Enigma:

^^^ I'll only let you know why I don't generally bother to reply to your posts even in your previous incarnation as globexl or whatever it was.

You constantly lie through your teeth both deliberately and in sheer ignorance ---- witness some of the nonsense even in your post above; although I guess some will buy the lies.

Witness also e.g. your theatrics about the fake Willie Lynch letter.

I don't generally have time for people like you, mate.

Enigma,
Please refrain from getting personal. Its shows a weakness. We are on a public forum debating ideas. No need to switch into war mode.
Pls pls pls, feel free to expose my lies, discredit my views , repudiate my beliefs and tear my positions to pieces. It will be part of my learning process.
Tactfully avoiding the topic and Resorting to name-calling portrays a weakness in both you and your viewpoints.
Am ready to continue.

plaetton:

Good rebuttal, or non-rebuttal.

Kudos.

Idiocy does not need rebuttal --- except when it poses a particular danger.

Let me show you just one example:

plaetton:

. . .  Athiests come to this forum to have healthy debates on religion and most times , to defend against attacks from religious folks who have misconceptions about what athiesm is about. I do not think that aniest come here to wage battles against anyone. That would be contradictory since freedom of thought and the soveriegnty of the mind are the essential underpinnings of athiesm. . . .

Now that is a typical idiotic lie --- deliberately or ignorantly.

Evidently, the Christians are not entitled to freedom of thought and sovereignty of the mind! Hence, when they are discussing on their own among themselves, you fool atheists (or do you now call yourself agnostic?) jump in to insult them in all kind of ways.

plaetton:

Enigma,
Please refrain from getting personal. Its shows a weakness. We are on a public forum debating ideas. No need to switch into war mode.
Pls pls pls, feel free to expose my lies, discredit my views , repudiate my beliefs and tear my positions to pieces. It will be part of my learning process.
Tactfully avoiding the topic and Resorting to name-calling portrays a weakness in both you and your viewpoints.
Am ready to continue.

I have absolutely no (zero, zilch) interest in debating anything with you. If you act the fool, I will call you a fool. If you tell lies, I will call you a liar.

I make no bones about such things.

Enigma:

I have absolutely no (zero, zilch) interest in debating anything with you. If you act the fool, I will call you a fool. If you tell lies, I will call you a liar.

I make no bones about such things.

Hmmmm. I must have really hit a raw nerve somewhere deep inside of you. Pele o. My pinions may be foolish, as a re many on this forum, but how can you acuse me of acting foolishly Thats an enigma(no pun intended).

C'mon man. This forum is not a house fellowship and will never be. You came to this thread to bash athiests, not so? For those of you that cannot handle dissenting views even in a public forum, I humbly ask, can you call yourselves trully civilised? You live in the Uk, a multicultural and multi-religious cesspool, how do you cope?

Anyway,this is certainly not what am on this forum for . I look forward to making friends on NL and definitely not enemies.I suppose you must have had a rough day and I apologise if I mistakenly hit a bad nerve or festering wound with my foolish opinions.
Ok?.
so lets shake and call it a day.

Shake and call it a day, no problem.

But still, not interested in discussion --- I never am when the approach of the interlocutor is dishonest.

Enigma:

Shake and call it a day, no problem.

But still, not interested in discussion --- I never am when the approach of the interlocutor is dishonest.

Excellent.

Debates alow each and everyone to weed out the wheat(honest) from the shaffe(dishonest).
I lok forward to debating with you(albeit, in a better spirit) as long as we are both on opposite sides of an issue.
Good night.

^^ I don't think you understood my post; as long as you maintain your current dishonest disposition I am not interested in a debate with you at all.

Hmmmm.
Thats like calling a a dog bad name in order to hang it. Ok o

I will look in the dictionary for the meaning of current dishonest disposition and will get back to you on that.

^^ While you are at it, find out whether the Willie Lynch Letter (that you said made you weep and showed us up) is genuine.

Enigma:

^^ While you are at it, find out whether the Willie Lynch Letter (that you said made you weep and showed us up) is genuine.

^^ Are you minding him? Someone who once implied a possible homose.xual relationship between Jesus and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" says he wants a "debate"!

Who has time for that kind of person?

Enigma:

^^ Are you minding him? Someone who once implied a possible homose.xual relationship between Jesus and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" says he wants a "debate"!

Who has time for that kind of person?

Ok, Thats your beef. In that case, I sincerely appologise.

Interesting debate: funny the atheist debater couldn't go beyond the standard atheist mantras that we have identified and that we have seen repeatedly on this forum. Another interesting observation: if a top atheist "thinker" like the debater here quite so plainly avoided the arguments for the existence of God put to him by Craig, how can we expect the local evangelical atheists here to have the capacity to face those arguments.?How can we be surprised that all they can do is snipe with the same typical evangelical atheist codswallop?

Anyway, enjoy: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-nULVvgbx0&feature=autoplay&list=PL1E634D387E3E5D4C&lf=PlayList&playnext=1

Enigma:

Interesting debate: funny the atheist debater couldn't go beyond the standard atheist mantras that we have identified and that we have seen repeatedly on this forum. Another interesting observation: if a top atheist "thinker" like the debater here [b]quite so plainly avoided the arguments for the existence of God put to him by Craig, how can we expect the local evangelical atheists here to have the capacity to face those arguments.?[/b]How can we be surprised that all they can do is snipe with the same typical evangelical atheist codswallop?

Anyway, enjoy: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-nULVvgbx0&feature=autoplay&list=PL1E634D387E3E5D4C&lf=PlayList&playnext=1

William Craig isn't a honest debater, he won this debate no doubt but when face with like minds you see him throw the bible and the God he claims he is defending under the bus. . .He begins his debates with stuffs like the genesis creation account isn't factual, the big b[i]a[/i]ng is. . . .Old testament morality is immaterial but then goes to use the God of the bible as the source of human morality, he uses worn out scientific arguments or use the hypothesis the fringes in the scientific world to support his claims. . . .

Here is a debate between him and Sam Harris a person that knows his tactics and brought him down completely. . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg[/flash]

Another one where Hector Havalos completely used him to mop the floor. . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHQJvn4Hnh8

One atheist's perspective on Craig vs Avalos: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

Craig begins by embarrassing Avalos by showing how Avalos combated a previous opponent by demanding that he be able to recognize Biblical manuscripts by sight – which is not how scholars work with Biblical texts anyway. Avalos comes out swinging, citing very specific parts of Craig’s work and trying to put Craig in uneasy situations. Craig responds calmly and confidently, and reminds the audience that almost nothing Avalos has said (1) builds a case against the Resurrection, nor (2) rebuts the arguments Craig gave in this debate. Avalos focuses on a linguistic disagreement with Craig – but of course nobody in the audience can tell who is right, and it wasn’t even part of Craig’s case in the debate.

Also, Avalos is kind of a Joystick d.ickk* at certain times, which doesn’t help him. His language attacks Craig more than Craig’s arguments. After Craig gives his final speech, Avalos jumps in on Craig’s applause and says, without any humor, “I very much appreciate your applause for me, thank you.” Smooth, Avalos.

* language filter, ha!

View this @ all very important www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-802723.0.html

Craig responds calmly and confidently, and reminds the audience that almost nothing Avalos has said (1) builds a case against the Resurrection, nor (2) rebuts the arguments Craig gave in this debate. Avalos focuses on a linguistic disagreement with Craig – but of course nobody in the audience can tell who is right, and it wasn’t even part of Craig’s case in the debate.

That's part of Craig's debating tactics, no matter what his opponent says he will still repeat that his opponent did not make any case if refuting what he has presented. . . .Avalos lost his temper no doubt by allowing Criag's under handed tactics to get to him but any body that listens to the debate will tell you that Avalos won hands down. . . .He brought down Criags point head on and didn't give him breathing space to do some of his tricks, he asked him question he couldnn't or deliberately refused to answer. . . .He pointed out that what Craig likes to call facts are no facts at all and made Criag to admit that some of the new testament stories are not historical. . . .The debate his there for any honest person that wants listen to it. . . .

Random sayings (usually laughable) of local evangelical atheists.*


1. ". . . saying atheism is a religion is like saying not having a car is a type of car."









* To be revised/updated as and when etc

5 Nairaland Evangelical atheist mantras cu.m standard arguments

1. Atheism isn't a belief
2. You can't prove a negative
3. The burden of proof is on the believer
4. Ockham's Razor
5. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence


all debunked . . .  http://www.philosophynow.org/issue78/Wheres_The_Evidence


The article is simple and short enough and one would ordinarily think easy enough for even evangelical atheists to understand ---- except for the now standard intellectual inadequacy and/or dishonesty.

Nairaland Fundamentalist Mantras/ Standard Arguments

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

^^^ For the full list. 666 

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe.  Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you silly atheists; it's too complicated for you to understand.  God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you're obviously very well read.  But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist.  I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life.  "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION, a.k.a. TOMAS DE TORQUEMADA'S ARGUMENT
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

PARENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) My mommy and daddy told me that God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Billions of people believe in God.
(2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY
(1) God exists, you bastards!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT
(1) Ha ha ha.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

DORE'S ARGUMENT
(1) I forgot to take my meds.
(2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM
(1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

MITCHELL'S ARGUMENT
(1) The Christian God exists.
(2) Therefore, all worldviews which don't assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (I)
(1) Atheists are spiritually blind.
(2) Therefore, God exists.


ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS
(1) F.u.ck you.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS
(1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded face in that tortilla.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists

ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO believe in God!  I DO believe in God!  I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PAROCHIALISM
(1) God is everywhere.
(2) We haven't been everywhere to prove he's not there.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION
(1) GOD EXISTS!  GET USED TO IT!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY (II)
(1) How could God NOT exist, you bozo?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
(1) The Bible is true.
(2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact.
(3) The Bible says that God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM RESURRECTION
(1) Proof of God's existence will be available when you rise bodily from your grave.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BIOGENESIS
(1) Where did Adam come from, dummy?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
( [Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIORITY
(1) If God does not exist, then I am an inferior being, since I am not "special" in a cosmic sense.
(2) But I am superior because I am a Christian.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
(2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
(3) But that's because they don't want to admit to being sinners.
(4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM HUMAN NECESSITY
(1) Atheists say that they don't need God.
(2) Which just goes to show that they need God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM HIDDEN LOGIC (II)
(1) Atheists say that God doesn't exist.
(2) But they only say that because they want to look cool and intellectual in front of their peers.
(3) They don't fool me!
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INDULGENCE
(1) Atheists like to think that they can control their emotional desires.
(2) But they're atheists, so they can't.
(3) Therefore, atheists feel the need to indulge in whatever they feel like without worrying about committing sin.
(4) This just goes to show how they need God in their lives.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM HATE
(1) Some atheists hate Christians and Christianity.
(2) That's why they don't believe in God.
(3) Pathetic, aren't they?
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DENIAL OF QUENTIN SMITH
(1) Quentin Smith says that God does not exist.
(2) But God does exist.
(3) Therefore, Quentin Smith cannot be accepted as an expert on the matter, because he is wrong.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
( Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree,
,
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going?
,
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING?
,
(177) , and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.

MR. GOODSALT'S ARGUMENT (ARGUMENT FROM GENERAL INQUIRY)
(1) Question for atheist population: [apparently random question]
(2) Your answer is wrong.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM ORIGINALITY
(1) I have written the following to demonstrate the existence of God.
(2) [insert entire text of a William Lane Craig article]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM LIMITED VOCABULARY
(1) You use lots of big words.
(2) Therefore, I cannot possibly be expected to understand your refutation of my position.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question.]
(2) [Atheist answers question.]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question.]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question.]
( [Atheist repeats answer.]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) [Atheist leaves in frustration.]
(11) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(12) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
(1) I've had religious experiences that can't be explained unless I'm insane or God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INSTITUTIONAL LONGETIVITY
(1) The Roman Catholic Church has been around for a long time.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY
(1) I have proof that God exists.
(2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM "THE MATRIX"
(1) We cannot prove that we don't live in a Matrix-like world.
(2) Therefore we cannot know reality.
(3) If reality is contingent, then everything is possible.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

PROOF BY ANECDOTE
(1) God can be seen by those who believe in Him.
(2) If the God is seen, then He must exist.
(3) I have seen God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

BENDER’S ARGUMENT (I)
(1) One day, demons were tap-dancing on my roof. I prayed and they went away.
(2) Therefore, demons are really good dancers.
(3) Also, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FORTUITOUS COINCIDENCE
(1) What are the odds of that happening?
(2) Pretty long, I’ll bet.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MYSTERIOUS USE OF PREPOSITIONS
(1) It is impossible to disprove God with your puny human intellect unless you are above God.
(2) Are you higher than God?
(3) I’ll take that puzzled look on your face as a 'No.'
(4) Therefore, God (being the highest thing ever) exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SPEAKING IN TONGUES
(1) My friend here, once started spontaneously speaking some jibberish that sounded to me kind of like Russian.
(2) But neither he nor I know anything about Russian.
(3) The only explanation is God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

PALEY'S ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (III)
(1) If there is a designer, then God must exist.
(2) If I find a watch in a forest, there must be a designer.
(3) [Throws watch into forest.]
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV), a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (III)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM OFFENSE
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You know what? I am offended.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER (I)
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You have my prayers.

ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Just the first 100 ^^

^^^^
LOL, apparently the New Atheist daftness, as is exemplified above, cannot be overemphasized. Anyone might think this is a hilarious atheist parody of actual theistic philosophical arguments, but that person would be sorely mistaken. Here, in glorious outlines, is possibly one of the best atheistic understanding of the other side's main arguments, LOL. If you doubt this, you can challenge any of the truculent mouthpieces of pop-atheism you come across to do their best job of presenting an actual theistic philosophical argument and deduction. I wager that you will get replies that are egregiously simplistic, erroneous and laughable.

You know, the more the supposed disciples of free thought, intellectual rigor and rationality speak or type, the more they put a lie to their assumed maxims.

@jayriginal: You are Hilarious. You have me rolling on the floor with laughter. Just shows that there are two sides to every issue.

@1godfather: Do you have a problem with free thought, intellectual rigor and rationality? As a father or godfather, would you demand less from your children? As god, would you have demanded less from your creation? If God exists, free thought, intellectual rigor and rationalism is the best homage we can pay to him, not blind zombie-like surrender. This is what every so called athiest stands for . I'm glad you used those keen words.

What would our world be like today without people who exercise free thought, intellectual rigor and rationality?. We certainly know what it was like without free thought, intellectual rigor and rationality. Those were the era of churchmen. We now remember that era as the dark ages.

plaetton:

@1godfather: Do you have a problem with free thought, intellectual rigor and rationality? As a father or godfather, would you demand less from your children? As god, would you have demanded less from your creation? If God exists, free thought, intellectual rigor and rationalism is the best homage we can pay to him, not blind zombie-like surrender. This is what every so called athiest stands for . I'm glad you used those keen words.

What would our world be like today without people who exercise free thought, intellectual rigor and rationality?. We certainly know what it was like without free thought, intellectual rigor and rationality. Those were the era of churchmen. We now remember that era as the dark ages.

The point, if it eludes you, is not that intellectual rigor and rationality should be discouraged. It is that the much-vaunted intellectual sophistication and rationality claimed by the New Atheists (and people of the same ideological bent) is conspicuously absent or simply underwhelming. This is revealed starkly when they attempt to reproduce a theistic philosophical argument with its appropriate deductions. In essence, most atheists, when they attempt to wrestle with the arguments from the other side of the aisle, seem to be really only capable of interacting with caricaturish and simplistic misrepresentations of the argument. It betrays a certain level of intellectual vacuousness that would make you question their pretensions to the contary. It seems that much of the contents of the new atheist arsenal are simply appeals to ridicule and sophistry.

1Godfather:

The point, if it eludes you, is not that intellectual rigor and rationality should be discouraged. It is that the much-vaunted intellectual sophistication and rationality claimed by the New Atheists (and people of the same ideological bent) is conspicuously absent or simply underwhelming. This is revealed starkly when they attempt to reproduce a theistic philosophical argument with its appropriate deductions. In essence, most atheists, when they attempt to wrestle with the arguments from the other side of the aisle, seem to be really only capable of interacting with caricaturish and simplistic misrepresentations of the argument. It betrays a certain level of intellectual vacuousness that would make you question their pretensions to the contary. It seems that much of the contents of the new atheist arsenal are simply appeals to ridicule and sophistry.

Superbly expressed! And I have taken the liberty to add the bolding in the (perhaps forlorn) hope that maybe it will help the local evangelical atheists (or any other evangelical or so-called "new" atheist who chances upon it) to ruminate upon and better understand the statement.

Here on Nairaland we have seen several instances of bizarre misrepresentations of the arguments/positions of the theists or of Christian theology by the local evangelical atheists that highlight in stark relief the obtuseness and sciolism (and even dishonesty) of the evangelical atheists. An objective intellectually minded person coming across the material posted from godlessgeeks would probably assume that it is merely parody ----- until he begins to see the evangelical atheists use the material in serious debate or argument! In fact, the fellow who posted it here and his supporter probably think it is new to Nairaland, when in fact one of their local champions here has been quoting from or referring to it for some time now.  The sad thing (for them) is that they cannot raise their game or drag themselves up intellectually to a point where they can have a genuine understanding of the arguments. As one poster put it with deliberate crudeness not too long ago: "e pass their mumu brain".

Incidentally, as I have mentioned before, this form of intellectual inadequacy is not restricted to the local evangelical atheists. Consider this quote from a review of Richard Dawkins' "Delusion":    http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire

There are points at which his ignorance of religion ceases to be amusing, and simply becomes risible. In dealing with this question he draws extensively on a paper published in Skeptic magazine in 1995 by John Hartung, which asserts that -- and here I cite Dawkin's summary: Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality -- coupled with out-group hostility -- that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: "Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs." Many Christian readers of this will be astonished at this bizarre misrepresentation of things being presented as if it were gospel truth. Yet, I regret to say, it is representative of Dawkins' method: ridicule, distort, belittle, and demonize. Still, at least it will give Christian readers an idea of the lack of any scholarly objectivity or basic human sense of fairness which now pervades atheist fundamentalism.

Similar is true of others and going back to the Craig v Harris debate that someone brought up earlier, this inability to address the arguments of the theists is one of the reasons pointed out by reviewers of the debate, including atheist reviewers, as to why Harris lost --- a point that will not be lost on any body able to follow the debate intelligently. Indeed, a point that is recurrent in the debates that Craig has held with the "new" (evangelical) atheists --- in fact even atheists express shame about some of those who represented them in the debate series with Craig.

Anyway here are two reviews of the Craig v Harris debate: one each by a theist and an atheist. http://www.randyeverist.com/2011/04/review-of-craig-vs-harris-debate.html

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15243

plaetton:

@jayriginal: You are Hilarious. You have me rolling on the floor with laughter. Just shows that there are two sides to every issue.

Some folks take this thing too seriously. The so called 30 keys could with a little tweaking, be applied to theists.

Enigma:


Here on Nairaland we have seen several instances of bizarre misrepresentations of the arguments/positions of the theists or of Christian theology by the local evangelical atheists that highlight in stark relief the obtuseness and sciolism (and even dishonesty) of the evangelical atheists. An objective intellectually minded person coming across the material posted from godlessgeeks would probably assume that it is merely parody ----- until he begins to see the evangelical atheists use the material in serious debate or argument! In fact, the fellow who posted it here and his supporter probably think it is new to Nairaland, when in fact one of their local champions here has been quoting from or referring to it for some time now.  The sad thing (for them) is that they cannot raise their game or drag themselves up intellectually to a point where they can have a genuine understanding of the arguments. As one poster put it with deliberate crudeness not too long ago: "e pass their mumu brain".

^^ This fellow is the wisest person on nairaland. Everyone with a contrary opinion is wrong. When he distorts and he misleads, he is right because he is wise. He is free to post anything, ridicule, insult etc but thats a privilege for him alone. He alone has flawless command of logic and clarity of thought. The only way to be right is to listen in reverence to whatever he says, then nod in agreement. There is no need to add anything to what he says. He knows it all.
Bravo.

Ah, interjection time! Time for some light amusement.

"Freethinker" as understood by Nairaland evangelical atheists is a person whose "thinking" is dictated and shaped by people like the theologically and philosophically dumb Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Antony Flew (when he was still an atheist) etc.

"Freethinker" indeed.

@Jayrigina:
Well , Dont forget what we are dealing with. Religion. Its a hostage drama where there is a lot of bitterness.
The good thing about having complete soveriegnty of your mind is that you are not threatened by any idea, new or old. You gladly explore and evaluate each on its on merit.
The all-knowing folks on the other hand, are so fearful of discenting views, they easily switch to def-con 3 on the slightest excuse. They spew so much rage and bitterness. I surely do not envy their situations.
Many come here to fight imaginary enemies whom they have christened "evagelical athiests"(officially declaring them as a competing religion). It seems they may have given up the fight against the devil. Now, the newly minted evangelical athiests are the focus of their rage bitterness.
I wish they would expend as much energy in cleansing their house or getting their scandal infested and cancerous body of Christ(Chritiandom) in order so as to gain some respect. It is an act of cowardice to ignore one's deficencies to focus on the percieved deficiencies of others.
I wonder if they think Dawkins is the greater threat to their gravy train than monumental frauds perpetuated by the hordes of parasites masqaurading as the mouthpieces and cashiers of the all-wise creator.
I always maintain that there is nothing wrong with having debates and expressing opinions, but when these people come here to bully and bash athiest, they unknowingly portray the shallowness of the very ideals that they seek to promote.
Luckily for athiests, they carry no baggage, so there is nothing to hide and nothing to defend ,except ofcourse, the freedom to think.

An interesting observation: apart from the now fairly established "evangelical atheism" many are now also starting to refer to the so called "new" atheism as atheist fundamentalism. Interesting that we can now also begin to speak of "fundagelical" atheists. 

Enigma your hobby here is proving quite useful. I think I should consult before posting on threads lol . . .

1Godfather:

The point, if it eludes you, is not that intellectual rigor and rationality should be discouraged. It is that the much-vaunted intellectual sophistication and rationality claimed by the New Atheists (and people of the same ideological bent) is conspicuously absent or simply underwhelming. This is revealed starkly when they attempt to reproduce a theistic philosophical argument with its appropriate deductions. In essence, most atheists, when they attempt to wrestle with the arguments from the other side of the aisle, seem to be really only capable of interacting with caricaturish and simplistic misrepresentations of the argument. It betrays a certain level of intellectual vacuousness that would make you question their pretensions to the contary. It seems that much of the contents of the new atheist arsenal are simply appeals to ridicule and sophistry.

Funny you're also speaking to Plaetton/jayriginal above here.

  Plaetton, I said this to you just today on your thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=804350.msg9579788#msg9579788

JeSoul:

Plaetton, I have identified the problem . . . it seems everything that you "know" you were either "told" or "made to believe". I'm just curious how much of what you believe you "know" has actually been derived from personal study of the faith & the bible. I ask because much of what you have stated that you "know" about the christian position can be likened to a wineskin filled with holes - it will never make sense because it continues to leak critical bits of information. And you can plug these holes very easily by simply reading the bible for yourself.

Its one thing to understand the christian position and then choose not the believe in it - it is quite another to mischaracterize it and then lament it makes no sense. Cheers bro.

Anyways . . . I'm willing to tussle a bit further on your thread. Perhaps you can prove Enigma & Godfather wrong?