tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

PZ Myers divorces himself from the skeptic movement

Biologists or, rather, Darwinist, PZ Myers has announced “I officially divorce myself from the skeptic movement.” Interestingly, with his divorce proceedings, as it were, he noted, “the existence of gods is not a testable claim” and one can understand why he would make the claim since PZ Myers is an adherent of the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence sect of Atheism (about whom you can learn here). In other words, he mere asserts the non-existence of God—period.

He wrote the following:

“Thanks, Jamy Ian Swiss, you’ve opened my eyes and I will no longer consider myself a ‘skeptic’. I am a scientist, and from the talk he gave tonight [at a Freethought Alliance meeting] (which was pretty much exactly the same as his TAM talk, except for the additions where he called me stupid and a liar), it is clear that ‘scientific skepticism’ is simply a crippled, buggered version of science with special exemptions to set certain subjects outside the bounds of its purview.
In addition, its promoters are particularly sensitive to having their hypocrisy pointed out (that, by the way, is what triggered his outburst — you’d have to be stupid or a liar to think that skepticism gives religion special privileges.)…So don’t call me a ‘skeptic’. I’ll consider it an insult, like calling a writer a stenographer, a comedian a mime, a doctor a faith healer, a scientist a technician. I’m out.”

This bring up several issue such as that Atheists, by any other name, have become caricatures of themselves and you could not make fun of them even if you wanted to; all you would have to do is quote them.
Also, the issue is the definition of “skeptic.” Well, as with any term; there are grammatical definitions, philosophical definitions, historical definitions, etymological definitions, popular level definitions, etc.

03f00fd5559b5b1791f514d66ebfceaa-2991510

For example, the apostle Thomas is often called “doubting” but he was actually a true and honest skeptic in that he would not believe until he saw evidence (so, apparently, an evidentialist; see the Richard Dawkins featured essay The Apostle Thomas : Patron Saint of Scientists?).
On a popular level, many who call themselves skeptics are not interested in holding back until they see sufficient evidence. Rather, they have a presupposition and merely seek to defend it. In other words, for them it is not, “I will not believe until and unless” but, rather, simply, “I will not believe.” Thus, may pop-skeptics are, in reality, cynics.

Massimo Pigliucci has chimed in to the PZ Myers divorce and noted (“PZ Myers quits skeptic movement, should we care?”):

“skepticism is not, nor has it ever aspired to be, science. It is a grassroots movement with the triple aim of debunking paranormal claims, defending science in the public arena, and promoting critical thinking.”

Now, should skeptics seek the “debunking” of “paranormal claims” or the investigation thereof? A true and honest skeptic would identify themselves as an investigator and not a debunker. Pigliucci’s statement betrays a presupposition to the effect that they seek only to debunk. They come to the, supposed, investigation with a conclusion in mind and just massage the evidence into position so that they may hit the target of their goal. Moreover, based on their Atheistic worldview and other unproved and unevidenced presuppositions; they do not truly “defending science in the public arena” but defend their philosophical worldview which they hide behind the term “science.” Massimo Pigliucci actually wrote of “the issue of demarcation projects (science vs pseudoscience, science vs philosophy)” and indeed, he has some interesting things to say in this arena, see the following for our articles on him:

Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 1

Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 3 – On the Difference Between Science and Philosophy: Richard Dawkins

Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 2 – On the Difference Between Science and Philosophy: Massimo Pigliucci

Three way atheist fracas: Massimo Pigliucci, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins

The Massimo Pigliucci vs. PZ Myers Fracas (with a little Michael De Dora thrown in), part 1

The Massimo Pigliucci vs. PZ Myers Fracas (with a little Michael De Dora thrown in), part 2

Lastly, that they seek the “promoting” of “critical thinking” is likewise based on their worldview/presupposition. Just read some material in my Atheist Child Rearing section to see how they turn an outward show of critical thinking into an actual teaching of the Atheist catechism.

PZ Myers also wrote:

“I was also annoyed by the skeptic movement’s appropriation of the term ‘scientific’ all over the place…that so narrowly defines what it will accept as evidence that it actively excludes huge domains of knowledge. It’s toothless science that fetishizes ‘consumer protection’ over understanding.”

Amen! For whatever odd reason, Atheists think that science has something to do with Atheist; which it does not in any way whatsoever. Yet, so enamored are they with their cult of personality hero worshipping that, by golly, if a scientist said it, they believe it, so it must be true. Caricature, to be sure, however, you can see and heard Atheists saying this for themselves in the documentary; Evolution vs. God from which I have compiled clips and fails:

In fact, PZ Myer noted:

“Earlier tonight I spent 15 minutes getting interviewed by Ray Comfort. That was a far more pleasant experience than an hour of listening to Jamy Ian Swiss.”

It is within Evolution vs. God that you can hear Myers claim that “humans are still fish” and how fish evolve into…fish.

Myers also wrote:

“It was an incredibly repellent talk that was not improved in the past year, but only made uglier and more grotesque. He ignored all of my previous criticisms, answering them only by yelling louder. I coulda gagged at the end when he piously announced we all ought to be fighting together for the cause of reason…after an hour of caricaturing atheists as ignorant and smug posturing of ‘scientific skepticism’ as the great good virtue.”

For his part, Massimo Pigliucci notes:

“I think the primary problem with the skeptic movement — of which I am and remain a proud member — is that too many people, both among the ‘leaders’ and the rank-and-file, seem to be in it for the sheer pleasure of calling others out as idiots. Typically this contempt is reserved for religious people, believers in pseudoscience, etc., but occasionally we turn the guns on some of our own and shoot just as joyfully.”

Indeed, a lot of people are fed up with the school yard taunt modus operandi of the pop-Atheist movement, again, by any other name. There is only so far you can go by elbowing your buddy in the rib and saying, “Like, they are so dumb and stuff!”

As Gary Wolf, contributing editor to Wired magazine, noted in including himself in the following description: “we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth” (“The Church of the Non-Believers,” Wired Magazine):

“At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. ‘Who here is an atheist?’ I ask. Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, ‘I am!’ “But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: ‘You would be.’ ‘Why?’ ‘Because you enjoy pissing people off.’ ‘Well, that’s true.’

“This type of conversation takes place not in central Ohio, where I was born, or in Utah, where I was a teenager, but on the West Coast, among technical and scientific people, possibly the social group that is least likely among all Americans to be religious.”

Vox Day (The Irrational Atheist ) also elucidated an interesting dichotomy between Atheists and Agnostics:

“Agnostic: I don’t believe there is a God. Because I haven’t seen the evidence.
Atheist: There is no God. Because I’m an *******.” [expletive removed]

In any case, just as Atheists and Agnostics fought it out over to which sect Richard Dawkins belonged, we will see what the Atheists and Skeptics do about PZ Myers.


Posted

in

by

Tags: