My Photo

My Book Fund


  • image

  • Blogroll Me!

  • eXTReMe Tracker

« Jury Nullification, Grounds for Appeal, and Beyond a Reasonable Doubt | Main | PZ Fails Again »

Friday, 11 June 2010


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bad Atheist, Get Reason!:


'Tis Himself, OM

The question, Mr. Smug, is why PZ Myers or any other atheist doesn't believe in god(s). For both PZ and me, the answer is quite simple. There's zero evidence for the existence of god(s). If there's no evidence for something, then why accept it?

The proof is on those making a positive claim. If you believe in the existence of god(s) then pony up your proof. If you can't then PZ and I will continue to not believe in god(s). Sorry if this concept is too simple for you to understand or accept.


Reading comprehension failure. I criticized the claim that the theist must offer *scientific* evidence in favor of god's existence. If you think you're entitled to demand only that kind of evidence, then you're not thinking enough. And I'm an atheist.


Reading comprehension failure. PZ Myers never used the phrase "scientific evidence". Did you have fun burning your straw man?

And is there any evidence for the existence of God or gods? Scientific evidence or "non-scientific" evidence? If none can be adduced, why should anyone believe in God or gods?

Why are you an atheist if not through a lack of evidence? Is there a better reason not to believe?


Did you fail to make it through the fourth sentence of this post, Alex? You also stand accused of a reading comprehension failure. To require that one follow the scientific method in defending the existence of something is to require that one adduce scientific evidence in defense of that thing's existence. No straw man was burned here. Until you can post something more sensible, and so demonstrate that interacting with you here is worth my time, I'll defer answering the rest of your questions.


You have delineated between two types of evidence: scientific evidence and "non-scientific" evidence. If theoretically it is possible for "non-scientific" evidence to exist, then that evidence can theoretically be examined using the scientific method, just like scientific evidence can be, and conclusions drawn.

That works so long as you are not defining the scientific method to be that method which can only examine scientific evidence. Of course, then that becomes a language issue. It was PZ Myers who brought up the scientific method, so why he should follow your definition I don't know.

"Until you can post something more sensible, and so demonstrate that interacting with you here is worth my time, I'll defer answering the rest of your questions."

In other words, the questions were quite troubling for you, and you're now hiding behind your bruised ego.


Intellectual buffoonery and so much more. Don't forget the pig headed ignorance behind such a closed minded follow up: "If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you." I propose the existence of love, of the soul, that of my dog Buddha's spiritual nature as well.


What utter rubbish. Love exists an observable thing but there is no evidence for the soul or the spiritual nature of your dog.

The comments to this entry are closed.

More Philosophy

June 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30