In response to “Is Atheism a religion?” by Craig Portwood via Examiner.com:
Another non-response to straw man atheism. To quote, "Atheism is the belief that there is nothing in existence that can be called God." No: atheism is a response to the belief claim that gods exist, not a belief claim in itself. In of itself it's a single position on a single claim, this is hardly sufficient to be a religion.
The article really falls apart when the author decides to conflate science and atheism. Unlike atheism, science doesn't have a position on the existence of a god (being an untestable proposition, science as a tool doesn't reply to it and remains both apathetic and agnostic.)
"Other philosophies which hold themselves to be above and beyond religious thought, fit neatly into such a category as religion. Evolutionists for example, fancy themselves to be part of the science community. Even though their position has yet to be proven,(hence it is described as the theory of evolution) they put forth their proposition that life somehow magically appeared as if by random accident."
(1) Science doesn't deal in proof but the collection and modeling of evidence;
(2) The theory of evolution exists to model how the fact of evolution functions; (to see how absurd this statement is replace words with "Gravitationists" and "theory of gravity.")
And the real failure here:
(3) ...the theory of evolution does not postulate how evolving life "appeared" it makes no claims about abiogenesis. To state that it does it to dishonestly misrepresent the theory of evolution.
The author continues to make outright distorted statements about disbelief in gods and other non-related subjects like economics and politics.
After the first failure to honesty research this subject, I decided it wasn't worth my time to continue reading. If a person cannot do the bare minimum of honestly presentation, I don't have time for their propaganda.
Link, via Examiner.com.
2 comments:
Atheists seem to be nothing more than a bunch of pissed off adolescents. I read the article and it looks to me as though he gored your (non) sacred cow.
I agree that it takes more faith to believe that the universe just somehow made itself than it does to believe that there was an intelligent being behind it.
I would agree with one Atheist assumption though. You must believe that you were not created in the image of an intelligent being. After reading your rant, who could argue with that?
Hi. If thou manage to actually read my blog in the future and discover that I am not an atheist perhaps thou'll make a more convincing reply in the future. I am unmoved by the unfounded insinuations and insults directed at atheists in the first paragraph as not arguing anything more than a childish act on thy part.
No part of atheism requires a person to "believe that the universe somehow made itself" so that's another non-response. Which, I expect, thou should know if thou'd actually read my reply since it addresses exactly what atheism is.
Final non-response, atheism does not require the assumption we "were not created in the image of an intelligent being" again for the same reason as above.
Strike this as non-responsive.
Nobody -- not even thee, Anonymous -- should be convinced by this reply nor should they be impressed. I am not.
Post a Comment