Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Faith No More]

I wonder if the author feels the same about the koran? I'll give you 2 to 1 odds he/she hasn't even read it yet dismisses it.

And no, one doesn't need to read a book of claims of a magic Jew with poor foresight to dismiss it outright. That's the beauty of having good reasoning skills.

[Faith No More]

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.

All an atheist has to do is ask for corroborating empirical evidence and sit back and watch the theist squirm and attempt to prop up philosophy with more philosophy. That might have worked back in Aquinas' time when people thought piles of straw created mice, but we've come a long way since then.

Why is it that it's always the atheist's fault that the theist can't demonstrate their claims?

[Esquilax]

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.

In order for Aquinas to be something that needs refutation, his works would need to contain more than a series of baseless assertions not in evidence. Juuuust sayin'

[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.

In order for Aquinas to be something that needs refutation, his works would need to contain more than a series of baseless assertions not in evidence. Juuuust sayin'

Still waiting for your blog posts showing how 'trivially easy' it is to demonstrate what you just now handwaved away. The proofs of the Angelic Doctor stand as witness against you.

[Esquilax]

In order for Aquinas to be something that needs refutation, his works would need to contain more than a series of baseless assertions not in evidence. Juuuust sayin'  

Still waiting for your blog posts showing how 'trivially easy' it is to demonstrate what you just now handwaved away. The proofs of the Angelic Doctor stand as witness against you.

We've done this before, Chad. You never once provided a shred of evidence for any of the claims Aquinas made, and judging by the use of self-aggrandizing here instead of actual evidence, I doubt that anything new has come to light in the interim. You're not going to be able to just assert Aquinas into cogency, no matter how flowery your language.

[Edwardo Piet]

Both that article and the OP are an embarrassment.

Theism is bad enough and when theists make awful, awful strawmen of atheism it's just so cringe and wince inducing it hurts.

I would say more but I'm too busy suffering from pangs of embarrassment.

[Esquilax]

In order for Aquinas to be something that needs refutation, his works would need to contain more than a series of baseless assertions not in evidence. Juuuust sayin'  

Still waiting for your blog posts showing how 'trivially easy' it is to demonstrate what you just now handwaved away. The proofs of the Angelic Doctor stand as witness against you.

Hey guys, remember when I was like "you're a dirty New Atheist when you won't give the unsupported arguments-instead-of-evidence of christianity's old thinkers deference for no reason, you're a New Atheist for recognizing that you can't just define god into existence, so apologetics is just skipping step one"? Remember when I said not treating apologia with unearned reverence is the biggest crime, the one that gets you scoffed at?

Chad, were you just trying to prove me right, there?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Still never really understood what a 'new' atheist is.

I'm guessing it's a derogatory term applied to atheists who are vocal about the absurdities contained within almost all religious beliefs/dogmas/doctrines as opposed to the kind of atheists that the OP would seem to prefer, i.e. silent and hopefully dead ones.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.

Are you kidding? Why would we go out of our way to have a conversation about something that is so heavily debunked already? I know you think that no one "gets" Aquinas' arguments, but seriously, Chad, they're not that complicated, and all are based on easily-spotted flaws in basic reasoning and/or simple lack of scientific knowledge in Aquinas' time. But plenty of nonbelievers have tackled these questions, if you just use your powers of Google Fu.

http://www.vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-wa...dead-ends/

http://patas.co/articles/opinion/refutin...f-aquinas/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/...just-suck/

http://atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/s...pologetics

There are a few, for starters.

You are coming here with something that is tedious and annoying to debunk, especially since the questions are all effectively variations on the same theme ("I assume _____ therefore _____ must be true"). It should not be hard for you to realize that the reason we don't want to "debate" you on this is because no one outside of Catholicism takes the Five Ways seriously; a few prefer the Kalam version, like William Lane Craig, but in the end it is a bunch of special pleading and "defining God into existence", and it's simply exhausting to break a person who goes into it with so many preconceptions and assumptions of its righteousness. No surprise people would avoid such claimants like the plague!

Do your own homework. Look for reasons it has been debunked, then come present why you think the debunk arguments are invalid; once you make it clear that you know both sides and we won't simply be barking up a tree by talking to you, it might be worth consideration.

In the meantime, take your smug attitude of "you atheists can't disprove THIS!" and shove it far enough up your ass that it blocks the passage to your mouth. Because I'm tired of your shit-talking.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

you can't just define god into existence, so apologetics is just skipping step one

Jinx! You typed that while I was typing my previous post.