And The Winner Is -

In the category, Dumbest Comment by an Atheist, the winner for 2009 goes to, “Scripto”

In my series on Intelligent Design which dealt solely with the question, “What is the origin of the information that made first life possible” for a post titled, “Got Junk” http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/got-junk.html this year's winner left the following comment.

“Most of those papers you site are not peer reviewed in the appropriate journals. Those that are deal with a specific area of evolutionary theory that may or may not be called into question by their conclusions. In no case do they offer ID as a supportable alternative. And in no case have they made any headway in biological journals. I'm looking for independent corroboration . . .

Translation:
If a Christian submits a scientific paper for peer review, it doesn’t count if it was reviewed by h/her peers, i.e., other scientists who are also Christians.

I’ll only accept a scientific paper written by a Christian if it was reviewed by someone who holds a hostile and contrary view to that of the paper in question.
---------------

Scripto's comments and those of his peers who commented throughout the series fit well this discription of atheist readers by another Christian blogger.

"Actually, the biggest problem that the New Atheists face is their fundamental dishonesty. They frequently dissemble, exaggerate, and lie. They also practice the fundamental bait-and-switch of selling a specific secular philosophy under the guise of science. They are deeply and profoundly ignorant of history, economics, politics, and theology; worst of all, when they are called out and shown to be ignorant, they do not bother to take their errors into account or alter their conclusions in the slightest.

This is what makes them irreligious fundamentalists. Indeed, the average New Atheist is demonstrably more blindly fundamentalist than the average Christian or Islamic fundamentalist. There is literally no information that is capable of changing their position because it is based on raw emotion, not reason, logic, or science. Because they cannot admit error, every dialogue with a New Atheist will inevitably turn into an intellectual fox chase, with the New Atheist frantically attempting to redefine basic dictionary terms, claiming that he didn't mean what he previously wrote, moving the goal posts every time his previous position is shown to be incorrect, and attempting to change the subject whenever logical or factual errors in some aspect of his individual belief system are pointed out. The very concept of a New Atheist "intellectual" is a contradiction in terms, because New Atheists are uniformly close-minded ideologues. And by uniformly, I mean without exception. I have yet to encounter one. Reasonable atheists don't subscribe to the Dawkinsian myths. We have seen this again and again on this blog, and no doubt we will continue to see it until they fade from the scene as all of their predecessors have before them."