tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post8442468230545219307..comments2024-03-29T11:20:48.180+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: The Nature of Atheist BeliefRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-41934307140862350312013-03-29T15:15:29.775+00:002013-03-29T15:15:29.775+00:00I like tihs piece. Thank you very much. Though I a...I like tihs piece. Thank you very much. Though I am troubled that this and other blog articles you have written do not contain citations, either in brackets or in footnotes. I would appreciate citations for your assertions (like Wikipedia does and as do academic papers), as it would give me stuff to go and read and follow up on. Troublingly, I note the Christian bloggers are quite keen to quote 'blah blah blah' from the book of Montague (for instance) and by comparison I fear the works published here, as excellently-written as they are, are a bit "pop philosophy" iyswim. Please don't take it personally, I'm just looking for a bit of meat on the bones. Keep up the good work!! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-64463315410860299892011-01-01T16:56:51.258+00:002011-01-01T16:56:51.258+00:00I'm ammused to see you arguing for the 'sp...I'm ammused to see you arguing for the 'special needs' god of creationism. As I point out in another blog, the special needs child of creationist parents will have inherrited its handicap from those parents.<br /><br />A very nice illustration of a theological 'argument' which can, apparently conclude that, because the absense of evidence isn't evidence of absence (which it is, incidentally, though not proof of it) that it is therefore evidence of presence. There is a reason why theology isn't just called 'logic'.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-19962883730522182672010-12-28T22:25:36.357+00:002010-12-28T22:25:36.357+00:00I'm sorry, but God concepts have to be regarde...I'm sorry, but God concepts have to be regarded as a special case. A genuinely all-powerful supernatural being would be capable of creating a world that shows no evidence whatsoever for its existence. The absence of evidence cannot be evidence for absence here.<br /><br />I can totally accept that there should be no belief in the absence of evidence but this has to include the belief in no gods. To believe in no gods in the absence of evidence is, itself, to adopt a religious position.<br /><br />Ideas about the supposed supernatural are simply not amenable to science and will have to remain open questions. Any active believers or disbelievers in such things are wrong.The LUPOLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800689265918025677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-29688809452297579052010-07-22T13:45:27.955+01:002010-07-22T13:45:27.955+01:00I enjoyed that, fabulously clear. I agree wholehea...I enjoyed that, fabulously clear. I agree wholeheartedly. I too am affronted by the minions of pretending. It IS an insult.<br />A very nice piece, thanks RosaCrispy Seahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01785485472381609247noreply@blogger.com