Get this Atheist a Proofreader (And Perhaps a Mirror)!

A friend of mine pointed me to this website which addresses how an atheist ought to go about debating a Christian. The introductory paragraphs are full of naive statements about the universe and knowledge. Allow me to share only a couple.

Atheism is not a belief, nor a religion. There are no rules, regulations, or commandments to atheism...

And still to this day Theists attempt to expand Athesim into something it’s not. Whether by association, injecting some extenuating circumsatances, or just plain stretching the truth, the purpose becomes very clear. First, generally as an argument from ignorence by lacking the proper knowledge of atheism – or as an argument from authority they’re clearly lacking, they will assert some kind of claim about atheism based on their vast knowledge (claimed authority) such as; Atheism is just another religion that worships nature, humanism, materialism, the universe, etc...

They’d truly like if atheism was a religion, because beleifs are far easier to attack then true knowledge. As atheists we know this from fighting their beliefs, they know this as well. By asserting a hypothetical argument somehow equals a litteral beliefs in a god, they again get to assert Atheism is a belief structure. And by asserting a stereotypical belief that ALL atheists are materialists, naturalists, humanists, etc. this again allows them to attack these other “isms” rather then atheism. Not a single one of these attack tactics holds a drop of logical reasoning or proper debate capabilities...

From reading these quotes, we've only scratched the surface of the information on this particular web site. But we have learned at least a couple of things:

1. Somebody at Atheism Resources needs to get a proof reader. Good grief! ("equals a litteral beliefs"? circumsatances? beleifs? ignorence?) I know it's the internet, and so we can have lower standards, but it doesn't take a genius to use a spell-checker! For having such a high opinion of his handling on the laws of logic, maybe he should go to square one and learn the laws of proper grammar and spelling, first.

Sorry; that's as ad hominem as I plan on getting. It's like I have an itch I'm not supposed to scratch. And yes, I know that the previous statement is a sentence fragment; however, in the internet age, sentence fragments are allowed, but poor spelling is still uncool unless you're spelling "kool" with a "k," which is always awesome, every time.

2. This particular author really is blissfully unaware of his own philosophical commitments being brought to the table. And he is also unaware of where he got those beliefs from - otherwise he would not insist that what he has is knowledge and what everyone else has is religious faith.

3. The author concedes that we Christians will have a much easier job of debating them if we can somehow demonstrate that their worldview is belief rather than knowledge. I would compare this to a boss at the end of the video game showing you where his weak spot is. Also, it is the biggest and easiest weak spot on the planet to hit. See point #2 above.

There are more problems, but I'm trying to mock, and not be comprehensive. So there you are. I hope you enjoyed your helping of naive atheism.