In perfect ironic harmony, the header of this blog which says, "Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories" is ridiculed and rejected (without evidence, of course). On the one hand the razor demands evidence, but if evidence is required of Atheists, then that axiom fades rapidly.
One Atheist, "HansMustermann, the penultimate amazing" (he probably should look up the word "penultimate") contributes this, referring to the question, "what is evidence":
"In logic, it is anything you can use in a sound inference to support something. I.e., you must have a valid inference and the evidence must be itself supportable as true. If it doesn't add up to the conclusion, it's not evidence."Aside from using the term, "evidence", as part of the definition, what he has defined is part of the process of rationalization of a preferred conclusion by finding premises suitable for its support. This is also the process of abduction and bayesian induction. Individuals who think in these patterns are not inclined to think in the form of deductive, syllogistic reasoning, because deduction cannot be manipulated toward a false but desired conclusion as can rationalization, abduction, and bayesian induction.
4 comments:
A Leftist rhetorical device that actually cuts - the wielder. It's poetic justice that the proponents lose their minds to the Razor while using it, and are thus self-rendered incapable of comprehending its vacuity.
One Atheist, "HansMustermann, the penultimate amazing" (he probably should look up the word "penultimate") contributes this, referring to the question, "what is evidence"
That's so funny.What's so amazing about being second last?
=============
I went over to James Randi's site and just saw that Stan put ONESHOTKILL in a conundrum.He's desperately seeking help out of this paradox.Unfortunately for him none of the other atheists have any solutions except tu quoques,false associations and ridicule like this one,from pakeha:
This is incorrect. If someone asserts, without any evidence, that the Tooth Fairy does exist, why is the skeptic required to offer evidence that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? His criticism of "Hitchens Razor appears to be variations of the same idea.
Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
That's hilarious.
If someone asserts, without any evidence, that the Tooth Fairy does exist, why is the skeptic required to offer evidence that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?
Oldest argument in the Atheist playbook. Differ, redirect, feint. We Theist don't running around claiming we can prove the existence of deity, so we can't offer proof, but then they can't prove he doesn't exist, but rather than admit that and bring their carefully blurred worldview into sharp focus, they pretend that we claim we have proof and then they declare we are wrong because we haven't demonstrated it. We aren't the one demanding the police power of the state be used to enforce our myopic viewpoint either.
On the other hand... atheists, while adept at blowing smoke, have never been given to actual reason when it comes to getting what they want.
Sure, they're a pack of liars. But in the time it takes to point that out, they've come up with five new attempts at confusing the issue, smearing your name, re-branding the issue, demanding definition of the word 'definition', etc, etc, etc.
"Accuse, accuse, accuse" is their preferred tactic, and with good reason. If you deal with them in the most effecient, effective way - giving them a fat lip for libel and for wasting your time - you run into our litigious society. Which, not coincidentally, is peopled largely by left-leaning lawyers.
I see it this way: the arrogant punk who smeared dogshit on your locker in school is now pulling chairs in front of you as you chase him through the cafeteria. Rather than try hurdling all those chairs, just wait for him after school.
Post a Comment