tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post300365413496423737..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: The Stupid! It Burns! (omniscient edition)Larry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-63052388566538568572010-08-30T18:37:45.271-06:002010-08-30T18:37:45.271-06:00Almost all atheists do not state that g0d does not...Almost all atheists do not state that g0d does not exist!!! "the atheistic worldview presupposes the non-existence of any gods," is not correct. They do not BELIEVE in g0d and the theistards are not bright enough to produce VALID evidence for g0d.<br />I am A-theist in the meaning of 'without g0d' or whether g0d exits or not is irrelevant. Everything I experience, see or sense says that if g0d exits S/He/IT does nothing so is irrelevant.<br />Most atheists are not pissed at personal faith even though we don't believe, we are pissed by the BS politics of religion as the mad crowd of delusional half-wits try to shovel their BS down our throats.L.Longnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-8542209398932991072010-08-29T16:44:08.185-06:002010-08-29T16:44:08.185-06:00The presuppositionalist lines like, "the athe...The presuppositionalist lines like, "the atheistic worldview presupposes the non-existence of any gods," always get me. It's a frequent claim among their ilk, but it's bullshit.<br /><br />Inasmuch as we have presuppositions at all, I'd expect a good thinker to try to minimize them. That means that you don't get to "presuppose" that the entire contents of the bible are true, or that god exists, or whatever. But, that also means that you don't get to presuppose the negation of all those statements. Both of those approaches are terrible.<br /><br />But, I've also never met an atheist that "presupposes" all sorts of things about religion being incorrect. Rather, they're generally conclusions, based on considering and thinking about the various religious claims, and looking at reality. And yes, they're conclusions that could be revised.<br /><br />Of course, I don't think that such a minimalistic approach is conducive to theism, and presuppositionalists probably recognize that. So, they try to misrepresent everyone has having a vast collection of basic axioms that they work from, in an effort to make it seem like their collection is justified (and then make bad arguments about how any other collection is necessarily contradictory). But, I think it's just that: a misrepresentation of what most people would need to take as foundational principles (assuming you think such foundations are necessary at all).Dannoreply@blogger.com