Posted: Dec 13, 2011 7:06 pm
by Calilasseia
Paul wrote:Still wondering what Mick thinks a 'village atheist' is.

Paul wrote:
Mick wrote:Lowder was being facetious, of course. however he is critical towards village atheists, and so I suspect there is some underlying seriousness to this post in some degree or another. He takes the case for theism seriously as well as the case for Jesus' resurrection, and in fact I have seen him criticize his fellow scholarly atheists quite a bit. Skeptics should take note.


What do you think "village atheist" means Mick? Do you think it is pejorative?


I'm beginning to suspect it's used with allusion to the words "village idiot". Wouldn't be the first time we'd been subject to condescension of this sort, simply because we don't treat made up mythological shit as fact.

Oh, and speaking of which, it's not for us to do the supernaturalists' work for them. If they want us to regard made up mythological shit as real, then they'd better start presenting real evidence for said made up mythological shit. "My magic man is real because my mythology says so, and my mythology is right because my magic man wrote it" will simply result in much deserved pointing and laughing. Another clue for any passing supernaturalists is this: assertions are not explanations. Learn the difference between the two. But perhaps they need a little time to learn the basics of proper discourse - after all, they've been peddling blind assertions about magic entities, and insisting that said assertions be treated as fact, for 5,000 years, and they've only recently been properly challenged on this. Perhaps they need 5,000 years to learn how proper discourse is conducted.