The illogic of Atheism

http://mileswmathis.com/atheism.html

I agree with much that he says. I said something similar to his point about God not proven is not the same as God disproven in the Labels and Beliefs thread. I try to use a more inclusive definition for what sorts of discoveries would be God, though (a capricious entity which created the universe is still noteworthy even if its not incomprehensible or all powerful, for example).

Like psi, specific events and experiences treated as examples of God/psi might be disproven/debunked. But that means those events/experiences are not examples of God/psi, not that God/psi have been disproven generally.

Linda

Liked the essay but the author seems to be, potentially, another matter.

Man, its tough to take things at face value on the internet.

Surely that quote from Hitchens was tongue-in-cheek?

Surely that quote from Hitchens was tongue-in-cheek?

Not only that, but it's taken out of context and the beginning has been altered in a misleading way. It's preceded by a reference to the theory that fossils were created by God to test our faith. Then it continues:
This cannot be disproved. Nor can my own pet theory that, from the patterns of behavior that are observable, we may infer a design that makes planet earth, all unknown to us, a prison colony and lunatic asylum that is employed as a dumping ground by far-off and superior civilizations. However, I was educated by Sir Karl Popper to believe that a theory that is unfalsifiable is to that extent a weak one.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Lm9VdH...0&lpg=PT60

That being the case, the commentary following the Hitchens quotation in Mathis's article is quite dishonest.

Not only that, but it's taken out of context and the beginning has been altered in a misleading way. It's preceded by a reference to the theory that fossils were created by God to test our faith. Then it continues:
This cannot be disproved. Nor can my own pet theory that, from the patterns of behavior that are observable, we may infer a design that makes planet earth, all unknown to us, a prison colony and lunatic asylum that is employed as a dumping ground by far-off and superior civilizations. However, I was educated by Sir Karl Popper to believe that a theory that is unfalsifiable is to that extent a weak one.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Lm9VdH...0&lpg=PT60

That being the case, the commentary following the Hitchens quotation in Mathis's article is quite dishonest.

Good find! I wouldn't have known this otherwise. Thanks, Chris!

Good find! I wouldn't have known this otherwise. Thanks, Chris!

Nor would I have checked if malf hadn't queried it. 

Surely that quote from Hitchens was tongue-in-cheek?

I zoned out during the rant part of the essay. While I agreed that people fitting his descriptions would be unreasonable, I wondered if I actually knew of any that did. I haven't read any of Dawkins', Dennett's, Harris', or Hitchen's writings on atheism, so I'm not familiar with what they've actually said, but it seemed out of character from what I have read of their work.

Linda

Linda, you might want to watch, oh, one of a myriad of Dawkins' debates and commentaries on theism/atheism.  The thrust of the article's criticism of Dawkins (and others) seems quite IN character based on what has come out of their own mouths.

Linda, you might want to watch, oh, one of a myriad of Dawkins' debates and commentaries on theism/atheism.  The thrust of the article's criticism of Dawkins (and others) seems quite IN character based on what has come out of their own mouths.

Well, I watched an hour and a half of a debate between Dawkins and Lennox (which is saying a lot, because I hate watching videos - I'm a reader, but I couldn't find something written by Dawkins online) and Dawkins didn't really say any of what he was accused of by Mathis. Dawkins was what I had seen in his other writings - thoughtful, careful not to over reach, well-informed, logical. 

Can you reference something specific? (And please don't reference some article written by a third party who takes a snippet out of context to mislead the audience.)

Linda