Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks III

I suspect that I could make a new "Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks" post every day from the raw material provided by the 'atheists' who infest Michael Egnor's blog and not run the risk of exhausting the vein. Mind you, Gentle Reader, I'm not saying that any of these 'atheists' are themselves stupid. No, no, no: it's the tricks that are stupid; the 'atheists' are just intellectually dishonest.

Consider this recently unearthed gem, concerning a video to which Michael Egnor had linked --

troy: "Apart from the gullible and the demented, does anyone take that huckster still seriously?"

Ilíon: "We all know what you mean, troy. *Everything* about Dawkins, and especially that [prissy] sissy accent he uses, is hucksterish and quite annoying."

troy: "No, obviously I meant that huckster WLC. Except lining his own pockets at the expense of the gullible and demented, and making the insecure believers feel a little better about their superstitions, what do know now that we wouldn't have known without his 'scholarship'?"

And that, boys and girls, is atheistic "reasoning" in a nutshell.

Why is Willian Lane Craig a "huckster", who is "lining his own pockets at the expense of the gullible and demented"? Why is it that all he does is "making the insecure believers feel a little better about their superstitions"? Why is it that it is questionable there is anything we "know now that we wouldn't have known without his 'scholarship'"?

Why? One reason, and only one reason -- because he kicks atheistic butt, using logic they cannot counter; you know, logic, which 'atheists' like to imagine that they own, or even invented.

Why is it that Christians are "gullible and demented", who hold to "superstitions", rather than to ralional beliefs? Why is it that Christians are "insecure believers [who need someone to make them] feel a little better about their superstitions"?

Why? One reason, and only one reason -- because, in utter contrast to atheism, Christianity can be supported by evidence and logical reasoning ... and, because, moreover, even if evidence-and-logical-reason were to falsify Christianty, it remains forever the case that logical reasoning falsifies atheism.

This "projectile reasoning", as I call it -- this psychological "projection" having nothing to do with actually reasoning -- is how 'atheists' tend to "reason" about "religion", especially Christianity (*), and their own God-hatred.

Which is to say, they do not reason, for, they do the very opposite of reason. And this little example I've shown above really is standard-issue "reasoning" amongst the 'atheists' one will encounter on the internet or in real life.

(*) And really, other than Judaism, what other religion does *any* member of a Western society really care about?


BUT, let's play pretend -- let us pretend that some 'atheist', perhaps even this 'troy' (who brings disrepute to a noble name), has shown that WLC is a "huckster"; further, let us even pretend that some 'atheist', perhaps even this 'troy', has falsified Christianity, and thereby shown it to be a "superstitions" (which would, of course, seem to entail that Christians are "gullible and demented" "insecure believers [who need someone to make them] feel a little better about their superstitions).

NOW, having pretended the truth of these things that 'troy' asserts (but *never* even attempts to demonstrate), allow me to ask you: So, what?

Do you not get it? On top of his claims-of-fact, this so-called atheist is asserting moral claims -- he is asserting that there is an objective-and-transcendent moral reality, knowable to human beings, and to which we are obligated to conform ourselves.

As the old saying goes: what the Hell?! Where did that come from?