It was not my intention to call out specific individuals, to make fun of them, to accuse them of dishonesty, or make "examples" of them. I took this as a thread to talk about arguments that are funny. If you agree that such an argument is funny, that suffices. If you do not... well, that is fine as well.
I will point out what Chistopher Hitchens, a famous atheist, had to say. Perhaps you can offer your opinion.
There is a terminological problem here which may conceal more than just terminological difficulty. The proposition that atheism is true or - that is a misstatement of what I have to prove and what we believe. There is an argument among some of us as to whether we need the word at all. In other words, I don't have a special name for my unbelief in toothfairies, say, or witches, or in Santa Claus. I just don't think that they're there. I don't have to prove atoothfairyism. I don't have to prove asantaclausism. I don't have to prove awitchism. It's just, I have to say, I think that those who do believe these things have never been able to make a plausible or intelligible case for doing so. That's not agnosticism because it seems to me that if you don't think there is any evidence, you're wrong to take refuge in saying you're neutral. You ought to have the courage to answer the question which one is regularly asked, "Are you an atheist or not?" Yes, I will say, I am. You can't tell anything else about me. You can't tell anything else about what I think, about what I believe, about what my politics are or my other convictions. It's just that I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural dimension, and I've never been shown any evidence that any process observable to us cannot be explained by more satisfactory and more convincing means.
From a debate between Chistopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig
Also, Chistopher Hitchens said this:
In your first round, Doctor, you said that N.T. Wright, who is an impressive person, says that "no explanation of the success of Christianity is possible that doesn't rest on the terms of its being true." In other words, Wright says it was so successful, it must have been that the people were so strongly motivated to believe it, that is must have been true. I regard that as a very, very unsafe assumption. Or, if it is a safe one, then it must surely apply to Islam and to Mormonism.
Chistopher Hitchens' has made similar remarks in other places as well and other atheists have made similar remarks. It is some degree of work to track down every particular statement a person makes, so I won't. You will have to go do some actual work yourself and find the arguments, if, in fact, you have a deep enough interest in the matter.
I understand that you are feeling some sort of need to "correct" my thinking. But it is misplaced. I suggest that you overcome your terminology problems.
