Ready to change their minds?

Gnu atheist church-goers Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones write:

 Is atheism a religion? Of course it isn’t. Here’s why: we don’t believe in God, but we are ready to change our minds the minute the evidence changes.

Er……ok.  Tell ya what.  I’ll believe this once we have evidence that Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones are the type of people who are ready to change their minds the minute the evidence changes.  Maybe this is a faith statement they make in their church, but I see no evidence that Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones are ready to change their minds the minute the evidence changes.

Those of us who have been around gnu atheists and argued with gnu atheists for years do not get the impression that they have some talent when it comes to the open-minded consideration of “evidence.”  For example, I am not surprised one bit by the fact that so many atheists score themselves as a 6.9 or above on Dawkins scale of belief, as those are the scores of the closed-minded.

Nice try Pippa and Sanderson.  But those of us who value and understand critical thinking recognize your reason to be nothing more than a hollow talking point.  Try again.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in New Atheism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Ready to change their minds?

  1. TFBW says:

    I tentatively believe that Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones are ready to change their *interpretation* of the evidence the minute the evidence changes. Not that I’m singling them out specifically: most theories (especially metaphysical ones like atheism) can be saved from any amount of contrary evidence through judicious use of special pleading and whatnot.

    Speaking of which, have any of these atheists openly stated what evidence would satisfy them re the existence of God? Being such indisputable masters of evidence and reason, I’m sure they’ve read their A. J. Ayer, and have specified exactly what they mean by “God”, and the physical consequences that would follow from his existence. If anyone can provide me with a reference, that would be much appreciated.

  2. Tim Lambert says:

    I don’t know if the argument from reason counts as ‘evidence for God’ as Pippa and Sanderson use the word ‘evidence’. When I read a new atheist’s demand for evidence it almost always seems like they’re referring to a fact that is discernible only through the scientific method (like, hydrogen bonding allows water molecules to assume a rigid lattice structure upon freezing).

    But even when the argument from reason is properly understood there seems to be no shortage of atheists that are willing to contort reason so far out of shape as to purposely misunderstand the argument and the consequences of its negation.

    Look no further than the comment section:
    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/01/schliesser-on-evolutionary-argument.html

  3. Tim Lambert says:

    ” Is atheism a religion? Of course it isn’t. Here’s why: we don’t believe in God, but we are ready to change our minds the minute the evidence changes.”

    Way to change the focus at the end.
    Is atheism a religion? Pippa states “no” because they don’t believe in God.
    Aside from the pretty apparent tendency of many God-minded folk to say “I believe in God, Jesus…. but I’m not religious”. You’d think the point would be salient enough for Pippa that religion is not a synonym for “God”.

    Me: “Pippa, do you enjoy athletics?”
    Pippa: “Of course not! I can’t stand it when the guy spikes the ball in the endzone after scoring a touch down. It’s so obnoxious!”

    It’s a shame that it would required the need to explain to Pippa that religion isn’t synonymous for “God”.

  4. Michael says:

    Speaking of which, have any of these atheists openly stated what evidence would satisfy them re the existence of God?

    Yes, they want some Gap. Some BIG GAP. Coyne, for example, says that if he was walking the streets of NYC and saw a 600 ft Jesus walking around, he would become a believer. So he says. 😉

  5. TFBW says:

    They want a God of the Gaps? Unpossible! Citation?

  6. TFBW says:

    Thanks for the citations, even if they are distressingly lame. Thing is, we need more authoritative sources than this, but they don’t exist. We need to point out to the Gnus (as you call them) that their so-called scientific atheism isn’t real science because, for one thing, it doesn’t have any peer-reviewed journals. They like to play that card against creationists, after all. It would be nice if we could cite the Journal of Scientific Atheism instead of random blog posts and opinion pieces.

    A “Journal of Scientific Atheism” is a ludicrous concept. We should totally goad them into producing it. I reckon we have a good chance of success if narcissism theory is on track. Is there such a thing already, and I’m just unaware of it? A Google search on the (exact) phrase produces astonishingly few results.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s