Illogical?

I love it when someone claims that atheists are the ones who are supposed to be illogical, as if faith is the epitome of logic.

From Atheists' view illogical by Marty Dhabolt:

The barriers to truth on this issue regarding prayer by government officials are primarily psychological, not logical. Most of the confusion is born from a misunderstanding of proper “church” and state separation, along with two logical impossibilities — actual neutrality in government and genuine religious pluralism. Both assertions are nonsense.

Our local cadre of atheists have a Godless goal in mind. Atheists, including The American Gestapo, aka the ACLU, are intellectual hypocrites; their bankrupt worldview has been beaten like a drum on philosophical, historical and even pragmatic grounds. Although their arguments are tired they remain tenacious out of desperation. It’s been almost 50 years since it was determined that atheism actually presupposes and surreptitiously relies on theism to even have the appearance of cogency.

As no world renowned atheist has ever intelligently answered, let alone refuted that reality, what chance is there that local atheists are encumbered by any justification or coherency for their views based on their atheistic presuppositions?

Anyone care to translate this for me? Mr. Dhabolt seems to like to write in some form of George Will derived dialect that I am not familiar with. I will, however, do my best to try to understand this and give my thoughts.

How can one separate logic from the psychological? Psychology is generally defined as the study of the human mind. Where exactly does Mr. Dhabolt think that logic comes from? Perhaps he meant to use the word emotional? If so, I must ask if it is actually the atheists who are the ones being emotional here.

What exactly is “proper” church and state separation? One that is polite and has good manners? Perhaps Mr. Dhabolt could give us some proof as to why “actual neutrality in government and genuine religious pluralism” are nonsense and logical impossibilities. Perhaps something with a little more weight than “because I say so.” (Ahh, the basis of all religious belief and all religious argument: "Because I say so.")

From Myth: Religious Neutrality is Hostility toward Religion & Religious Beliefs by Austin Cline:

…the most devoutly religious people should also be the staunchest defenders of government neutrality in matters of religion. Given the awesome power of the modern state, religious people should want to do everything reasonable to reduce the risk that the state will interfere with their religious institutions, and that would include the state coming down against them in theological matters. Accomplishing this requires removing from the government the authority to support them in theological matters as well. How does a ban on government support of religion inhibit people from acting as individuals to express their religious beliefs? Christians have been expressing themselves quite well for millennia, and not always with the government supporting them. Just how weak is Christianity that it requires government backing today? The government doesn’t help atheists express their views, but you won’t hear atheists arguing that this a sign of government hostility towards atheism.

Mr. Dhabolt says that atheists are the illogical ones and that anyone who believes in “neutrality in government and genuine religious pluralism” believes in nonsense. This is, of course, nonsense. Actual nonsense runs through everything that Mr. Dhabolt has written. According to Mr. Dhabolt the idea of civil liberties is “bankrupt” and “tired.” Does Mr. Dhabolt want the Bill of Rights to be repealed and abolished? Why is Mr. Dhabolt arguing against his own self interest? Let’s remember that the Bill of Rights begins with: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The “American Gestapo” vows to “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country." Mr. Dhabolt throws around many big words, yet he does not seem to know the meaning of many of them. He claims that the ACLU as a group are intellectual hypocrites. The dictionary says this of the word hypocrite: “1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.” How anyone can describe the ACLU as a group of hypocrites is beyond belief!

There is even more illogical nonsense from Mr. Dhabolt. Mr. Dhabolt gives us the completely meaningless belief that atheists only exist because of non-atheists. (I find the response by Zephyr to this to be humorous: “Next, they’re going to prove that Christ exists because they found the Anti-Christ.”) Dhabolt then claims that “no world renowned atheist has ever intelligently answered, let alone refuted that reality.” Mr. Dhabolt should write his own dictionary so that we all would know what he means when he uses words like atheist and reality. Clearly his “reality” is simply not real.

It seems that there are nearly as many definitions for the word atheist as there are people. Of course the reason for that is because there are nearly as many definitions for the word God as there are people.

From Atheism:

Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability.

As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."

It appears that Mr. Dhabolt thinks that he has scored a few points by writing: “It’s been almost 50 years since it was determined that atheism actually presupposes and surreptitiously relies on theism to even have the appearance of cogency. As no world renowned atheist has ever intelligently answered, let alone refuted that reality, what chance is there that local atheists are encumbered by any justification or coherency for their views based on their atheistic presuppositions?” Writing something so pointless does not entitle anyone to any points at all.

Who was it exactly that “determined that atheism actually presupposes and surreptitiously relies on theism to even have the appearance of cogency.”? If those damn sneaky atheists are so clandestine and stealthy, how did anyone notice this? Does something have to exist for someone to have no belief in it? One source describes the etymology of “atheist” as deriving from the Greek word “atheos” (a- "without" + theos "a god"). “Without a god” does not seem to me like it is dependent on the existence of a god. One definition of the word "nothingness" is “void.” As in “no thing.” Does the word "nothingness" depend on there first being a thing before there was nothingness? Of course not. It all depends on what your definition of "is" is”. Or in this case it all depends on what your definition of “atheism” is.

All of this points to one of the dangers of faith. Faith is the actual barrier to truth. By the way, that is a logical statement, not a psychological one. Faith allows you to believe whatever the hell you want to without having to think about it. It also allows you to think that you have won the argument, when actually you haven’t made one at all.

Who really is the illogical one here?