Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay: PZ Myers finally admits: "...I was naive and stupid""

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 5: Line 5:
 
:::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)
 
:::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)
 
:::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)
 +
RobS, I will help you with this, but regrettably it will not be soon.
 +
 
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.
 
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.
  
Line 12: Line 14:
 
Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, [[ontological]] belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] and [[Atheism and epistemology|epistemological deductions]]. 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 [[Atheism and irrationality|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>[http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html  ''Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose''] by Francois Tremblay</ref>}}
 
Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, [[ontological]] belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] and [[Atheism and epistemology|epistemological deductions]]. 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 [[Atheism and irrationality|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>[http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html  ''Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose''] by Francois Tremblay</ref>}}
  
RobS, I will help you with this, but regrettably it will not be soon.
 
 
== Notes ==
 
== Notes ==
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
{{reflist|2}}

Revision as of 19:34, 28 January 2019

From Myers essay, it says,

what happened is that the credibility of science was stolen to bolster rationalizing prior bigotries. People were drawn into the Church of the New Atheism by Islamophobia, but rather than being enlightened about the unity of humanity, they instead learned that bastardized evolutionary theories could be weaponized to justify all kinds of abuses

Perhaps something could be excised from this for the War on Science? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:24, 28 January 2019 (EST)

Scientific fraud is so rampant that a doctor told me that he no longer trusts medical journals and prefers to see medical procedures prove their effectiveness over a number of years. And he is probably one of the best doctors in his field for the city in which he resides.Conservative (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2019 (EST)
Can you put together a few paragraphs? Say one, two, or three using PZ Myers's essay? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 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." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:55, 28 January 2019 (EST)

RobS, I will help you with this, but regrettably it will not be soon.

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 in his essay Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose:

Atheism, as 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. That is why atheists, inasmuch as they are atheists, are nothing like a coherent or concerted group. Organizations like American Atheists serve a role of broadcasting information more than anything else, because there cannot be concerted action when nobody agrees on what to do (except of course on direct concerns like the rights of atheists or separation of church and state). Most atheists disagree strongly on whenever atheism should be propagated, or promoted, and on the matter of doing so.

Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, ontological belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of metaphysical and epistemological deductions. 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.[1]

Notes