Atheists, Anti-Philosophers, and Anti-Idealists: The 'One X Further' Meme

Beloved of cyberpunks and Internet infidels, the 'One God Further' meme invites generalization.  Although it is not an argument but an assertion, the Dawkins attribution suggests an argument.  The argument it suggests to me is the following:

1. All gods are on a par with respect to credibility.

2. All of us find most gods incredible.

Therefore

3. Consistency demands of us that we make a clean sweep and reject all gods, including the Judeo-Christian god.

The implict claim is that believers in the Judeo-Christian god refuse to apply their principle of god-rejection across the board, but instead make an irrational exception in the case of their god.

 

Suppose we generalize the argument and see what happens:

1G. All Xs are on a par with respect to credibility.

2G.  All of us find most Xs incredible.

Therefore

3G.  Consistency demands of us that we make a clean sweep and reject all Xs.

Now hear the speech of an anti-philosopher addressed to philosophers:

We reject all the philosophical theories you do, but we take it a step further by rejecting your pet theories as well.  We reject all philosophical theories. So we do exactly what you do except that we do it consistently, applying the principle of philosopheme-rejection across the board.  We make a clean sweep whereas you irrationally and inconsistently make an exception in favor of your pet theories.

And then there is the speech of the anti-idealist:

We reject all the ideals you do, but we take it a step further by rejecting your pet ideals as well.  We reject all ideals.  You distinguish between true and false ideals and reject those you take to be false such as the ideals of National Socialism.  You are not consistent.  You ought to make a clean sweep and reject all ideals.

Further examples of the argument schema can be provided, but you get the drift.  The history of science is littered with hypotheses that didn't pan out.  But of course it would be irrational to infer that one ought not propose hypotheses.  Same with ideals.  There are no doubt false ideals.  But it doesn't follow that there are no true ideals.  And the same goes for philosophical theories.

So if Dawkin's puerile meme is intended as a truncated argument, it is unsound.  But if is a bare assertion, then it is true but uninteresting.