Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[IATIA]

So far, he (Delicate) has not presented a single argument worth engaging, and he's quickly becoming a bore.

(my parentheses / added for clarity)

Ditto

[Minimalist]

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

Why don't you learn how to spell "article?"  You'll look like less of a shithead and, for you, any improvement would help.

[Exian]

@Delicate- If you're looking for some formal arguments, why don't you see if anyone will debate you? We have a formal debate section, you know. It's a place where only you and your opponent can comment, and the topic is decided on before hand. It's the one place where there is a degree of control and order. The rest of the forum? That's reserved for shithead theists and shithead atheists to say what ever the fuck we want.

[Cecelia]

The article sounds just as pretentious as the topic creator, who sounds just as pretentious as the ancient text that he bases his life around. If you want to talk about intellectually bankrupt: How about taking an ancient text like the bible, and believing it to be the word of god based on nothing more than that the text makes the claim of being the word of god.

Adam and Eve, the flood, the exodus from Egypt. All of these things are nothing more than myths. If any of these things were true, you'd find most of them in every culture throughout the world. You wouldn't confine them only to the Jews, and later Christians and Muslims. You'd find evidence of the plagues of Egypt in Egyptian Culture. Some Christians are willing to admit that these are myths. Nothing more than stories. Of course they still don't quite go far enough to say that everything in the bible is nothing more than myth because they lack proof that any of it was even remotely inspired by god.

Simply put: You can argue that a god exists all you want using the cosmological argument. Maybe one exists. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. But the simple fact is that your Christian God isn't the God that exists if one does exist. That much I'm certain of.

[robvalue]

I've noticed a problem with Delicate's thinking that I think it would be useful for him/her to address.

He seems to not know the difference between him having an opinion, and that opinion being true.

For example, instead of saying, "In my opinion, 99% of the atheists here make bad arguments" or "It seems to me most atheists make bad arguments", we get the assertion of fact "99% of atheists here make bad arguments".

And it's been implied that his interpretation of the point of the article must be the correct one, and if I come to any other conclusion, I am wrong. I'm not even worthy of him/her sharing that information with me, to enlighten me.

Maybe he/she should start owning opinions and beliefs, and drop the attitude. People will never learn anything if they never consider they may actually be wrong sometimes.

[Alex K]

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!"

Admins,
I demand a kudos x 10 button!

[Esquilax]

I've noticed a problem with Delicate's thinking that I think it would be useful for him/her to address.

He seems to not know the difference between him having an opinion, and that opinion being true.

For example, instead of saying, "In my opinion, 99% of the atheists here make bad arguments" or "It seems to me most atheists make bad arguments", we get the assertion of fact "99% of atheists here make bad arguments".

And it's been implied that his interpretation of the point of the article must be the correct one, and if I come to any other conclusion, I am wrong. I'm not even worthy of him/her sharing that information with me, to enlighten me.

Maybe he/she should start owning opinions and beliefs, and drop the attitude. People will never learn anything if they never consider they may actually be wrong sometimes.

Hell, that's the problem with every other thread the guy makes. The entirety of his "are all atheists this ill informed about religion?" mess is basically just him chastising us for not going with his specific form of christianity, and dismissing all the other variations as unimportant. His whole schtick is mistaking "not agreeing with him before he even makes his position known," as "being ignorant on the topic."

[Drich]

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.

I found this to be true a long time ago. Most 'atheist' simply spin their own version of a hitchens or dawkins arguement and pin everything they believe on a primise they hear in a debate or read in an artical. The problem most have though is when their primary source material has been refuted, they simply shut down and start with personal attacks trying to discredit the one who showed them that their emperor has no cloths. They have to hide from the truth and are not able to follow it where ever it may lead.

Most believe, they have to 'kill God' philosophically in order to live in freedom, and their specific brand of atheism allows them to do that. the irony is their brand of belief is the tiny little box they believe Christians live in. they only see the rules and the bad that wicked people in the religion have manifest. Most fail to realize that those in the religion who only know of the rules and oppression of other to them, are running into the same boundries that the atheist who thinks this way also encounter.

[Esquilax]

I found this to be true a long time ago. Most 'atheist' simply spin their own version of a hitchens or dawkins arguement and pin everything they believe on a primise they hear in a debate or read in an artical. The problem most have though is when their primary source material has been refuted, they simply shut down and start with personal attacks trying to discredit the one who showed them that their emperor has no cloths. They have to hide from the truth and are not able to follow it where ever it may lead.

The problem you have is the same one as Delicate: you think having an opinion is the same thing as that opinion being factual, or even effectively presented. You have this presupposition that the moment you've made your position known, you've been one hundred percent convincing: you seriously can't envision a single other reason someone might disagree with you beyond that their "hiding from the truth," really?

[Anomalocaris]

The ways superstitious and conceited morons don't think are all alike.