Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Delicate]

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.

Ok.  I read it.
You have to start with the basis that this is religious rhetoric.  It is desperate to cast aspersions upon any atheist claim - - and the whole article has no real evidence, scientific or sociological, to back up those claims.  It was clearly written by a preacher-type, intent upon drowning you in WORDS that have no real-world substance.

An early example of the nonintellectual put-downs contained in this article: "You will find similar howlers throughout the works of the other New Atheists."  -- They're just tossing out playground insults.  They can't even specify what they find amusing.


This is followed by a slam on Dawkins and Dennett. Philosopher and prominent Darwinian Michael Ruse has said that Dawkins’s book made him “ashamed to be an atheist” and that Dennett’s book is “really bad and not worthy of [him].”  They go on to say that Thomas Nagel described Dawkins' work as "particularly weak". The critiques get worse from there, but don't give ANY EXAMPLES for their vitriol.  Not one.

They go on to critique the spoofs, without even seeming to realize that they are dealing with satire:

“Most of us happily disavow fairies, astrology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology.” Yet whether the work of Aquinas, Leibniz, et al., is really comparable to “Leprechology” or “Pastafarianism” in the first place is precisely what is in question—and precisely what people who actually know something about Aquinas, Leibniz, et al., know to be a suggestion that is simply too stupid for words.

Good grief.  Don't they even know that "Pastafarianism" is a satirical attempt to show what belief looks like to non-believers?

No, seriously.  I worked my way through Edward Feser's ridiculous word-salad article. 

It's just a moronic rant, filled with theological word-salad designed to shut nay-sayers up.  The problem with his response is, that modern society needs more than word-salad, scorn, and threats.  If you can't offer a critique without even referencing what you're critiquing, your work is invalid.

Kudos for the effort. I can tell you tried.

I mean I disagree with at least some of your conclusions, but at least you made an effort, which is more than most other atheists here are doing.

And your effort counts for a lot of intellectual honesty on your part. It shows you have the ability to actually look at what theists are saying, as opposed to rejecting them without listening.

The article is just saying some atheists make bad arguments. It's saying it over and over. 

It's treating a group of people, "new atheists" as a hive mind who all do and say the same kind of thing.

It's also trying to imply that all atheists make bad arguments, by association with this group. This is all very dishonest.

Even if there are a subgroup of atheists who go around making bad arguments, so what? We're not an organisation. I'm not responsible for what other atheists do.

You say I have dogma. Would you like to tell me what that dogma is?

Same here, really. I mean at least you're trying. Kudos for that.

As for the dogma, it's the implied dogma that anything that criticizes anything about atheism is wrong or false. That would be the only explanation for why atheists dismiss critiques of atheism before having heard them.