Clearly, some atheists also hold some illogical beliefs about religions. Also, clearly, some atheists are less capable than others to conduct debate. Still, it seems you’ve done little than other than loosely establishing those points.
It is not an unreasonable or an illogical position that Jesus may have been a composite figure. I believe there are threads about discussing this, or you could try and start another.
Jon writes:
Amongst the anti-theists, and by that I mean people typically regarded as fundamental atheists or religion-haters in general, there flows a set of core beliefs and behaviors that define them as a group in the same manner that members of religious denominations hold to tenets that define their membership. Despite claims of being rational, many anti-theists most often present arguments about religious matters that are irrational and unreasonable, and even seek out religious topics to which to apply these irrational, unreasonable argumentsi.e., they target dissenting opinions with irrational, unreasonable garbage arguments. The great danger, here, of course, is that their belief in their own 'unreasonable reasoning' prevents reasoning with them on any matters relating to religion about which they've already formed their beliefs: They cannot be reasoned with in matters where they are behaving blindly unreasonably.
As with all people, of course, their statements are not always irrational, unreasonable, and/or wrong. But unlike their rational, more reasonable counterparts (agnostics, weaker atheists, etc.), they often succumb to the same reasoning errors, illogical mental gymnastics, and sophistry typical of religious apologists. In this they reveal their positions not to be supported by reasoning and rationality, as they claim, but instead to be supported by irrational and unreasonable beliefs. The greatest harm comes in their false portrayal of themselves as being rational and reasonable, when they are not. Thus they fail to recognize rationality and reasonability and are so incapable of understanding arguments based on rationality or reasonability regarding the beliefs to which they cling.
Jon writes:
Amongst the anti-theists, and by that I mean people typically regarded as fundamental atheists or religion-haters in general, there flows a set of core beliefs and behaviors that define them as a group in the same manner that members of religious denominations hold to tenets that define their membership. Despite claims of being rational, many anti-theists most often present arguments about religious matters that are irrational and unreasonable, and even seek out religious topics to which to apply these irrational, unreasonable argumentsi.e., they target dissenting opinions with irrational, unreasonable garbage arguments. The great danger, here, of course, is that their belief in their own 'unreasonable reasoning' prevents reasoning with them on any matters relating to religion about which they've already formed their beliefs: They cannot be reasoned with in matters where they are behaving blindly unreasonably.
What qualifies someone for the label ‘fundamental atheists’?
What exactly are these core beliefs you claim but do not seem to cite?
Jon writes:
As with all people, of course, their statements are not always irrational, unreasonable, and/or wrong. But unlike their rational, more reasonable counterparts (agnostics, weaker atheists, etc.), they often succumb to the same reasoning errors, illogical mental gymnastics, and sophistry typical of religious apologists. In this they reveal their positions not to be supported by reasoning and rationality, as they claim, but instead to be supported by irrational and unreasonable beliefs. The greatest harm comes in their false portrayal of themselves as being rational and reasonable, when they are not. Thus they fail to recognize rationality and reasonability and are so incapable of understanding arguments based on rationality or reasonability regarding the beliefs to which they cling.
Please support your claim that atheists are less reasonable and rational than agnostics, weak atheists, etc.
I think you would do better by supporting the later part of the quoted paragraph. Please pick on person you think meets your claim and
clearlyshow:
Jon writes:
Thus they fail to recognize rationality and reasonability and are so incapable of understanding arguments based on rationality or reasonability regarding the beliefs to which they cling.
™ Version 4.2