Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Esquilax]

Aside from being funny on its own, it made me think about it. Did she really think that there was a time when there were fewer gays, as opposed to people just too afraid to admit it to anyone? I hear this "New Atheist" rhetoric along the lines that Aurora pointed out... they think we're a new thing because the previous generations of atheists were not permitted (faced more reprisals than we do, nowdays, even though it is still an issue) to be open about their faith, so the majority could go along comfortably believing we were not there. That illusion has been shattered, and they react in silly ways in an attempt to protect their fragile bubble of illusion, in which the world is full of Good Christian People™, and there aren't more than a few, disgruntled heathens and homos "out there" (as opposed to in their own families, neighborhoods, etc).

This is essentially what I was talking about, and it's the same for every group that shrugs off a previously dominant cultural paradigm and demands their place at the table: this condescending desperation the old guard has for those now out of the closet to "be nice." Uppity women wanting the vote, wanting the glass ceiling obliterated, wanting equal standing? They're so vicious and man-hating! Why can't they just be civil about it?

Black people seeing a problem with racial inequality and refusing to accept it? Why are they acting so violently? It's so unbecoming! We'd treat them better if they'd just be nice instead of protesting!

Atheists refusing to remain quiet about the utter dearth of evidence for religious claims? Oh, they're so unsophisticated, those philistines, they won't pay proper deference to the big figures in our magic cult! If only they'd pretend that our desperate fallacies are some perfectly formed work of intellectual rigor, if only they'd play nice, we'd confer upon them our oh so important imprimatur and assess their ideas with something approaching respect!

It's the same old refrain, every time, because it serves the same purpose: it allows those whose power is being threatened to insinuate themselves into a conversation that isn't about their interests and make it about them. It lets them demand deference when they haven't earned it, dishonestly phrase the narrative as one where they're under undeserved attack by a brutish persecuting class, and insist that the proper position their opposition should take is one of simpering deference to their slowly collapsing ivory towers. The message is a simple, insidious, and toxic one: "Know your place, it is beneath us."

Of course, we all know how that shit worked out for these jokers every other time, because the narrative was never theirs to frame and, very quickly, we learn to see just how flimsy their side of it has always been. But that won't stop them from trying: if there's one thing you can rely on the evangelical right wing to do, it's never learn their lessons or deviate from their control-mad bludgeoning long enough to see it isn't working. Maybe this time will be the time that condescension and scoffing will finally take the place of real engagement, and they'll win one!

[Ravenshire]

And we don't exclusively eat Christian babies.

Stop speaking for me. I eat babies all the time!

But, do you stick exclusively to christer babies?

I like a little diversity. Some times I'm in the mood for Chinese, other time for some good Indian.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Why the fudge are you spamming the same thread the whole time?

[GrandizerII]

Stop speaking for me. I eat babies all the time!

But, do you stick exclusively to christer babies?

I like a little diversity. Some times I'm in the mood for Chinese, other time for some good Indian.

Nothing beats Italian. Christer taste like crap.

[dyresand]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U18EuNN2D0

[ignoramus]

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.

*mine in red*
Fuck man, you are a seriously funny dude! I'm serious! Best troll of 2015! Well done...It's gotta count for something, right?
Especially from a man who worships the writings of stoneage cave dwellers.
You DO know that we left the stone age because we advanced, not because we ran out of stones, right?

[robvalue]

It is true that atheists are presenting absolutely no evidence that can conclusively prove unfalsifiable claims are false.

We're pathetic, and that's enough to make me reconsider my whole position. I'm joining a religion. Where did I put that 100,000 sided die of special pleading so I can decide which one to join...

Wait. My odds aren't sounding good here. And I just realized, the real religion may not have been found yet, so there should be infinite sides to this die...

Maybe I'll just stick where I am. God could just as easily be testing my critical thinking skills.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Again, so what? I'll pick apart bad atheist arguments as much as I would bad theist arguments.

C'mon be honest. How much time do you actually spent in disputes with other atheists? Most of your energy goes into bashing Christians. You rarely post a reply critical of another atheist. Don't kid yourself.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The whole article is spot on. Only after I was Halfway in did I realize Fesser wrote it. And in my experience on AF atheist objections to Aquinas are consistently wrong about what Aquinas actually claimed. They beclown themselves. Its so easy to say the 5w have been or are trivially easy to refute but its another thing altogether to do so. To date no AF atheist has seriously tackled the Thomist claims.

[abaris]

C'mon be honest. How much time do you actually spent in disputes with other atheists? Most of your energy goes into bashing Christians. You rarely post a reply critical of another atheist. Don't kid yourself.

In my case, quite a lot. Especially with the ones, feeling compelled to ride their Rosinante into some atheist crusade. The ones waving Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens as if their words were some kind of gospel.

In fact, the reasons for my clashes with atheists and theists are on the same highway. Leading to the attempt of forcing their worldview down the throats of innocent bystanders.

I've said it about a million times, atheism doesn't define me. Doesn't make me who I am. Outside of here, I don't spend a single second thinking about not believing. But what defines me, is standing against people pestering others with what they consider truth. Religious or non religious.