"The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever"

[Redbeard The Pink]

I mean...you're either a scriptural literalist or a cherry-picking hypocrite. Take your pick.


Either the whole thing is true, or you get to argue endlessly about which parts are literal, which parts are metaphors, and which parts do or don't matter any more because of this or that covenant or because this or that doesn't literally mean this or that. If Christians can't even agree on all of that, why should atheists listen to any of them when they insist that it just has to be read "correctly"? Not a one of you can agree on what "correctly" even means.

[Jenny A]

I'm still not sure what an 'new' atheist even is. I've always been an atheist, long before I'd ever even heardnof Dawkin's et al, or indeed before I knew what an atheist was.

Much like the majority of delicate posts, It all hinges on his own personal definitions.

Except that despite endless claims atheists have it wrong, Delicate rarely in ever explains what ishe correct.

[Rhondazvous]

You're a shithead, Delicate. You're a fucking shithead. You're also an asshole. You're a fucking asshole. I was able to tell this just from reading the title of this thread. In fact, it was the title alone that elicited this strong emotional response toward you. Not because I found the title offensive, but because the title's sole aim is to be offensive. A side effect is that I don't give a shit what else you have to say, because I already know you're a fucking asshole and can ignore everything else. Could be that you made one hell of an argument in the following OP, but you made damn sure I won't give a fuck about it, and in doing so, you have elevated yourself to the level of an Internet troll. Congrats?

Exian, Exian. For once in your life I'd appreciate if you told us what you really think. Always these polite pleasantries...

He's not being profane. He's being precise.

[Simon Moon]

(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:

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.

[Angrboda]

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.

Is 'atheism' built on a critique solely applicable to fundamentalist faiths? No, it is not. Have a nice day.

[Crossless2.0]

(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:


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.

I've never put another member on ignore, no matter how stupid or irritating they may have been, but I'm sorely tempted in this case. Every thread is the same damn thing. It's a bore. We'll see . . . maybe one day he will provide the evidence he keeps claiming to have.

Hope springs eternal.

[Mr.wizard]

He is not hear to provide evidence or even debate, he is only here to provoke.

[Anomalocaris]

I have predicted the author of this thread from the title alone. Am I psychic?

As psychic as one who predicted that water would be wet, or that "delicate" would be a moron.

[Angrboda]

He is not hear to provide evidence or even debate, he is only here to provoke.

He doesn't know why he's here. You grant him too much credit.

[Delicate]

That's why I try to find out what people believe in their own words, rather than putting them into their mouths.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm just pointing out errors in beliefs.