I got tired of constantly being in the debunking mode, especially when you find yourself debunking the same thing repeatedly. That starts to feel like swatting flies. I used to be a subscriber and regular reader of The Skeptical Inquirer, but then I let my subscription expire. How many debunkings of ghosts, UFO's, and Bigfoot do you need? Likewise with "the case for theism." I think I really have heard it all by now, and my hearing has been patient and fair. Also, as I said before, I am also aware of works by Oppy, Sobel, Gale, Everitt, Le Poidevin, Martin, Drange, Schellenberg, and many others that have done the debunking so well that I really have nothing further to add.
As for the use of the term "fraud," I tried to make clear that I am talking about the arguments, not the arguers. Actually, "fraud" was probably a bad choice of words since it inevitably connotes deceit and dishonesty. My view of the "case for theism" is not that it is a dishonest fabrication but that it is completely vacuous.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
A philosopher abandons the teaching of the philosophy of religion and simultaneously points out the purposelessness of rehashing unconvincing arguments. Sometimes there aren't two sides to a story. He comments further: