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.

godfather, you hit the nail on the head gbam!

For example - i doubt jayoriginal bothered to read what he was copying and pasting . . . apparently it wasnt necessary to determine if the 100 points raised were rational as long as it ridiculed the theistic viewpoint.

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.

first off, isnt the atheist counter logic here even more ridiculous? How does the atheist aim to prove that such complexities like the cell just appeared out of random? What is the atheists logical explanation for the above beyond "we dont know"? It takes far more faith to believe human body systems appeared out of thin air than a belief in God.

JeSoul:

Actually I don't think Godfather & Enigma are commenting so much on the "mental capacities" of the new age Dawkinian atheist - okay maybe they are. But they are (as I am) more concerned about the stark absence of scholarship, especially for self-anointed disciples of "free-thought" and "intellectualism". The seeming inability to present an argument that accurately and objectively ¹presents & ²counters the other side.

Actually what we have is confirmation bias (I will stick with any person or website or thing etc that agrees with my point. I will also only look for evidence that supports my point of view and ignore counter evidence, even if such counter evidence is stronger). In short, if it doesnt agree with me, ignore it.
What are the ultimate cop outs of christianity ? Faith, revelation, personal experience etc. Those dont make for rational analysis. How can your revelation be superior to mine ? More on that soon.
This happens in real life not just in religious matters (not the revelation bit though).

Hence you have christians who are simply tired of this like my in-law Enigma responding as he is here.

Actually, like I mentioned earlier, Enigmas first internet session was with Joagbaje, a fellow christian. Christians arent united (in general now) and each bases his own belief, on his own revelation. Who's revelation is better ? How do you test personal feelings ? Going to the source should be a good idea, except that both sides have access to the same source and can interpret it in light of their doctrine.

Lets just say there is plenty of misunderstanding and miscommunication to go around. The vast majority of atheists we see - including the big shot priests like Dawkins - spend most of their time ridiculing religion - surely you can understand why theists aren't falling over themselves to accomodate them .

I agree with the misunderstanding bit. Calling Dawkins a priest though ?

JeSoul:

^lol. Enigma is a lovely guy once you get to know him don't mind the fire on this thread, he's absolutely sweet

Actually Jesoul, let me amend that slightly
"Enigma is a lovely guy once you agree with him ". Ahh, that sounds much more accurate.

Enigma:


Yep I am a Christian meek and mild and all that --- but I am also very capable of thugging it out when necessary.

Indeed! Only wimps come to the internet and "thug it out" . What a joke !

davidylan:

godfather, you hit the nail on the head gbam!

For example - i doubt jayoriginal bothered to read what he was copying and pasting . . . apparently it wasnt necessary to determine if the 100 points raised were rational as long as it ridiculed the theistic viewpoint.

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.

Actually I did read what I pasted here. If you check the first 100 from the link, you will see that I omitted some of them. Did you read the so called 30 keys that you and your theists were praising ? Did you see when Jesoul commented that Buda was an atheist ? Did you see when someone commented that these so called 30 keys with a little tweaking coud be applied to Christians ?
If I paste something here and you dont understand my intentions, ask me and I'll tell you. Dont make assumptions. You guys should lighten up abeg. An atheist was humorous enough to provide you with funny material to use against the atheists. The christians were happy. I was surprised at this. Now we are flipping the coin why the bad belle ?
For that internet hulk that prides himself as an intellectual, his feelings have been hurt and he responds the only way he knows how.
When I saw the list for the first time, I had several chuckles (the original 30). That is as it should be. Of course, some folks have no sense of humour, so here we are.

first off, isnt the atheist counter logic here even more ridiculous? How does the atheist aim to prove that such complexities like the cell just appeared out of random? What is the atheists logical explanation for the above beyond "we dont know"? It takes far more faith to believe human body systems appeared out of thin air than a belief in God.

You are assuming every atheist champions the theory of evolution. Not all do. I have read about it, and I hold it to be a more credible explanation than the creation story, but thats as far as it goes.
It may be that the average christian feels that in dismissing one belief system, it must be replaced by another. That is not true.

@Enigma:
You have made few references to my posting of the Willie Lynch Letter a while ago and called me dishonest and liar for posting the letter.
Well, if you are up to it, I would love to have a cordial discussion/debate on that subject.

^^ What would you like to discuss about it?

Edit: Now I've read a post of yours like this https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-804350.32.html#msg9586805

I'm not sure I want to bother anymore. I really don't see the point.

Enigma:

^^ What would you like to discuss about it?

Edit: Now I've read a post of yours like this https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-804350.32.html#msg9586805

I'm not sure I want to bother anymore. I really don't see the point.

Did you find anything offensive or out of place on that post?
I just wanted to state that prior to my posting the willy Lynch letter, I had never heard of any doubts about its authenticity. Since I first came acroos it in my school days, I have clung to it much like a faith. Now that you raised the question of its authenticity, I could not care less.Is it the authenticity of the document itself? the source of the document or the authenticity of the contents that bothered you?
For me,its like an article of faith much like a religious faith that we so much debate about. The contents of the document encapsulate, for me,the black man's past and present trauma and dilemma on this planet.
Slavery trade is a historical fact. Slaves working 364 days a year on plantations in the caribean is a historical fact.
That there were experts who , for a fee,traveled from plantation to plantation to show slave owners how to get the most from their slaves, is also a historical fact.
That these slave consultants outlined a methodology or system to mentally and spiritually emasculate the slaves so as to best harness their labour is also a historical fact.
Whether thier names were willy Lynch or john doe is irrelevant.
The fact that the mentaly dibilitating effects of such systematic and deliberate psychological conditioning are abundantly manifest among African and the Diaspora blacks is proof of its authenticity.
If there are questions about the source of the document, so what? even if it is a forgery, I commend the person who did it.
All races embelish their histories to suit whatever psychological conditoning they deem best for their peoples. Why should blacks not do the same if it can elevate our collective consciousness beyond the petty differences we so often sqaubble about and hate each other for?.

Every body knows the horrors of the slave trade and all that --- just like everybody knows the insanity and consequences of corruption in Nigeria.

As for the Willie Lynch letter, now that questions have been raised as to its authenticity, it is now up to you to do the necessary legwork on that matter.

Finally: it is the same thing with a lot of things I have seen you say about Christianity and even its history and biblical history; you are simply wrong and misinformed! When questions are thus raised about your understanding, then it behoves you to go back and check if you have your facts right ---- that is one of the ways we know if you are genuinely interested in discussion. Not when you are stating things wrong dogmatically while at the same time wrongly throwing accusations of dogmatism and all sorts at others.

All the best.



EDIT Addendum: if you take the attitude that you have a right to be using a fake document and to embellish things ------ well, that amounts to intellectual dishonesty ----- and this is what I've been pointing out for a long time and now with this thread --- that is what evangelical atheists do! It is basically relying on LIES along with caricatures etc to try to discredit Christianity! And that my friend is the very reason why I have no time for evangelical atheists, militant atheists, fundamental atheists, atheist fundamentalists and whatever else they are called.

plaetton:

That these slave consultants outlined a methodology or system to mentally and spiritually emasculate the slaves so as to best harness their labour is also a historical fact.
Whether thier names were willy Lynch or john doe is irrelevant.
The fact that the mentaly dibilitating effects of such systematic and deliberate psychological conditioning are abundantly manifest among African and the Diaspora blacks is proof of its authenticity.
[b]If there are questions about the source of the document, so what? even if it is a forgery, I commend the person who did it.[/b]All races embelish their histories to suit whatever psychological conditoning they deem best for their peoples. Why should blacks not do the same if it can elevate our collective consciousness beyond the petty differences we so often sqaubble about and hate each other for?.

So it's alright for you to believe that the fictional willie lynch letter is real regardless of facts but they can't believe the bible is real?

The Willi Lynch letter has not been establish to be fictional. My freiend here just brought those doubts to my attention. Even if the documents are non-authentic, the contents are certainly not fictional. They are valid and valuable.That is why I compared it to religious faith.
If they proven to be non-authentic, the best that I would do would be to refrain from using it in a public debate.
I dont have a big problem with embelishing our history as a people. European history is much embelished, american historty is much ebelished, chinese history is much embelished, jewish history i smuch embelished.
It's the norm rather than the exception. The yoruba creation epic is more colourful and closer to home. We should embelish it and teach it in our schools as an alternate history
It time we Africans wake up.

plaetton:

The Willi Lynch letter has not been establish to be fictional. My freiend here just brought those doubts to my attention. Even if the documents are non-authentic, the contents are certainly not fictional. They are valid and valuable.That is why I compared it to religious faith.
If they proven to be non-authentic, the best that I would do would be to refrain from using it in a public debate.
I dont have a big problem with embelishing our history as a people. European history is much embelished, american historty is much ebelished, chinese history is much embelished, jewish history i smuch embelished.
It's the norm rather than the exception. The yoruba creation epic is more colourful and closer to home. We should embelish it and teach it in our schools as an alternate history
It time we Africans wake up.

The willie lynch letter is fake. The only people who insist on it being real are afrocentric black nationalists like farrakhan and other cospiracy theorists. You know, the same kind of people who spout consipiracies like "behold the pale horse". Also, studies by linguists show that the words used were from the 20th century and not from the 18th century like we were meant to believe. If someone brought a letter to you and claimed it was from the 1980's, would you believe the person if the letter contained words like internet, iPad, or texting language like LOL and OMG?

So before you keep insisting that the willie lynch letter might be real, just keep in mind that Farrakhan also believes in alien motherships and that a black scientist named Yacob or some sh#t created white people.

When history is embellished it becomes myth and schools meant for education shouldn't present myth as history. An example is American thanksgiving and the embellished history of how the feast happened but in History classes the true story is told as best as possible. If you want to elevate our culture and mythology, then a class should be created to study world mythologies. Then our myths can be taught alongside jewish myths, chinese myths, indian myths etc so future generations won't be under the impression that the jews are some kind of special humans created by a god whose existence is limited to their own embellished history.

We don't have to create myths and call it history, lets just be honest and call other people's embellished histories what they really are . Myths. For example, christians can claim by faith that the creator of the universe wandered around in a desert with some people for 40 years but reality and academic research has shown that the jews never escaped slavery in Egypt nor did they embark on a 40 year march through the desert. There were probably catastrophic floods in different parts of the world in the past due to the Earth's changing climate but that doesn't mean that the jews' story about a man and his floating wooden zoo is a historical fact that should be taught in  reputable educational institutions.

To further understand how the style of writing can be used to determine when a work was written, search for excerpts from Moby D#ck and take note of how the author writes, then search for excerpts from any book from the last decade and you'll see the difference between the 21st century and 19th century.

Concerning christian apologetics and the various "arguments" for God's existence,
Why do theists have to argue to prove that their gods exist. If you claim god exists and there is undeniable proof, then they shouldn't be any arguments whatsoever about your god being real. The universe is not evidence that your god exist and whatever your particular holy book says isn't proof neither. The complexity of a cell is as much an evidence for God as it is an evidence for Super Aliens who seeded life on planet earth.
We don't argue about the existence of the sun and the resultant photosynthesis and warming of the planet because all we have to do is gaze up to see the evidence. We don't argue about the importance of water because we can see what the absence of water can do to a landscape. We don't have arguments about Alexander the great because we have a historical documents attesting to this fact. My point being, things that exist do not need arguments, they can be easily proven without resorting to complicated arguments. No one argues about gravity, do they? Relativity might even be wrong but we KNOW that what goes up must come down (except maybe at lagragian points)

We argue about ideas and not things that exist, so god is an idea. A very human idea.

Martian:

Concerning christian apologetics and the various "arguments" for God's existence,
Why do theists have to argue to prove that their gods exist. If you claim god exists and there is undeniable proof, then they shouldn't be any arguments whatsoever about your god being real. The universe is not evidence that your god exist and whatever your particular holy book says isn't proof neither. The complexity of a cell is as much an evidence for God as it is an evidence for Super Aliens who seeded life on planet earth.
We don't argue about the existence of the sun and the resultant photosynthesis and warming of the planet because all we have to do is gaze up to see the evidence. We don't argue about the importance of water because we can see what the absence of water can do to a landscape. We don't have arguments about Alexander the great because we have a historical documents attesting to this fact. My point being, things that exist do not need arguments, they can be easily proven without resorting to complicated arguments. No one argues about gravity, do they? Relativity might even be wrong but we KNOW that what goes up must come down (except maybe at lagragian points)

We argue about ideas and not things that exist, so god is an idea. A very human idea.

Nice !

@martian
Well said now the typical Christian apologists reply will be can you see pain? Can you see joy? Can you see air? Blah blah blah. Or you have to be born again to see or feel the presence of god in your imagination

Ah, now time for another interjecting observation. 

This observation has already been reflected in other material on the thread but it is important to highlight it once again.

The evangelical atheists* want to abolish or eradicate all other religions so that in the end there will be only one religion ---- the (evangelical) atheism religion.

This is why the duplicitous fool atheists use the fraudulent two pronged approach: (a) seek to eradicate other religions from "public" arenas; and (b) first establish within the law that atheism is a religion, then pretend it is only a religion in limited "contexts" and for "limited purposes" -- and therefore it can be promoted and advocated in public arenas --- unlike other religions.

They are basically diabolical fraudsters!


* aka militant atheists or fundamentalist atheists or atheist fundamentalists.

@ manmustwac

You asked me a question on another thread; I answered; and you kept schtum?

What's up with that?

Don't mind me I can be lazy when it comes to replying posts. But I promise to reply you later today 

Cool! Once upon a time a loooong time ago, I used to play tennis at those courts near you. Are they still there?

Interesting piece on "Psychology of Atheism" (perhaps a bit iffy in parts but useful overall):
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/psychology-of-atheism/

Extract

Many people have psychological reasons for atheism. Factors of upbringing, sins of believers, etc., may be barriers to belief.

Nevertheless, we have freedom of choice. People can choose to move toward God or away from Him. A person with many impediments to faith may move in the direction of God, perhaps over a period of many years, without ever actually arriving at the point of belief. On the other hand, a person with no impediments may nevertheless choose to reject God.

Here are some of the common, superficial reasons for atheism:

1. The belief that atheism is realistic, whereas faith is wishful thinking.

2. Personal motives (I myself was an atheist from age 18 to 38, for personal reasons that had little intellectual or moral justification):

a. The desire for the sophistication of the secular urbanite; embarrassment over one’s provincial background.

b. The desire for acceptance. In my case, it was for acceptance by my psychology professors who seemed to have only two things in common: they were personally ambitious, and they had renounced religion.

c. Personal convenience. It is inconvenient to be a believer in a modern secular society. It involves the renunciation of sexual pleasures and the necessity of committing time and money. We are reluctant to make radical changes in our lifestyle.

Perhaps the above reasons account for the motives of most atheists. Now let us examine some of the deeper reasons for the atheism of some:

According to Freud’s “projection theory”, we developed religion out of a need to defend ourselves against the crushing superior forces of nature. As a child needs a father for protection, so we feel the need to create a protector God.

This, however, is an ad hominem attack, and is applicable to almost anything. It can be used, in fact, to negate psychoanalysis.

Another weakness of this argument is that, if it were true, one would expect all gods to be benevolent father-figures. However, this is not the case with pre-Christian and non-Christian religions.

It is worth noting that there is no support for Freud’s theory within psychoanalysis itself. Psychoanalysis is neutral with respect to the question of God’s existence. The projection theory is an autonomous argument and was first developed not by Freud, but by Ludwig von Feuerbach, a philosopher who was avidly read by the young Freud.

and

The point of the profiling of atheists is to remove psychological motives from explaining religious belief. The ad hominem attack on theism posits an immature need for support, but there are psychological causes for atheism as well as theism. So when the atheist attacks a theists beliefs for being childish, the theist can counter, ``and so’s your old man!” So, this argument more or less levels the playing field as far as psychological explanations of belief/disbelief are concerned.

Atheists tear up the Bible: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/calif-atheists-rip-up-bible-verses-during-anti-christian-beach-protest/

http://athens.patch.com/articles/tearing-up-the-bible-in-california-9618ad66

Notes:

- Of course evangelical* atheists are fundamentalist even as some of them hypocritically condemn the American "pastor" burning the Koran for -- fundamentalism!
- Let's see if some evangelical atheists would now raise one of their own mantras in defence i.e. the "No true Scotsman fallacy" 
- So much for Christians and Christianity being "intolerant" when such idiotic things as tearing up a Bible are simply taken in stride 

Extract

The demonstration was led by more than a dozen members of a humanist group called Backyard Skeptics at the base of the Huntington Beach pier in Southern California.

Some of the passages the group opposed included Matthew 5:29 and James 5:14-15, which states:

"Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will [c]restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up , " (NASB)

Bruce Gleason, who heads the group, told The Christian Post earlier that he was "doing this to make this a better world" because he felt that "reason, science, and critical thinking will do much more than prayer and belief."

He insisted that they weren't trying to offend people. Only printed sheets of paper of the Bible passages were expected to be torn. But near the end of Saturday's event, the outspoken atheist ripped out a few pages from the Bible.

"I just want to tear out pages of the Bible that are illegal," Gleason said, according to The Orange County Register.

Backyard Skeptics has become increasingly visible and vocal in Orange County with the launch of several billboard ad campaigns and regular "outreaches" on the pier throughout the year.

At its peak, the latest atheist outreach event on Saturday drew about 100 people, with some Christians choosing to engage the group in a debate.

Greg Allen was among the Christians vocalizing his disagreement.

"They misrepresent the Christian view and what the Bible is actually presenting," he said, as reported by the local Register.

* Meanwhile the alternative titles for evangelical atheists are growing by the day!

- Fanatical Atheists
- Aggressive Atheists
- Hysterical Atheists
- Militant Atheists
- Fundamental Atheists
- Atheist Fundamentalists

I am totally in love with this thread!

Here is my favourite quote so far by 1Godfather

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.

And I love this too, by Enigma

Now as long as evangelical atheists maintain the attitude bolded, especially the red bit:

- they are liars when they say they support "free thinking"
- they are fundamentalists
- they do not believe in freedom of religion
- they accept only one religion --- the (evangelical) atheism religion!
- they are intolerant of others' viewpoints
- they are dogmatic and dogmatists
- they are hardly better than those who say "our religion is a religion of peace, but we kill those who deconvert"

Jayriginal kindly stop spamming the thread with posts from that website naa. We have seen the link and extracts already.

Thelstan:

I am totally in love with this thread!


Jayriginal kindly stop spamming the thread with posts from that website naa. We have seen the link and extracts already.

Audi alteram partem

jayriginal:

Audi alteram partem

You have posted extracts of the argument from the other side. 100 such points. AND you have provided links to the website. I doubt that we need to wait till you post the entire contents of that website and maybe its sister websites till we have heard the other side. I'm certain if we were all posting all the data from external sites there would be no viable discussion at all.

Thelstan:

You have posted extracts of the argument from the other side. 100 such points. AND you have provided links to the website. I doubt that we need to wait till you post the entire contents of that website and maybe its sister websites till we have heard the other side. I'm certain if we were all posting all the data from external sites there would be no viable discussion at all. 

If  had wanted to post the entire 666 points, I'd have done so at once. Copying and pasting isnt exactly difficult is it ? 

Actually if you posted as much as 300 at once, you would probably have been flagged by the spambot and banned from posting. *shrugs*

One I forgot previously but which really just has to be on this thread! 

Hmmm, some posters don really show this people oh; in fact e get soteeeey my good friend manmustwac vex lock the thread. 

Note: I should say reference in the quote to "atheists" is better understood as to "evangelical/militant/aggressive/fanatical/etc atheists" 


From here (with additional emphases) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-740780.128.html#msg8983332

[b]
1- Why don't atheists have any ORIGINAL arguments?
2- Why don't atheists do any research?
3- Why don't atheists "open-mindedly" look at research if they actually do any?
4- Why do atheists invent imaginary dialogue when trying to "prove" a point?
5- Why do atheists use "hypothetical" questions/situations & expect people to give them any credibility?
6- Why do atheists insist on quoting Biblical Scripture, when they don't believe a word of it? (That only allows for their arguments to be thrown out the window.)
7- When quoting Scripture, why do atheists ALWAYS miss the context of the passage?
8- Why do atheists resort to tactics like "changing the subject /re-directing the topic, "the straw man", (our favorite to shoot down) etc. and dragging out unnecessarily long replies with no actual answer to the question being asked?
9- Why do atheists insist it's the BELIEVER'S responsibility to "prove" God's existence, when THEY are the ones making the opposing challenge?
10- Why can't atheists provide a solid case for their refutation of Christianity?
11- Why do atheists continue to use claims, statements, arguments (etc.) made by Antony Flew, when HE openly admitted that he was wrong?   
12- Why do atheists think using "big words" will make them sound more intelligent?   
13- Why do atheists continue to read my questions, even though I've gone PAST 10!!?  
14- If an atheist was alone in the woods, and there was nobody around to hear him/her talking, would they STILL sound like an id[i]i[/i]ot? 
15- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
16- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
17- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
18- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
19- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
20- Why do atheists always prove to be such douchebags?
21- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
22- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
23- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
24- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
25- Did the atheists even catch the douche bag reference?
26- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
27-Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
28- If you're an atheist, why are you STILL reading this?
29 - ANSWER to #28; Because you're looking for the TRUTH, & you realize it's out there somewhere, but you haven't found it yet. (Let me also refer you to question # 25.)
30- Why do atheists insist WE need to provide "Original" claims, beliefs, statements, arguments, (etc.) when THEY all sling the same old crap that's been passed from atheist generation to atheist generation?
31- STILL HERE?
32- You MUST be desperate for SOMETHING! Is it for an answer? Or is it for something to make fun of, concerning my list?
33- Here's something funny, an atheist!
34- Q: How many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: None. They expect GOD to do it, to "PROVE" he exists.
35- How much longer are you going to read this list of 10 questions
36- I knew you’d read this one too! You atheists are SOOOO predictable.
37- Now I'm having fun,  these aren't even questions anymore!
38- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
39- #38 WAS a question
40- Can you PROVE you're an atheist?
41- This is too easy.
42- Why do atheists make claims, & statements, but never give evidence to back them up?
43- Why do atheists always answer questions with more questions?
44- Why are THOSE questions even more ridiculous than the original claim or question they asked?
45- Why do atheists use the same arguments over & over?
46- Why are atheists STILL reading this
47- Why do atheists only accept “scientific evidence” selectively based on whether or not they think it works in their favor?
48- Is it stupidity, or ignorance?
49- Why will the atheists continue to use the same old arguments over & over & over when they get mad enough to respond to this list?
50- Woohoo! 50 questions / proofs that atheism is for morons! Think I'm wrong? Just ask around. Ask Richard Dawkins for advice if you'd like. I don't care. He's an id[i]i[/i]ot too.
Have fun with this list because, all you'll end up doing is making yourself look even more uneducated if you try to mock it.[/b]

Imagine people who have zero understanding of the word "ATHEIST" means giving "keys" of becoming an "effective atheist". How dumb can people really be?

harakiri:

Imagine people who have zero understanding of the word "ATHEIST" means giving "keys" of becoming an "effective atheist". How dumb can people really be?

This cartoon describes them perfectly.

Why is Enigma so insecure in his faith that he has to resort to mocking "militant atheists"? Did an "evangelical atheist" steal his woman? Why is he so upset about "evangelical atheists"? Is his life in danger because of "evangelical atheists? Is his livelihood threatened because of evangelical atheists?
Or, is he just mad because evangelical atheists don't agree with him and vocalize their feelings?

Lets see what an "evangelical atheist" looks like, so maybe we can get to the root of Enigma's ire.

*ninja edit*

Martian:

Why is Enigma so insecure in his faith that he has to resort to mocking "militant atheist"? Did an "evangelical atheist" steal his woman? Why is he so upset about "evangelical atheists"? Is his life in danger because of "evangelical atheists? His is livelihood in danger because of evangelical atheists?
Or, is he just mad because evangelical atheists don't agree with him and vocalize their feelings?

Lets see at what an "evangelical atheist" looks like, so maybe we can get to the root of Enigma's ire.

He's an attention seeker. Nothing more. Not worth the time of day (or night).

E dey pain them! 

Someone asking why Enigma is concerned about evangelical/militant/fanatical/etc atheists cannot look in the mirror and ask why the evangelical/militant/fanatical/etc atheists are obsessed with Christianity? 

Enigma:

E dey pain them! 
Someone asking why Enigma is concerned about evangelical/militant/fanatical/etc atheists cannot look in the mirror and ask why the evangelical/militant/fanatical/etc atheists are obsessed with Christianity? 

The guy in the mirror is not an evangelical atheist. He just thinks you and your invisible mute of a god are funny.

Enigma:

E dey pain them bcuz dey know their god no dey for cloud like dem bible talk!

^^^ Obsession with Christian God by an evangelical/aggressive/militant/fanatical/etc atheist. 

Point proven!

QED