Each of these types has a close equivalent among atheists as well. With a few small adjustments, the types carry over easily.
Actually this type doesn't need any adjustment at all.
Maybe the Pompous Atheist type is less likely to use philosophical terms and more likely to use scientific ones, even where they're not relevant.
The equivalent among atheists would be the type who think they know what Christianity really says and Christians don't. When they say "religion" they are really referring to some unspecified subset of modern religious believers -- often whatever Sunday School their parents made them go to. They routinely dismiss the greatest Christian minds as irrelevant because the Christianity they want to attack is different from what those minds conceived.
They also reason about God based on what their own preferences are. So they say, "if I were omniscient I would definitely do A, B, and C, and since A, B, and C don't happen there can't be a God." In other words, they think they are fully qualified to reason as if they are already omniscient.
A common type. I changed the words in bold, above. It's kind of the atheist equivalent of "if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" A common rebuttal that people who don't know what they're talking about think is a real knock-down argument.
The atheist equivalent here would be the fan of scientism, who thinks that science has the answer to every question, or will soon, and nothing at all related to religion is worth talking about. They generally don't even try to make an argument, just type ejaculations like, "religitards is dumb."
When feeling ambitious they might copy and paste a cliche from Christopher Hitchens.
(December 4, 2018 at 12:04 pm)The Pompous Apologist Wrote: Demeanor: This apologist wants to come across as a professor of philosophy and the skeptics are all students to be lectured and graded. You can spot them not just by their arrogant demeanor and snippy, dismissive attitude toward their opponent, but also by their use of philosophy terms, Latin phrases and accusations (well founded or not) of logical fallacies by their opponent. In debate, they will go on the offensive, looking for any mistakes by the skeptic to harp on, whether these mistakes be something as trivial as a grammatical error or one that is beside the point .
Actually this type doesn't need any adjustment at all.
Maybe the Pompous Atheist type is less likely to use philosophical terms and more likely to use scientific ones, even where they're not relevant.
Quote:The Liberal Apologist
Demeanor: Jesus is love to these Christians and somehow mainstream Christianity has managed to get it all wrong for 2000 years. Apparently, the greatest Christian minds just aren't as smart as these people. How unfortunate for Christianity's victims since then.
Possible Nature: These people aren't necessarily liberals in the political, social or economic sense. They may be Republicans or Democrats. What they all have in common is their desire to make Jesus in their own image. The Bible says whatever they want it to say and no interpretation is too obtuse.
The equivalent among atheists would be the type who think they know what Christianity really says and Christians don't. When they say "religion" they are really referring to some unspecified subset of modern religious believers -- often whatever Sunday School their parents made them go to. They routinely dismiss the greatest Christian minds as irrelevant because the Christianity they want to attack is different from what those minds conceived.
They also reason about God based on what their own preferences are. So they say, "if I were omniscient I would definitely do A, B, and C, and since A, B, and C don't happen there can't be a God." In other words, they think they are fully qualified to reason as if they are already omniscient.
Quote:The Philoso-Babbler
Demeanor: The Philoso-babbler is similar to the Pompous Apologist but without the education or intellect needed to pull off the pseudo-professorial role. Like his/her Pompous kin, there's a heavy reliance on philosophy but more on the canned (and repeatedly debunked) arguments like "if everything had a cause, then why doesn't God have a cause, too?"
A common type. I changed the words in bold, above. It's kind of the atheist equivalent of "if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" A common rebuttal that people who don't know what they're talking about think is a real knock-down argument.
Quote:The Fundy Fucktard
Demeanor: This breed is the mirror opposite of the "Liberal" apologist. They know what the Bible says and surprisingly are just fine with it. They have no need to reconcile science with their faith, as "evilution" is a great conspiracy and the world is really 6-10 thousand years old.
The atheist equivalent here would be the fan of scientism, who thinks that science has the answer to every question, or will soon, and nothing at all related to religion is worth talking about. They generally don't even try to make an argument, just type ejaculations like, "religitards is dumb."
When feeling ambitious they might copy and paste a cliche from Christopher Hitchens.
