No such thing as atheistic philosophy. Atheism is a position on the existence of God. That is it. Anything else is not atheism. Related to atheism, perhaps, but not atheism.
I'm an atheist. I also like cheesecake. Many other atheists like cheesecake. That doesn't mean that liking cheesecake is an atheistic culinary position.
Unfortunately for him, appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.
Theism is a position on God, but is also Philosophical. Then theres nothing to talk about if theres no such thing as Atheistic Philosophy. And there is no such thing as Atheistic Theology, since there is nothing to study. Atheistic Theology is a self refutation (we've been over this). So Atheism seems to be bunk from the get go. In this case, the argument is declared over, with Theism the winners. Theism becomes the Philosophically default position, and we can all move on to better positions. Is that what you want?
Relativism is not the truth. Preferences are nice, but do nothing to enhance the truth.
Who is your idea of an authority though? John Loftus? Appeals to authority are not always bad, but sometimes can be fallacious when taken the wrong way. Here is the understanding of it by most Christians.
[SIZE=+1]Appeal to Authority (or, Appeal to False Authority, or Appeal to Questionable Authority,
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam)[/SIZE]
Let's face it. Not one person will ever become qualified as an expert in every field of research relevant to Apologetics. A person can spend decades studying only one field alone. Most laypeople will have to rely on experts from time to time to establish a point; even experts in one field of study will appeal to experts in another field. Appealing to an authority to make a point can be an acceptable way to make a point.
One must be cautious, however, as no authority is perfect. Authorities have been known to contradict each other, and being an authority doesn't make one infallible. So, it is recommended that one only uses an authority when, for whatever reason, it would be impractical or unnecessary to present the evidence or argument the authority represents. However, if one is responding to another's personal opinion, a professional opinion carries more weight in debate.
There are a few different ways to commit an Appeal to Authority fallacy: 1. When one uses a claim from an person not qualified to comment on the area one is making the argument in. For example:
Albert Einstein stated that, "God does not play dice."
Therefore, random probability (luck) is in contradiction to God's sovereign plan.
The conclusion may be correct (I'm not entirely sure), but the argument is fallacious because Einstein was an expert in science, not theology.
2. Since authority is one of the weakest forms of evidence, one must not over-depend on the strength of an authority. The example above does, using the opinion of an authority as though it were absolute proof ). 3. Another kind of appealing to false authority is to state that something is validated by "many" or "most" of a class of authorities. For instance, one can say, "the majority of scholars think that the historical Jesus was just a really good teacher." However, unless actual authorities are cited, this is a fallacious appeal to unspecified authorities. Most philosophers agree with this (take tongue and plant firmly in cheek).
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html#150
So to declare the Easter bunny says there is no God, is not a way to support your claims.