Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[TheRealJoeFish]

You are a sad little man. Make some friends or something.

He's a sad little man.

Not a king or god...

Not a thief, I Need a CRIME!

[Minimalist]

every last atheist, every last one except may be min, were ready to elevate you above the superstitious cesspool you wallow in.

There's no maybe about it, man.  Fuck these ignorant bible-thumping shitheads.

[Delicate]

I find that's a myth. Many atheists like to claim to be ex-Christians, but they don't have even the basic rudimentary knowledge of religion and end up attacking strawmen.

As the rest of the article will illustrate quite amusingly.

False. Data from sources like this survey from the Pew forum on Religious Religion and Public Life consistently show that, in general, atheists and agnostics are better informed about religion(s) than anyone else.


Personally, I spent 20+ years rigorously studying the Bible in a ministry household, plus part of my college career studying various other world religions, and I can tell you with certainty that straw men are completely unnecessary when it comes to dismantling the supposed veracity of the Bible (or other superstitious gibberish, for that matter).


Your condescension toward people's imaginary anger is merely a deflection technique you've employed to avoid supporting anything you've said in this thread so far. All you've really done here is posted an article, declared "I agree with this article!" and when it's pointed out to you that there are major problems with the claims forwarded from the get-go of the article, you immediately resort to, "Nope, you're just dumb...and angry. READ MY ARTICLE!"


You are a sad little man. Make some friends or something.

I wouldn't apply the results of a broad survey on the narrow slice of this forum's population. That's like taking a survey of the nation's IQ, and inferring that the Kardashians must be on par.

But if it's true that you have spent 20+ years rigorously studying the Bible in a ministry household (and I expect you mean something academically credible, not the Westboro Baptist or atheistforum.org equivalent of "rigorous study"), then point me to one of your critiques.

I'd love to read your thoughtful criticisms.

[Delicate]

The forum looks that way to you. It doesn't look that way to me. I can't help what you think about it, can I?

No, I didn't read the whole article. I gave it a chance, but it was talking nonsense and I'm only prepared to read so much nonsense before I stop wasting my time.

You seem to have some obsession with thinking atheists have to justify themselves to you.

Kaiser: Thanks very much my friend

Nonsense as in "what he says offends my dogma and makes me feel emotional booboos" or nonsense as in "I can point to something factually incorrect in his essay"?

[drfuzzy]

Article: The New Philistinism

The New Atheist writers are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about.


Great article. Worth reading to get an idea of what a joke so many atheist clergy are.

Ok.  I read it.
You have to start with the basis that this is religious rhetoric.  It is desperate to cast aspersions upon any atheist claim - - and the whole article has no real evidence, scientific or sociological, to back up those claims.  It was clearly written by a preacher-type, intent upon drowning you in WORDS that have no real-world substance.

An early example of the nonintellectual put-downs contained in this article: "You will find similar howlers throughout the works of the other New Atheists."  -- They're just tossing out playground insults.  They can't even specify what they find amusing.


This is followed by a slam on Dawkins and Dennett. Philosopher and prominent Darwinian Michael Ruse has said that Dawkins’s book made him “ashamed to be an atheist” and that Dennett’s book is “really bad and not worthy of [him].”  They go on to say that Thomas Nagel described Dawkins' work as "particularly weak". The critiques get worse from there, but don't give ANY EXAMPLES for their vitriol.  Not one.

They go on to critique the spoofs, without even seeming to realize that they are dealing with satire:

“Most of us happily disavow fairies, astrology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology.” Yet whether the work of Aquinas, Leibniz, et al., is really comparable to “Leprechology” or “Pastafarianism” in the first place is precisely what is in question—and precisely what people who actually know something about Aquinas, Leibniz, et al., know to be a suggestion that is simply too stupid for words.

Good grief.  Don't they even know that "Pastafarianism" is a satirical attempt to show what belief looks like to non-believers?

No, seriously.  I worked my way through Edward Feser's ridiculous word-salad article. 

It's just a moronic rant, filled with theological word-salad designed to shut nay-sayers up.  The problem with his response is, that modern society needs more than word-salad, scorn, and threats.  If you can't offer a critique without even referencing what you're critiquing, your work is invalid.

[robvalue]

The article is just saying some atheists make bad arguments. It's saying it over and over.

It's treating a group of people, "new atheists" as a hive mind who all do and say the same kind of thing.

It's also trying to imply that all atheists make bad arguments, by association with this group. This is all very dishonest.

Even if there are a subgroup of atheists who go around making bad arguments, so what? We're not an organisation. I'm not responsible for what other atheists do.

You say I have dogma. Would you like to tell me what that dogma is?

[Redbeard The Pink]

False. Data from sources like this survey from the Pew forum on Religious Religion and Public Life consistently show that, in general, atheists and agnostics are better informed about religion(s) than anyone else.


Personally, I spent 20+ years rigorously studying the Bible in a ministry household, plus part of my college career studying various other world religions, and I can tell you with certainty that straw men are completely unnecessary when it comes to dismantling the supposed veracity of the Bible (or other superstitious gibberish, for that matter).


Your condescension toward people's imaginary anger is merely a deflection technique you've employed to avoid supporting anything you've said in this thread so far. All you've really done here is posted an article, declared "I agree with this article!" and when it's pointed out to you that there are major problems with the claims forwarded from the get-go of the article, you immediately resort to, "Nope, you're just dumb...and angry. READ MY ARTICLE!"


You are a sad little man. Make some friends or something.

I wouldn't apply the results of a broad survey on the narrow slice of this forum's population. That's like taking a survey of the nation's IQ, and inferring that the Kardashians must be on par.

But if it's true that you have spent 20+ years rigorously studying the Bible in a ministry household (and I expect you mean something academically credible, not the Westboro Baptist or atheistforum.org equivalent of "rigorous study"), then point me to one of your critiques.

I'd love to read your thoughtful criticisms.

You can find all my posts in less than a second by going to my profile and clicking a link. If you really want to know what I think about your silly little Gaud, it's plastered all over the forums. I'm pretty active. Have fun.


If, on the other hand, there's a particular biblical/religious claim that you'd like my opinion on, feel free to put it forward. So far you've claimed that it's a myth that atheists generally know religion better than believers, and you have yet to show any evidence of this claim. You've decided to dismiss the Pew Research Center's evidence by acting as if you were only talking about what you see on this forum, even though the title of your thread says "atheists" and not "atheist members of this forum." Try to keep from moving those goalposts around; it's unsportsmanlike.


And no, my immediate family was Presbyterian until the PCUSA starting warming up to gay people; then they split off into that new ECO thing. Presbyterians are pretty moderate and typical, from what I gather. My brother and I weren't raised to march around with signs or yell at random people with bullhorns. We were always a pretty average, church-going, American family.

[robvalue]

I don't need to criticise the bible as such, except to say that it's stories are often rather a jumbled mess. It's OK storytelling, not terrible, not great.

I criticize claims people make about the bible.

[Athene]

I find that's a myth. Many atheists like to claim to be ex-Christians, but they don't have even the basic rudimentary knowledge of religion and end up attacking strawmen.

As the rest of the article will illustrate quite amusingly.

Right. 'Cause if they had adequate knowledge, they'd believe wouldn't they?
And you can't fathom that, because your deep abiding for God and Jesus is just so powerful, so life-affirming, so juicy.

You're priceless.

[Minimalist]

Interesting.  Of course the Brits are not weighed down by shitloads of nutty baptists and mormons.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34686993?post...368111#_=_

Forty percent of people in England do not believe Jesus was a real person, a survey suggests.
However, 43% of the people asked said they did believe in the resurrection - although many did not think it happened as described in the Bible.
The figures also found while 57% classified themselves as Christian, fewer than 10% actually go to church.

Some day - hopefully soon - the US will catch up.