My Photo

The Out Campaign

Atheist Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2005

« Can Atheism Be Proven Wrong? | Main | PZ Myers on "Can Atheism Be Proven Wrong?" »


Pierce R. Butler

No matter what "deistic" evidence I might be confronted with, so long as my brain is functional I predict I will prefer the hypothesis that my brain has become dysfunctional.

The only way around that would be for {Deity} to upgrade said brain (already well past its warranty), at which point all further perceptions and conclusions are more parsimoniously explained as part of the reprogramming.

Serena Dante

As an atheist, it irritates me so terribly when religious people say "atheism requires just as much belief as my religion" or even "atheism IS a religion!"

It's like comparing the day and the night, and saying that the night has just as much light in it as the day - when we all know that darkness is caused by a lack of light! It's ridiculous.


As a one time devoted agnostic, and a person that cringed at the absurdity of theism, a few years ago I somehow fell in love with the idea of a trickster god(s) as a plausible explanation for all the things we would file under the heading of 'evil'. In some ways the trickster hypothesis feels like a strange cousin to the idea of a fallen world embedded within a larger domain, at the same time feeling refreshingly sovereign to any traditional religious teachings, but I digress.. Thought you may find my little yarn fun entertainment, enjoy:

Pierce R. Butler

Since the relevant Pharyngula thread appears to be extinct, pls allow me to post here what I'd hoped to put there:

Can anyone explain to me why the following comment, uploaded to Coyne's blog post linked above at the time shown -

Pierce R. Butler Posted November 5, 2010 at 7:52 pm |

Purely for the sake of discussion, consider the state of physics circa 1886: confident in its models of the material world though unable to resolve minor anomalies, such as Michelson 'n' Morley's experiments on the speed of light that year.

Circa 1905, just about everything went back to the drawing boards. Even so, the previous paradigm continued to return good results (NASA still uses Newton's 400-y-o equations, no?).

Among the mysteries in the depths of the genome, the sheer complexity of the thing might well hide emergent effects the unweaving of which may eclipse Darwin in the same way Einstein superseded NASA's buddy Isaac Whatsisname.

Lacking the training to assess Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini & Bennett's claims for myself, I have no reason to doubt our esteemed host's critiques thereof. It does seem safe to say that in terms of evidence they haven’t reached their 1886.

Nonetheless, the probability that genetics-driven theoretical revolutions in biology await is considerably above zero, and (w.a.g. warning) probably better than that of civilization enduring to achieve them.

- has, as of this morning, been disappeared without a trace?

The first time I was apparently censored at WEIT, I had taken a swipe at an easily visible error of Coyne's that had perhaps gotten too personal. Here, that doesn't seem to apply. What taboo have I transgressed?

J. J. Ramsey

Um, your post appears to be back now.

Pierce R. Butler

J. J. - Oops - big egg on my face, no foul on Jerry Coyne's: I was looking for my comment on the wrong damn thread...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe/ Donate to This Blog!

Books of mine

Greta on SSA Speakers Bureau

  • Greta Christina is on the Speakers Bureau of the Secular Students Alliance. Invite her to speak to your group!

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Powered by Rollyo

If You're Just Going To Read Five Things...

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Atheism

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Sex

Some Favorite Posts: Art, Politics, Other Stuff