asks: "Do you believe in god"? the question almost always means: "Do you believe in the god of the christian bible?" No, I don't, it's too ridiculous. So when it comes to christianity, I'm atheist, along with my atheism toward all the other ridiculous man-made gods. If the question is: "Is there an intelligent force at work in the universe?" then my answer becomes, "I don't know, neither do you, and scientific inquiry is the only way to find out."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, the error in reasoning is obvious. What is not obvious to the writer is that nobody is making that argument. The writer makes the same mistake that many christians make, he sees religion and christianity as being synonymous. When a christian asks: "Do you believe in god"? the question almost always means: "Do you believe in the god of the christian bible?" No, I don't, it's too ridiculous. So when it comes to christianity, I'm atheist, along with my atheism toward all the other ridiculous man-made gods. If the question is: "Is there an intelligent force at work in the universe?" then my answer becomes, "I don't know, and neither do you, and scientific inquiry is the only way to find out."

Yeah, as one writer put it:

I was giving a talk on atheism in Northern Ireland. When I was done two little old ladies came up and asked, "Is it the god of the Protestants or of the Catholics that you don't believe in?"

[cowiz]

Looks like someone is miffed that PZ took him to task and he's trying to get him back with waffle.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Looks like someone is miffed that PZ took him to task and he's trying to get him back with waffle.

PZ shouldn't have tried to challenge such a powerful blogger. He's going DOWN for that now.

Or something.

[amused]

Colorado Springs is bible thump central, so he's writing to the stands.

I wonder if he has a view of The Peak?

[Seth]

This Seth Richardson bloke sounds like a real dumb fuck...

Without a smiley that looks very close to being an attack on a member.

Seth Richardson isn't a member. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 47#p761447
Attacks against him are fair game.

Depends on which Seth Richardson you're referring to.

Fortunately, here at Rationalia, the Mods have not bound themselves up in miles of red tape and picky rules, they have a "play nice" rule that is rather expansive, and which I'm sure will cause them to intervene here if things get out of hand.

[Seth]

I'll condense it down to the basic argument's flaw.

...
The only thing that science can say about the existence or non-existence of God is that there is insufficient critically robust scientific evidence in the record upon which to base any conclusions, pro or con.
...
Value evidence and engage in reason, by all means, St. Thomas Aquinas and a host of other philosophers have done so, so you’re in good company, PZ. But do not succumb to what I’ve coined the “Atheist’s Fallacy.”

This fallacy is a fallacy of circular reasoning in which one of the premises of an argument against the existence of God is drawn from one of many human-created theistic claims, which premise is presumed to be true in reaching the conclusion that God does not exist:

* Premise: Christians claim that God created the earth 6000 years ago.
* Premise: Science has proven that the earth is 4 billion years old.
* Conclusion: Because the first premise is false, God does not exist.

The error in reasoning should be obvious.

Yes, the error in reasoning is obvious. What is not obvious to the writer is that nobody is making that argument. The writer makes the same mistake that many christians make, he sees religion and christianity as being synonymous. When a christian asks: "Do you believe in god"? the question almost always means: "Do you believe in the god of the christian bible?" No, I don't, it's too ridiculous. So when it comes to christianity, I'm atheist, along with my atheism toward all the other ridiculous man-made gods. If the question is: "Is there an intelligent force at work in the universe?" then my answer becomes, "I don't know, neither do you, and scientific inquiry is the only way to find out."

And if the vast majority of Atheists would simply say "Which God? Your version of God? Of course not," it wouldn't be necessary to criticize the unreason and illogic. But they don't. And that's why I provide criticism, in hopes of encouraging Atheists to use their brains and set Reason firmly in her seat, so they don't look like brainless ideological tools when responding to theistic claims. If atheists are to appear credible and be given any intellectual respect by theists, they need to be precise in their reasoning and argumentation. Throwing out Atheist platitudes is not productive and is harmful to reason and rationality. No theist has ever been persuaded of the error of his ways by the statement "Your God is a load of shite!"

I expect more of those who call themselves rational intellectual atheists. Sadly, I'm often disappointed.

[Seth]

Yes, the error in reasoning is obvious. What is not obvious to the writer is that nobody is making that argument. The writer makes the same mistake that many christians make, he sees religion and christianity as being synonymous. When a christian asks: "Do you believe in god"? the question almost always means: "Do you believe in the god of the christian bible?" No, I don't, it's too ridiculous. So when it comes to christianity, I'm atheist, along with my atheism toward all the other ridiculous man-made gods. If the question is: "Is there an intelligent force at work in the universe?" then my answer becomes, "I don't know, and neither do you, and scientific inquiry is the only way to find out."

Yeah, as one writer put it:

I was giving a talk on atheism in Northern Ireland. When I was done two little old ladies came up and asked, "Is it the god of the Protestants or of the Catholics that you don't believe in?"

Evidently he was an inept and incompetent speaker.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, the error in reasoning is obvious. What is not obvious to the writer is that nobody is making that argument. The writer makes the same mistake that many christians make, he sees religion and christianity as being synonymous. When a christian asks: "Do you believe in god"? the question almost always means: "Do you believe in the god of the christian bible?" No, I don't, it's too ridiculous. So when it comes to christianity, I'm atheist, along with my atheism toward all the other ridiculous man-made gods. If the question is: "Is there an intelligent force at work in the universe?" then my answer becomes, "I don't know, and neither do you, and scientific inquiry is the only way to find out."

Yeah, as one writer put it:

I was giving a talk on atheism in Northern Ireland. When I was done two little old ladies came up and asked, "Is it the god of the Protestants or of the Catholics that you don't believe in?"

Evidently he was an inept and incompetent speaker.

No, I'm sure it wasn't Seth Richardson.

[Seth]

Looks like someone is miffed that PZ took him to task and he's trying to get him back with waffle.

Not miffed at all. A bit disappointed that PZ would engage in such egregious quote mining, but I respect his right to rile up his fans. That's what blogging is all about. Turned into quite a discussion over there too, more than 900 posts. PZ had to shut down the original thread and open an auxiliary thread to keep the server from bogging down in fact. I wonder how many times he's ever had to do that?

I'm not miffed because, as I've said repeatedly, the destination is not the goal, the debate; the path to enlightenment is. And as a result of his diatribe and quote mining, a vigorous and interesting discussion of the subject ensued over there, in which no few participants agreed with my arguments to one extent or another. That's a result I'm not in the least bit upset about. I even sent PZ a congratulatory PM, though he never had the courtesy to reply.

That too is a bit disappointing. I would have thought that such a tower intellect would have at least common courtesy as an aspect.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He has a low tolerance for bullshit.

[amused]

And if the vast majority of Atheists would simply say "Which God? Your version of God? Of course not," it wouldn't be necessary to criticize the unreason and illogic. But they don't. And that's why I provide criticism, in hopes of encouraging Atheists to use their brains and set Reason firmly in her seat, so they don't look like brainless ideological tools when responding to theistic claims.

At least you acknowledge that they are nothing more than claims.