Phat writes:
Despite skillfully arguing every scientific law and consensual methodology of the space program with them, they simply refuse to consider certain parts of his arguments. He finds the whole exercise exasperating yet oddly entertaining.
In my debunking days, I talked to plenty of 9/11 truthers and creationists who claimed there was "no evidence" that terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks or that species evolve; and they dismissed literally every data point anyone presented, on whatever basis they found convenient, and treated it as if it didn't constitute evidence in any way. Not just that we had different ways of
interpreting and
emphasizing information, mind you, but that there was
"no evidence" that had ever been presented. It became clear that this wasn't a legitimate attempt to understand recent political events or natural history, or to reach mutual understanding with others. It was about baiting an opponent, making them jump through hoops, and then handwaving away anything they presented and insulting them for their credulity. The entire "dialogue" was about the conspiracist venting his contempt for others and lording his superiority over them.
So I can't help but think that the "no evidence" New Atheist is working the same bad-faith exercise. There's nothing someone could type in a Facebook thread that would ever convince the atheist to live a religious life; but instead of admitting that he has his mind made up, he demands evidence from his online foes and, rather than talk about how his interpretation differs from the religious person's, dismisses literally each and every data point as not constituting evidence of anything other than his opponent's credulity and stupidity.
Asking questions is a noble pursuit. But if you've already decided that no answer will ever satisfy you, how sincere and fair-minded are we supposed to think your quest truly is?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
