Your treatise "debunking pseudo-skeptical arguments of paranormal debunkers" is the best refutation of pseudoskeptics' arguments, tactics and fallacies to reject the evidence for paranormal phenomena. I've recommended your article to every person that I know.
I'd like to suggest you a similar treatise debunking fundamentalist atheism; because your argument #29 (on atheists) is good, but very short.
As you know, the recent assault of atheists/skeptics on God is not only very lucrative, but it's a indirect assault in parapsychology and alternative sciences too. These "new atheists" include in their books chapters on parapsychology, ufology and paranormal phenomena, and they try to debunk them with the same anti-God/anti-spirituality pseudo-scientific rhetoric and fallacious arguments.
Also, they defend Darwin's theory as an article of faith, and accuse any scientist who dares to question it or criticize it. They use the "creationist" label as an ad hominem ploy to avoid scientific valid criticism against Darwin's theory. Fact is that many scientists question, as scientific and sound arguments, that theory. As an example, you can read the well-documented scientific papers of spanish biologist Maximo Sandin (he's not a creationist, nor a religious person. He's a biologist who considers the Synthetic Theory of evolution has many flaws and should be replaced by a new scientific theory). You can read Sandin's papers at:
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias ... heory.html
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias ... ology.html
But dogmatic/fundamentalist/irrational atheists will interpret these criticism as a defense of God, religion or creationism (most dogmatic atheists are quasi-paranoid and see God, religion and faith in every corner; they suffer of black/white thinking, a typical psychological sign of irrational fanatism) when, actually, they're valid scientific criticism against synthetic theory of evolution. (Sandin doesn't mention "God" or "creationism" in his papers. He's writting on science, not on religion)
There are some good websites exposing the fallacies of fundamentalist atheism (e.g. http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ ). Also, some good refutation of atheist's basic philosophical foundation (e.g metaphysical naturalism/materialism) have been written. As an example, read philosopher David Wood's sound criticism and clear exposing of the fallacious arguments of Richard Carrier's book Sense and Goodness without God in defense of atheism and naturalism:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index. ... view&id=86
But most critics of atheism are Christian apologetics. So, many people may consider that these (very good) criticisms are biased.
By this reason, given the great success of both of your articles (debunking pseudoskeptics and debunking Christian fundamentalism), you're the right person to write a new treatise: "debunking every argument of fundamentalist atheists". Only you can do it.
Thanks for add my e-mail to your reader response page. Yes, I'm from Spain. I found your great article searching for refutations of dogmatic christians and atheists. A friend told me of your articles debunking both of them and passed me the links. I really enjoy them so much.
I've been following the controversy between the so-called "new atheists" (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc.) and God believers/religion followers. My opinion is that most of atheists' argumentation is fallacious and dishonest. But a point by point refutation of atheism haven't written yet.
Recently, I've read two very good piece of information against dogmatic atheism:
1)The first one is this article of Alan Roebuck titled "How to respond to a Supercilious Atheist":
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/ ... cilio.html
2)Also, the book "The Irrational Atheists" is a very good response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. You can download this book (in pdf format) for free here:
I think a refutation of atheism's best arguments don't need to be a defense of God or religions or paranormal (in theory, an agnostic can criticize atheism without to defend God). It's enough to show the double standars, unproven assumptions and pseudo-scientific tactics of these people. For instance, the argument "If God created everything then who created God" doesn't make any sense. We don't need to have an explanaition for the explanaition, because if it's requested in all the cases, we couldn't explain anything. It would drive us to a infinite regress.
Also, scientific atheists like Dawkins ask for "evidence" of God, but they never told us what kind of evidence convince them. (You've addressed this type of tactic in your paper). They see God as an (false) "scientific hypothesis", not as a philosophical position or worldview. They confound the scientific with the philosophical level. This clever trick is used to bring to the scientific arena a non-scientific debate (of course, you can use many arguments from science to argue in favor or against God; but it doens't make it a scientific discussion).
As I said in my last e-mail, I think a refutation of atheists' best arguments is needed, and you're the right person to do it. But something is also true: atheists don't have many positive arguments (to prove their position). Most of their arguments are negative: criticism of religions or concepts of God. But many of these negative arguments are fallacious or based upon distortions and half-truths, or improper mixing of (materialistic) philosophy with science.
Maybe, some specific points could be addressed in a hypothetical or eventual article against atheism:
1)Moral and values in an atheistic worldview. Are moral values an objective reality? What's the evidence for it?
2)The sense of life to an atheist. Have the life a objective sense or finality?
3)Evidence that atheists would accept to believe in God. (Some former atheist have accepted evidence for God. As an example, recently former atheist Antony Flew changed his mind, and now he's a deist. He wrote a book, as his last philosophical legacy, titled "There is a God". You can read the story here. A recent interview with Flew can be read here.)
4)Positive evidence for philosophical naturalism and materialism.
I think the above points are the weakest points of the atheist's position.
Maybe, in your next updating of the debunking skeptic paper, you consider to add some arguments or commentaries in your argument # 29 on atheists. It may give some idea to new readers about the relationship between skepticism and atheism, and how they use similar (or the same) arguments against God or the paranormal.