Jump to: navigation, search
:::Can you put together a few paragraphs? Say one, two, or three using PZ Myers's essay? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:47, 28 January 2019 (EST)
:::For example, here he says "the intellectual foundation of atheism," which presumably is science, then he claims "science was stolen to bolster rationalizing prior bigotries." The rest of the article (when he's not quoting someone else), is a treasure trove of the main thesis of [[War on Science]], "the Leftist expropriation of natural science to promote crackpot social science theories." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:55, 28 January 2019 (EST)
I don't atheism has a foundation. That is why the question, "What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true?" is so effective.
The atheist Francois Tremblay wrote:
{{cquote|Atheism, as [[Definition of atheism|commonly defined]] by atheists, expresses a lack of belief, or disbelief, in deities. It is not a positive belief in anything, but a negative concept.
Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis... Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.<ref>[ ''Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose''] by Francois Tremblay</ref>}}