Is P. Z. Myers a sorry excuse for an atheist? I have said many times before that the New Atheists are a pale imitation of the old atheists of late 19th and early 20th centuries who were not simply cultural barbarians, but men widely learned beyond science, most of whom actually understood much of what they criticized. The Thomas Huxleys and H. L. Menckens have, alas, been replaced by the likes of Myers and Richard Dawkins. ...
Where are the atheists now who can come with lines like Huxley's, "extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science like snakes around the cradle of Hercules"? Or Mencken's "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing"?
They were wrong, of course, but they were magnificently, gloriously wrong--unlike Myers and his ilk, who, when they go wrong (which is not infrequent), do it with an unfortunate lack of rhetorical sophistication. If you're going to be wrong, you should at least provide your audience with something to marvel at.
You have to hand it to the religious: By the standards of the last sentence quoted above, they have performed magnificently.
I see the same BS all the time.
ReplyDeleteNo PROOF that the religion is right
just more BS knife in the back insults.
I am just waiting for one of these silly idiots to show me how pi=3 as stated in the buyBull. Just that one simple thing would go a long way to showing they have something. How can antibiotics work if disease is caused by demons as stated in the buyBull. There are so many things they could try that would supply proof, well except there isn't anything so they have to stoop to insults