(December 24, 2015 at 5:15 pm)Delicate Wrote: (http://theweek.com/articles/552685/new-a...-than-ever)
In this engaging article, the author sets out to point out the mistakes Daniel Dennett makes in an editorial. Daniel predictably spins the facts to make it sound like the data supports atheism, and it called out, point by point, on his errors. But along the way was this interesting description of why atheistic criticisms of theism fail:
Quote:The faith that the New Atheists set out to mock, refute, and dispel was invariably the least impressive, least informed, least sophisticated, most easily dismissed form of the world's great religious traditions. If faith for you is believing in the most scripturally literalistic, doctrinally fundamentalist, ahistorical, credulous, theologically illiterate variant of devotion, well, then Harris-Dawkins-Hitchens probably rocked your world. But as any reader with even a cursory religious education discovered by about page 3 of any of their books, the not-great God of the New Atheists was nothing more than a big old Straw Man in the Sky.Is atheism built on one big strawman? If so, that would make atheism irrational.
And here we go again.
Yet another thread started by Delicate without the evidence he/she claims to have that a god exists.
Delicate may be the most predictable theists ever to post here.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
