Why do popularizers of atheism write at such a pedestrian...

Language evolves over time.

Have you never read an old book and wondered

>why they fuck don't they just say what they mean?

I personally can't stand reading pages of flowery bullshit which takes forever to get to the point.

>this is what brainlets actually believe

Dawkins is literally /pol/ tier fedora: "If God made the universe, then who made God? Checkmate, theists!!!"

That's the heart of "The God Delusion".

Seriously.

>Sam Harris unironically using the unicorn reference directly from the bible, as though it were his own.

if there's a single atheist who can write at the level of weil, Kierkegaard, etc. then I'd hear 'em out

It is.

You're like a child who is very easily impressed by magic tricks.

>why don't people write for the lowest common denominator

unreal, this is what Veeky Forums has become

>I don't have to refute the argument if I make fun of it and suggest it is also put forward by people I can easily mock

>reddit comment
>reddit spacing
too obvious desu

>The less people can follow my argument, the more right I am!

What is reddit spacing and how do you know what it is? I don't visit reddit so I wouldn't know, but clearly you're an expert on reddit posting?

>he has this much trouble understanding coherent sentences in his first language

holy lol

Oh, you don't know the answer? God is an eternal being, God was not created by anyone, God always has been, is, and always will be.

God revealed this through his prophets and through his son, Jesus, as being the Great I Am, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.

God has no creator because God is the Creator.

I get accused of it all the time.

Apparently it looks like this post.

It's something newfags say about oldfags that have been posting this way for years. Usually because they are bootyblasted and have no other point to make.

why do theists hide behind intellectual jargon instead of actually defending their positions?
Do they fear the fedora wielding warrior?

why do fedoras short-circuit when they're expected to understand and process language at a higher level than reddit posts?

>comparing non-philosopher atheists to philosopher theists
>implying atheism and theism are ideologies and can be compared as such

the larger point is there ARE no philosopher atheists who can even approach Kierkegaard's worst work

if ive overlooked someone then please share I want to be proven wrong but ive searched high and low for a fedora who doesn't sound like he watched school of life-tier summaries of theology and metaphysics

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit.

Nice bait btw. Here's to hoping for many many (you)s

and kek weil wasn't even a philosopher, she was a spindly little jewish girl who worked in factories and with salt of the earth types and she's a billion times more profound than any of the dreck peddled by le four horsemen

then why can the same be said of the universe? youre just justifying your position with semantics

>fedora
Great arguments all around.

You're just cherry-picking quotes from deists that sound vaguely profound and quotes from atheists that involve poorly phrased metaphors.

It's kind of interesting how Christians on this thread think having better philosophers, writers, and so on gives them this untouchable intellectual superiority. You outnumber atheists (even now, when atheism is more popular than ever before) over 5 to 1, so you have a far wider pool of talent to draw from.

>so you have a far wider pool of talent to draw from.

Not to mention Christian intellectuals have had 2000 years to come up with profound statements. Atheism has not.

journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html

Protip: great writers believing in God does not prove the existence of God

lol pseudo-profound

The examples in that paper are so obviously nonsense it's unreal to me you need 5000 words of some cuck to walk you through why.

Here's a pro-tip my man: you need to post examples of what you consider profound to have the right to call something pseudo-profound otherwise it's so painfully obvious it's just typical reddit brainlet anti-intellectualism masquerading behind disaffected millennial know-it-all """intellectual"""

>I-I-I n-need more time
slavoj zizek made a simialer quote about his enemys. Maybe you should stop being intellectually feeble and lazy like all the other commies. I think murdering your own kind in gulags helps the intellectual process.

schopenhaur disagrees

>can be trusted to have obliterated 2000 years of Christian metaphysical thought but not to communicate it in a pithy, insightful, brilliant way

lol I thought atheists were supposed to be logical?

Dawkins is following, as best he can, in the Analytic tradition and its hostility towards propositions that attempt to puncture beyond the surface of the effible. Taking all such statements as inherently absurd and nonsensical, you can allow yourself to be lazy when attacking them since all you need to do is attack them at their weakest point ( i.e. via reduction to absurdity ).

Ps. the particular argument Dawkins' is making here is not exactly original, there's a similar argument called "Gaunillo's Island" which rests on a similar form of reduction-to-absurdity.

Nothing is really profound "my man", especially not text that would fit in twitter limit on characters. Profoundness is a perception.

Perception of profoundness comes from fact a text deals with matters so deep within a certain area of knowledge it builds on way too many terms, phrases and presumptions you have to google. Pseudo profoundness is when you don't even try to convey a meanigful message, but merely try to sound "wise" in order to gain dem sweet gravitas.

It's only profound if you're inclined to credit theism to begin with. The story of God's embodiment in Christ and subsequent self-sacrifice, if not literally true, would have to be regarded as an instance of *human beings* demonstrating what it is to be a human being through the medium of myth. Is that less profound?

>profundity is a matter of perception

...obviously?

because newatheism is a reaction against the rise of creationism and literalism in the west in the last 30 smonething years, and then it sort of also set itself against things like middle eastern fundamentalism etc, so their arguments are equivalent to their opposition, its all a pissing contest in high school level games of logic

basicaly they are a sort of intellectual outrage against the notion that creationism could be taught at schools

thats all they are, or in any sense they never go beyond that intellectual level

basicaly they are just as literalist, evangelizing, truth claiming and hopelesly christian as the people they criticise

Because atheism is autism desu habibi