This piece is a too-long intro that promises much, but where are any concrete examples of “...how today’s leading atheists tend to be incoherent, illogical, immoral, self-indulgent, intellectually dishonest, unscientific wishful thinkers who undermine the very possibility of rational thought”?
I don’t mind forceful rhetoric if it’s backed up with logic soon after sketching out the situation--after all, Elijah mocked Baal’s prophets before dramatically proving them wrong!
Someone needs to be the editor and hone this to a sharp edge, not let it stay ragged.
This chapter is just the introduction. The concrete examples come in the following chapters. Some of the chapter headings are: "The Wishful Thinking of Atheists", "Atheists Undermining Rational Thought", "Atheists Proposing Intelligent Design (by Space Aliens)", "Intellectually Dishonest Atheists - Pascal's Wager", "Self Indulgent Atheists - The Problem of Suffering", "Immoral Atheists Lecturing Christians on Morality", "Atheists Promoting Pseudoscience", "Atheists Who are Bad at Math", "Atheists Tripping on the Origin of Life", "Atheists Swooning at Cosmic Fine Tuning", and so on.
Point well taken, but the polemics of the intro should be pared back to less redundancy, and an example or two could be provided of the atheists’ illogical thinking. This will whet our appetite. I completely agree that atheistic thinking is illogical, inconsistent, and often disingenuous or even deceptive, but the reader deserves a clue in the introduction.
There is an example in the introduction, where Clarence Darrow compares theism to Mother Goose, and Sam Harris compares theism to astrology and alchemy.
Those examples are not countered by explaining what makes them false, and merely including them doesn’t help unbelievers realize that their really is a God.
This is brilliant. Thank you for the sharp rhetorical weapons to battle these proud, contumelious tongues.
You do right to attack our attackers. You should also get after the major anti Christian talk show influencers like Howard Stern and Bill Maher. It is easy to dismiss these vile men as unworthy of attention, but their followers number not in the thousands but in the tens of millions. Especially Stern, who commands an entire satellite broadcasting empire. I’d be happy to take a shot at contributing to your endeavor if you wish.
Thank you for the encouragement and support. Much appreciated! After we get this present book to publication, I agree, it's a good idea to circle back around and work on a follow-up project, blistering the blathering behinds of Howard Stern and Bill Maher. Though their shallow command of science and reason makes them easy targets, it would prove to be a worthwhile effort if it helps rescue folks from their inane arguments.
lol at pony jokes
This piece is a too-long intro that promises much, but where are any concrete examples of “...how today’s leading atheists tend to be incoherent, illogical, immoral, self-indulgent, intellectually dishonest, unscientific wishful thinkers who undermine the very possibility of rational thought”?
I don’t mind forceful rhetoric if it’s backed up with logic soon after sketching out the situation--after all, Elijah mocked Baal’s prophets before dramatically proving them wrong!
Someone needs to be the editor and hone this to a sharp edge, not let it stay ragged.
This chapter is just the introduction. The concrete examples come in the following chapters. Some of the chapter headings are: "The Wishful Thinking of Atheists", "Atheists Undermining Rational Thought", "Atheists Proposing Intelligent Design (by Space Aliens)", "Intellectually Dishonest Atheists - Pascal's Wager", "Self Indulgent Atheists - The Problem of Suffering", "Immoral Atheists Lecturing Christians on Morality", "Atheists Promoting Pseudoscience", "Atheists Who are Bad at Math", "Atheists Tripping on the Origin of Life", "Atheists Swooning at Cosmic Fine Tuning", and so on.
Point well taken, but the polemics of the intro should be pared back to less redundancy, and an example or two could be provided of the atheists’ illogical thinking. This will whet our appetite. I completely agree that atheistic thinking is illogical, inconsistent, and often disingenuous or even deceptive, but the reader deserves a clue in the introduction.
There is an example in the introduction, where Clarence Darrow compares theism to Mother Goose, and Sam Harris compares theism to astrology and alchemy.
Those examples are not countered by explaining what makes them false, and merely including them doesn’t help unbelievers realize that their really is a God.
Yes, those examples are countered by explaining what makes them false. Read it again.
Looks good so far! Well done!
Thank you!
This is brilliant. Thank you for the sharp rhetorical weapons to battle these proud, contumelious tongues.
You do right to attack our attackers. You should also get after the major anti Christian talk show influencers like Howard Stern and Bill Maher. It is easy to dismiss these vile men as unworthy of attention, but their followers number not in the thousands but in the tens of millions. Especially Stern, who commands an entire satellite broadcasting empire. I’d be happy to take a shot at contributing to your endeavor if you wish.
Thank you for the encouragement and support. Much appreciated! After we get this present book to publication, I agree, it's a good idea to circle back around and work on a follow-up project, blistering the blathering behinds of Howard Stern and Bill Maher. Though their shallow command of science and reason makes them easy targets, it would prove to be a worthwhile effort if it helps rescue folks from their inane arguments.
This bit of yellow journalism by Fr. Joe is poorly written and lacks anything but vitriol!
We need to give the so-called "New Atheists" all due respect. — And what, precisely, is the amount of respect that they are due? — Zero.