Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[robvalue]

I wonder how many times that passage has been read out in church?

Hmm.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

That's ridiculous.

We don't rape and murder.

And we don't exclusively eat Christian babies.

All joking aside, in my decade behind bars in Max Security prisons, I only met one person in there for a serious, violent-type crime, who was an atheist. And he was (the only person) convicted of an alleged gang-rape (at a time when he was on vacation in Nebraska with his wife) because police found a contractor advertising sheet (he was an electrician) in the victim's home, sheets which he had handed out to everyone in the neighborhood, pulled his prints from a weed misdemeanor he once had, and showed his picture to the victim, saying "Is this him?", so she identified him at the trial, and the jury ignored the wife's testimony that they weren't even in the state that day. I met the wife every time I had a visit because she came to see him every single weekend. He was probably the nicest, most intelligent guy I knew the whole time I was down. Having known literally dozens of murderers and rapists, I can say without question that this guy showed none of the personality traits I learned distinguished the actually-dangerous among the population.

One of the things I learned very quickly was that the more overtly religious a prisoner was, especially the ones who carried Bibles around, the more I had cause to fear them. It was almost a direct parallel. I met good people who were religious, of course, but for the truly dangerous ones, there was almost a strong religious fanaticism.

[Minimalist]

I like how he tells me (and all the rest of you just like me) that I don't understand Christianity, that I wasn't "really" a Christian, etc.

That's the mantra of all True Christians, isn't it.  They stole it from the NY Lottery.  You Gotta Be In It To Win It.


And its bullshit advertising for the lottery, too.

[Esquilax]

Where are the substantive critiques of theistic claims? Why are so many atheists foaming at the mouth instead of using reason and following the evidence?

This from a guy whose latest thread was literally just a link to an article and then baseless scoffing?

Forget about the plethora of comments directed at me that fail, completely, to engage with the point of what I'm saying but rather descend into slanging matches (which I inevitably win anyhow). Just look at the comments in this discussion so far.

Yours comes closest to addressing the point in the article, and yet it is clear you haven't even read the whole thing.

What, exactly, are we supposed to be engaging with? Your article doesn't have anything remotely resembling a cogent argument in it. The writer, much like you yourself, seem to have mistaken mocking presupposition for cogent rebuttal. You both just seem to take it as read that whatever you believe is the totality of christianity and also dead on accurate, and so therefore anybody with the temerity to either address versions of christianity that you yourself do not believe, or disagree with your conclusions, must not know what they're talking about. You're in too deep to even consider the possibility that someone might not believe you completely, at the drop of a hat.

Seriously, what is there in that roundabout, back-patting screed you posted that's worthy of engagement? Is it when Feser gets to Dennet's critique of the cosmological argument and responds with a fiat "that's not what the cosmological argument says," without explaining what he thinks it does say, and why it's substantially different or more effective? Or the point where he moves to Dawkins on Aquinas, and presupposes that because Aquinas wrote some defense of his arguments, that those arguments must pose some real reason or justification that can be verified for the position? Am I supposed to really grapple with the paragraph where Feser shamelessly exhorts that we buy his books if we want a real argument for the position he's espousing, because he can't be bothered giving one in his op ed? Or is the part where he stops to argue from authority with his "here's a bunch of atheists who don't like Dawkins or Dennet's work!" schtick supposed to give me pause?

Or am I just supposed to start laughing when, after paragraphs of nothing more than "atheists say... but nuh uh!" Feser spends two paragraphs saying that it's bad form to just dismiss arguments based on presuppositions without engaging with them? I must assume that Feser's trying to be comedic here, since he goes on to critically misunderstand simple things, like the courtier's reply, the point of which isn't that all religious apologia is to be automatically dismissed as obviously untrue, but that religious apologia merely tells us the details and minutia of a concept that has not yet met the baseline burden of proof that one should shoulder before beginning rigorous discussion about the nature of a thing. It's really very easy: arguments are not evidence, evidence is what is required, and all religious apologia gives is arguments. You can no more argue god into existence as you can make the emperor be wearing clothes by pontificating on his boots for a few hundred pages. Feser, like yourself, Delicate, and all those other religious apologists, fundamentally misunderstand this basic premise of epistemology in your desperation to skip over the fundamentals and pretend that arguments really will prove that god exists.

I mean, I haven't even gotten to the point that Feser starts baselessly imputing malevolent political and personal agendas on the atheists he thinks he's critiquing as a reason why they don't automatically believe him, which is something you like to do too, apparently, but it's no less insulting and unjustified no matter the source. Sorry, but "you don't believe me because you have a secret agenda!" is childish from the get go, even more so when you don't even know the person you're flinging accusations at, like so much shit against a wall, anxious to see if any of it sticks.

It's sad, really, that this is what you've chosen to hang your hat on. There are three main premises to this thing, and merely listing them demonstrates what's so wrong about it all:

1." It's bad to just baselessly dismiss arguments out of hand."
2. "These atheist arguments are wrong, but I won't say why, I'm just dismissing them out of hand."
3. "One should know what they're talking about before one speaks, but I'm never going to explain any of the religious arguments I think work so well. Just trust me."

Oh, I guess there's also four, since you apparently wanted to dig this embarrassing pit for yourself:

4. "Buy my books!"

[Crossless2.0]

I read the article and have nothing to add to Esquilax's post above.

Delicate, any time you wish to provide your reasons for finding Christianity credible, feel free to share them. I know that would fuck up your game of scoffing at our alleged intellectual bankruptcy, but -- who knows? -- you just might educate us. Given your record here so far, I'd say we're due for a little substance from you.

Unless, of course, you suspect your position is intellectually bankrupt.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

He can't be as intellectually bankrupt as Drich, in this thread: http://atheistforums.org/thread-38103-page-23.html

Guy just wrote-off two of the top Biblical scholars with what amounts to a hand-wave, because they don't agree with his position. It's actually pretty amazing, the depths of self-deception to which Christians can sink during the process of accusing atheists of being ignorant about the religious beliefs of the Christians.

[Drich]

The image used in the beginning already proves what a joke the article is to follow.



Most atheists have read the bible, for most of us were raised in religious institutions.  Even many atheists never introduced to religion in their lives, except to be taught as the myth it is by their parents, have also read the bible.

Didn't read the artical did you?

[Drich]

Their is irony in that, because that is what the artical is all about (it has nothing to do with reading the bible)

[Crossless2.0]

That's Drich for you. But I'll give him this much: he actually tries to engage. True, it's always on his terms, and he is quick to dismiss anything that isn't his particular brand of Biblical Christianity, but at least you get that much out of him.

Delicate, on the other hand, has done nothing but scoff, which is easy to do if you're determined to avoid substantive conversation. So far, he has not presented a single argument worth engaging, and he's quickly becoming a bore.

[Esquilax]

Their is irony in that, because that is what the artical is all about (it has nothing to do with reading the bible)

If you really think that image has no applications or implications to the article it precedes, then don't you find it weird that they chose to begin an op-ed with a completely irrelevant image?