Just got The God Delusion

[The Magic Pudding]

So the fact that Dakwins gets these 'stupid' arguments so completely backwards must suggest he's a bit of an idiot too, right? I mean if they're so obviously 'stupid' he's really got no excuse for failing to represent them accurately and then making arguments against his own straw men that still don't work... In some of his arguments it's literally like an open invitation to theists to "refute this bullshit" and seeing as how bad his philosophical arguments are even a half-ass apologist can deal with a great number of them with ease.

Far from being 'pretty fucking stupid' a great many of them are complicated, well thought out and are even intellectually impressive - Some of them when tackled honestly do in fact raise the prior probability of a God relative to alternative explanations, lending a degree of credibility to the general idea - None of them manage to establish existence and seeing as there is no strong evidence the prior probability is often all they have to work with, but as far as improving the debate on metaphysical, mental, experiential and conceptual issues many theist philosophers, especially Plantinga and Swinburne in my view, have done a great service to philosophy.

Hell, even William Craig manages to fucking destroy the like of Hitchens and Harris on conceptual and philosophical issues - As evinced by the debates he had with both of them - and Craig with his KCA (which is NOT one of the impressive arguments) isn't even near the quality of Plantinga.

So how come these wonderful theists philosophers haven't managed to make a concise summary of these great works. I don't respect the ability to befuddle, to create such long and convoluted arguments that make you doze and not notice their intrinsic curvature until the circle is complete. Religious leaders have told us for millennia they are the keepers of truth, I'm not going to surrender it now to Atheists who dismiss others as first year philosophy equivalents. The God Delusion suffices for me, the argument doesn't seem to deserve much more exploration, there are more practical things to be explored as dear old Dawkins does.