beepbeep replied:
------------
Some people just don’t get it. There is no “atheism” - certainly none that qualifies as an ideology.
I will accept that the word” atheism” exists, but it doesn’t define a set of beliefs.
So, when I hear the word “atheism” I realize that people are assuming a common set of beliefs associated with the term.
I think of it more this way. “Atheism” is the state of being an atheist. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or gods. But there really is no more to it than that.
Many atheists wouldn’t have a clue what materialism is, or naturalism, or secular humanism - the probably don’t care either.
They just don’t believe in the existence of gods. In the same way that someone doesn’t believe in the existence of plutonians. This doesn’t mean that they have an ideology associated with why they don’t believe in the existence of plutonians.
Those who want to suggest that for everything someone does not believe in that they must have an ideology which supports their lack of belief in something, are really just trying to shift the burden of proof.
It is with those who make the positive claim for the existence of something where this burden lies. Many recognize that this is a burden which they cannot fulfill therefore they wish to shift it. The burden cannot be fulfilled because the positive claim for the existence of any god relies on faith.
In the same way that if I believed in the existence of invisible teapots, my positive claim for their existence would rely faith.
It takes faith to believe that someone can come back from the dead and rise either physically or spiritually into the sky.
It takes faith to believe that the supposed witnesses are credible witnesses.
It takes faith to believe that the supernatural exists. etc etc.
The arguments FOR the existence of a god, any god - eventually rely upon faith. It is best, in my opinion, if believers recognized this and stopped claiming that they have definitive evidence of the existence of any god.
I suppose what it comes down to is that religious people consider faith to be the highest human expression. Whereas, many of the rest of us, don’t.
======================
I replied:
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly that some people just don't get it.
Many atheists wouldn’t have a clue what materialism is, or naturalism, or secular humanism - the probably don’t care either.
Exactly. You're clearly one of those. You don't have a clue even about what your own presuppositions are, or else you would defend them and not deny that you have any or assert that many atheists (possibly including yourself) are clueless. Hey; you said it, not I.
That has no bearing whatsoever as to whether non-theist belief-systems (whatever they are) have metaphysical and epistemological difficulties to be worked through or not. They do, and that doesn't depend on your (or anyone else's) relative cluelessness or apathy about philoso
(cont.)
. . . philosophy and the important questions that philosophy has dealt with for 3000 years or so.
I'm not talking about lack of belief. I'm talking about belief. BELIEF. BELIEF Got that? ATHEIST belief. Yes, you have some, whether you admit it or not. Everyone who thinks does. No exceptions. None. Zero.
So rest assured. You have them. And THAT is what I am critiquing. If you think the universe isn't really here, then just say so. Don't keep us in suspense.
You have beliefs. You have faith. About how the universe got here. About the reliability of science. About how we can trust our senses that are necessarily used to do science. About how you and I exist. About the existence of the universe. Or do you deny this?
This is philosophy and logical argumentation. Or do you deny that you have any beliefs about those, too, and that your belief-system is simply a set of negatrives about what you don't believe (as if a totally negative, reactionary outlook without any positive beliefs of one's own makes any sense).
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that something can comne from nothing.
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that the universe can create itself.
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that science provides the only possible reliable knowledge to be had.
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that only matter exists and there is no spirit. Even Albert Einstein denied that.
The arguments FOR the inherent existence of such amazing creative characteristics of atoms - eventually rely upon faith. It is best, in my opinion, if atheists recognized this and stopped claiming that they do not accept unprovable axioms, and realize that they exercise faith at some point just like everyone else.
beepbeep, waxing philosophical, wrote:
“happy holidays” - “merry mithras” and “happy santamas” to you too.
Try not to get your panries in a bumch, it scares santa.
RE dave: (semi-serious comment)
The difference is that I don’t know if anything exists outside the natural world and I don’t claim to know. I also don’t have an overwhelming desire to believe that anything does.
You don’t know if anything exists outside of the material world either, but you have an overwhelming desire to believe that something does.
And that at least one of these somethings requires your worship. I have never been heavily into hero worhip of any kind. (Could be a genetic flaw, who knows?)
I have also never been interested in what I consider to be artificial supernatural hierarchies with an invisible superhero at the top either.
I don’t look for invisible nor visible beings to defer to. I sink or swim according to whatever knowledge I may be able to glean from the time I have as a naturally living being on planet earth.
In your opinion, I will be sinking and you are entitled to this opinion, as wrong as I think it might be.
To be quite frank with you, if there is a supernatural being that requires worship and general a*s* kissing to keep it happy, sedated and non-violent; it won’t be getting any smoochies from me.
---------------
Benny wrote:
Dave:
I think comment 40 indeed applies to you, in light of comments such as:
“So, if you atheists want to come after us, fine; just exercise the same scrutiny towards your own epistemology and cease with the double standards (hyper-examining us while ignoring your own ultimate philosophical commitments, which are ridiculous and intellectually-suicidal at worst and flimsy and unsubstantiated at best).”
“I ain’t gonna answer your question-answer to my questions! LOL”
“Also, please read #36 above. You seem to have missed that, too, judging by your response, that #36 already dealt with. Tsk, tsk, tsk.”
And this is just from your comments prior to comment 40; I see the tone as getting only more hostile afterwards.
I agree with you, everyone who holds beliefs, be they atheists, agnostics, theists, or another group that I apologize for not thinking of at 2:41 am, have the same responsibility to justify their beliefs. But it seems counter-productive to me to pre-suppose a number of beliefs as necessary consequences as atheism, when by definition atheism is merely the lack of belief in deities. It seems even more counter-productive if when someone disagrees with the beliefs you have assigned to them, you proceed to accuse them as refusing to own up to their supposed beliefs.
As I said, you have every right to challenge the beliefs of atheists (and everyone else, for that matter). But first please ask us and listen to us to determine what beliefs we actually hold. I think that would be a good place for us to start.
beepbeepitsme:
I agree with many of the points you have raise
(cont.)
. . . raised, but I don’t think “try not to get your panties in a bunch” is going to get this conversation anywhere good.
--------------
I repled:
Ok, Benny, sure. How do you believe that the universe got here? How did atoms and matter in general come to acquire the remarkable qualities that they have?
I agree with you, everyone who holds beliefs, be they atheists, agnostics, theists, or another group that I apologize for not thinking of at 2:41 am, have the same responsibility to justify their beliefs.
Great. Please do so with yours. What positive beliefs do you have about how the universe came to be as it is? On what basis do you have these opinions?
But it seems counter-productive to me to pre-suppose a number of beliefs as necessary consequences as atheism, when by definition atheism is merely the lack of belief in deities.
As stated at least three times now, I am not critiquing the negative aspects of atheism (not beliving in God; not believing in the supernatural; not believing the Bible, etc.). I am criticizing what most atheists do believe.
It seems even more counter-productive if when someone disagrees with the beliefs you have assigned to them, you proceed to accuse them as refusing to own up to their supposed beliefs.
No atheist has shown me that he or she has no opinion whatsoever about the origin of the universe. It seems to me that everyone must have some opinion about that. If they have none, then fine; I'm not interested in that person with regard to this discussion because they are in an epistemological bubble, immune from all criticism or intelligent discourse, because they refuse to face the "philosophical music," so to speak.
But for anyone who does have an opinion about matter and the nature of the universe: how it began (if it ever began); how it will end (if it ever does), this will intrinsically entail axiomatic presuppositions and the equivalent of "faith."
You disagree? Please explain. Since no atheist I have ever encountered has not explained to me how they have less faith and fewer unprovable axioms than a Christian, I am perfectly within my "rights" to assert that the Christian is no less scientific or no more gullible or "dogmatic" or prone to believe technically unprovable things than the atheist.
THAT is my point. Either no atheist here understands it, or does and is unwilling to interact with it because it is too threatening, and that makes me frustrated, in light of the continued double-standard charges against Christians: that we are fundamentally deficient in our intellectual outlooks.
It's easy to refuse to acknowledge and defend one's own intellectual commitments and to simply run down Christians and Christianity and particularly the more extreme examples of same (for the sake of caricature and easy dismissal).
It's not quite the same fun and games and amusement to actually closely examine one's own presuppositions and
(cont.)
. . . the consequences of them.
I'll guarantee that any atheist who is willing to open themselves up to such a close examination will be found to have every bit as much "faith" as any Christian who has ever lived. I'd be happy to demonstrate that, if any atheist is willing to take me up on the challenge.
But it requires sticking to the subject and the courage to submit one's own views to intense scrutiny.
I compiled a lengthy collection of essays by philosophers on the mind/body question (roughly the same subject matter), and discovered a lot of fascinating reflections by atheists who aren't materialists (particularly, the brilliant David J. Chalmers, who commended me for my paper in a letter). If anyone is interested:
A Philosophy of Mind, Consciousness, and the Soul Consistent With Christianity
http://web.archive.org/web/20030...smus/
RAZ286.HTM
http://web.archive.org/web/20030...smus/
RAZ309.HTM
Yep, David Chalmers is an atheist (see his own self-description below). But he is the type of atheist I greatly respect, because he acknowledges when he doesn't know things, and doesn't (as far as I have seen thus far) mock those who have a religious view as fundamentally deficient in intellect (like, e.g., Dawkins and Dennett do).
He follows scientific and philosophical method, but at the same time recognizes that they can't explain all of reality (which is why he isn't a materialist, when all is said and done).
This is the point I have been trying to make: it's foolish for atheists to make out that they have all the answers and no faith, while Christians have only faith and little rationality. We all coie to a place where we have to make some sort of leap, because of incomplete rational knowledge.
Here is an excerpt from another fascinating interview with Chalmers:
------------------
Natasha Mitchell: So your suggestion is in a sense that something about subjective experiences is something akin to a fundamental law of nature like Gravity, like Time, like Space and this is where it gets a bit kooky though for some people.
Dave Chalmers: I don’t see it that way, I mean the reason is we are used to the idea that in science you’ve got to take some things as basic and irreducible, you don’t get science for nothing, there are some aspects of the world you’ve got to take as basic. In physics, we take space and time and mass for example as basic categories you don’t try to explain space in terms of something more basic, you say ‘these are fundamental aspects of the world’ - now I’ll give you a bunch of fundamental laws that say how those things relate. If I’m right about this it just turns out there’s something you need to add to that catalogue of fundamental properties. There’s something about consciousness that’s fundamental too.
Natasha Mitchell: It’s a hard one to get at because it’s almost verging on the spiritual it seems, on something that we can’t give a material form.
Dave Chalmers: There’s some convergence with religious and spiritual views. It’s true that people who have those views often find some aspects of what I have to say congenial. Now I have to say I’m a complete atheist, I have no religious views myself and no spiritual views, except very watered down humanistic spiritual views, and consciousness is just a fact of life, it’s a natural fact of life.
We already know there are aspects of consciousness that are very difficult for example to describe in language, they are hard to pin down. How could you describe the experience of the colour ‘red’ in words, or the experience of an intense pain, an experience like an orgasm, these things have their own distinctive striking ineffable qualities. It’s very hard to pin down in language but this isn’t to say it’s not perfectly real and indeed, perfectly natural.
Natasha Mitchell: I mean some people would clearly disagree wit
(cont.)
. . . with you and certainly people like Susan Greenfield and others talk about the firing of our neurons at different levels in a sense, a kind of synchrony of neurons firing in our brain is what gives rise to that subjective experience. It’s just that we haven’t quite sussed out a way to measure it yet.
Dave Chalmers: There’s plenty of disagreement in this field it’s fair to say, nothing in this field is uncontroversial. Most people think there is a serious problem here, it’s around this point a lot of people become agnostic, they say ‘OK, we haven’t explained it yet, we can’t even see how you could explain it, but we’ll keep doing enough neuroscience and psychology and we’ll come back to it eventually and maybe there’ll be a solution less radical’ than postulating a new say, fundamental property.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science...ind/
s919229.htm
-------------------
Another thing I immensely respect about Chalmers is the fact that he thinks "outside of the box" and pushes and expands and attempts to redefine accepted categories.
He's on the cutting edge of his field of thought. He's not afraid to follow his thinking and the facts wherever they lead, regardless of the current fashionable dogma or orthodoxy in philosophy or atheism or the zeitgeist or whatever.
I always admire people like that. I detest ignorant dogmatism and simply going with the flow, whether it be a Christian or an atheist who is doing it.
I think exactly the same of Richard Behe, if Intelligent Design fame. Others may put Behe or even Chalmers down because they are different; because they refuse to accept every fashionable orthodoxy, but that's part of the package. Every great, original thinker goes through that.
These are the sort of thinkers I like. It goes beyond whether one is a Christian or atheist or green-eyed, left-handed Rastafarian moth-catcher. There is a method of thought and open-mindedness that can unite anyone of any persuasion, at least on the level of thinking processes and how one approaches knowledge, or what might be called the philosophical inquiry, or even "quest for truth," with mutual respect and charity.
When I myself seem to go against this mutual respect, as when I do some satire or make pointed remarks, it is precisely because I sense that someone is outside of this spirit of fair-minded inquiry, and hence shows extreme disrespect for others not of their same opinion, and show double standards in wanting to critique without willing to be critiqued themselves, or those who aren't being honest with themselves about their own beliefs and ultimate commitments.
I confess that I have a very difficult time with folks who exhibit that spirit; always have, and I suspect that I always will.
# Benny Says:
December 24th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Dave:
Fascinating reads. Mr. Chalmers sounds like a very admirable individual to me as well, with many qualities that I hope to someday possess. Maybe we have more in common than I suspected 
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I regard those with religious beliefs as fundamentally deficient in intellect. Everyone I’ve ever dated have held strong religious beliefs. And I don’t think I would ever be attracted to someone I regard as intellectually deficient.
# Dave Armstrong Says:
December 24th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Good for you. Unfortunately, atheist polemics are rife with swipes at the ignorance and gullibility and supposed infantile qualities of Christians, as well as insinuations of mental illness.
I know, because I’ve spent a great deal of time interacting with them. This will, sadly, always be the case, for many reasons.
The good news is that there are also folks like you, and they are the ones I am interested in dialoguing with. Why would anyone in their right mind want to “dialogue” with someone who thinks they are either nuts or an ignoramus?
That would itself prove you were nuts . . . and stupid, too, for that matter LOL A sort of “self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Benny Says:
December 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Dave:
Thank you for your response. I feel like we’re getting somewhere now I’ll start with one of your particularly salient points:
“It’s easy to refuse to acknowledge and defend one’s own intellectual commitments and to simply run down Christians and Christianity and particularly the more extreme examples of same (for the sake of caricature and easy dismissal).”
In the same vein, it’s easy to run down Atheists and Atheism and particularly the more extreme examples, right? And I feel that is what you have done in the paper you linked near the beginning of this discussion, which is probably what sparked much of the disagreement that followed. Let’s agree not to blame each other for the more extreme examples of our respective positions, which I’m sure are responsible for much of the frustration we each have felt.
You also said:
“I’ll guarantee that any atheist who is willing to open themselves up to such a close examination will be found to have every bit as much “faith” as any Christian who has ever lived. I’d be happy to demonstrate that, if any atheist is willing to take me up on the challenge.”
You may well be right. But I think it’s fool-hardy to try to make generalizations about the positive beliefs of atheists, simply because there’s so many different varieties. In general, I think if we can avoid the use of words like “guarantee” and “challenge”, it’ll be easier to do away with obstacles like the pre-suppositions and adversarial attitudes many of us (myself definitely included) have exhibited.
I would be happy to present my own beliefs regarding how the universe came into being and the other issues you raised. But I am not sure this particular comment thread is the best venue for such a discussion. I know, that sounds just like a cowardly dodge, and I hope you won’t view it as such.
What I propose is that we start a new discussion topic for this. Something where we can examine the various positive beliefs held by atheists and agnostics. Maybe something like “A Critique of the positive beliefs of Non-theists.” Or maybe something more focused, maybe start with a particular issue, like how we think the universe came into being. If this sounds agreeable to you, one or both of us can then email drunkentune and soulster to ask them to start a new discussion.
Dave Armstrong Says:
December 25th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
That’s fine. I contend not that I have critiqued what only a few fringe atheists believe, in my paper, but the logical consequences of what virtually every atheist believes. This is what hasn’t been understood.
Oftentimes, people see some sarcasm or satire and a reductio ad absurdum argument (my paper was all of the above) and they go off in a totally wrong direction, thinking it is either:
1) misrepresenting what they believe,
or
2) that it isn’t a serious argument because it involves pointed humor.
Neither is true of my paper. It applies to almost all atheists (except perhaps the odd non-materialist one like David Chalmers).
Moreover, the very nature of a reductio critique is to show that one’s beliefs have certain (to them, or generally) unacceptable consequences. It is designed precisely to demonstrate that the logical results of the position being examined are absurd; therefore, the position must be re-examined or discarded.
In this instance, I was also adding the additional element of making an analogy between atheist belief and the things in Christianity that the atheist critiques and despises, and believes are not present in the atheist position. It's the old "turning the tables" routine. No one likes it done to them.
Hence, I’m doing several things at once there, but apparently little or none of that has been understood as of yet (at least judging by the responses).
No one has shown that the paper doesn’t have application to them. That’s what I’m waiting to see.
But I’m not so much interested in the question of origins (which I’ve debated to death with atheists in the past) as I am in the more specific question of whether the atheist story of origins involves as much or more faith than the Christian view.
I say yes; most atheists deny this. But I have not seen any demonstration of that from an atheist, thus far, in my opinion.
Meanwhile, for my esteemed atheist and agnostic and even liberal Christian friends, here’s a little bit more of my “turn the tables” humor, suitable for the occasion:
Silent Night (a “progressive” theological and agnostic re-interpretation and critical commentary)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...heological.html
# Benny Says:
December 25th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Cool; emailing drunkentune and soulster now to request a new discussion where we can explore the relationship between faith and atheist stories (I must emphasize the plural here) of origins.
I dig your Silent Night commentary. Although the tone seems to dance closer to mocking rather than satire or sarcasm. But maybe that’s just me having a low tolerance for satire and sarcasm
# Dave Armstrong Says:
December 25th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Wel, it ain’t to everyone’s taste, but surely you must realize that Christians are constantly mocked by atheists, and so it is understandable that we (at least some of us) would do a bit of satire in return, no?
The problem is (as in many cases where there is a large amount of stereotypical ignorance on both sides of a major debate), that atheists are rarely used to ever seeing a satirical Christian response (done properly).
So when they see this there tends to be a great deal of hostility towards the person doing it. The Christian satirist is accused of being too hostile or ignorant or merely interested in clueless mocking.
That doesn’t work in my case because I know exactly what I am talking about, what I am trying to accomplish, what the issues are; I have a working knowledge of most of the major arguments on both sides, I know how satire works, and I am not stupid.
Underestimating the intelligence and knowledge of one’s opponent can lead to quite comical results itself. But it happens all the time in atheist-Christian dialogue (real or imagined).
Typically, the Christian thinks the atheist is utterly immoral, and the atheist thinks the Christian is utterly stupid. It’s roughly the same in political discourse. One side is considered immoral; the other stupid, or stuffed-shirt or puritanical, hypocritical moralists.
I don’t think any of that of atheists as a class, so if any given atheist can also figure out that I’m not stupid, then we can get somewhere, past the caricatures and stereotypes and have some great, mutually-challenging discussion.
You seem like such a person.
I wish you and all here a happy Christmas (i.e., whoever celebrate it at all), and Happy Hannukah to drunkentune.
------------
The above comments were posted at the philaletheia blog, in two threads (currently the top two on that blog):
http://philaletheia.thetruthtree.com/
Atheist Benny wrote on the same blog:
---------------
Honestly, I was not aware of atheists constantly mocking Christians. I guess I have been naive, sheltered, or lucky, as my experiences with atheist/theist conversations have almost always been mocking-free in both directions. Hence, I was frankly shocked and offended when you came into the thread with your, for lack of a better description, salvo of counter-mocking. But since I’m not aware of anyone having mocked you previously, I felt the salvo was a bit mis-directed. It seemed unfair for you to vent your frustrations on commenters here, who by their very presence, seemed to me to be showing willingness to find common ground with one another.
Anyway, I’m glad we’ve moved on past that inauspicious beginning. Thank you for the compliments you have paid me. It’s gratifying to feel that I have been at least somewhat successful in my efforts to get past caricatures and stereotypes. Really, I’m just following the examples of others here. They deserve at least as much respect as you have accorded me.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all
I replied:
It’s common procedure when I meet atheists, Benny. Some think I’m the most terrible thing since Attila the Hun, or an “arrogant idiot” and a “joke” (John Loftus), while others think quite otherwise (such as an articulate atheist on another blog who privately wrote to me and said I was one of the most polite theists he had met).
Some alas, think the first thing and then move onto the second, after they figure out that I’m different from their stereotype of a caricature of what a Christian (oops, so-called “fundamentalist”) is supposed to believe and how he is supposed to act.
So what else is new? You got past my satire and know that I’m not either a nut or an ignoramus. Great! Maybe now we can have a decent conversation!
And you think atheists don’t mock Christians? Then what is it to call them mentally ill? That happens ALL the time. Do I actually have to document it? You actually think that doesn’t routinely happen in many (thankfully not all) atheist forums? You may have had good conversations (so have I) but that doesn’t mean that it is the usual occurrence. There are exceptions, such as Jim Lazarus (who actually publicly chided fellow atheists of this type), and I have joyfully noted those on my own blog.
I don’t say atheists are nuts, nor do I say they are immoral en masse, simply by virtue of being atheists. I am on record time and again noting that atheists may even be saved in the end and are not necessarily damned at all.
Simple satire and argumentum ad absurdum is not “mocking.” It is (done right) a legitimate philosophical argument. You may wish to call it “mocking” if you like, but it isn’t. Insinuations that Christians are nuts or supremely ignorant or infantile or believers in and purveyors of blind, irrational faith are the true insults.
Here is just one example among many hundreds that could, no doubt, be found. “beepbeepitsme” - who is on this thread, above, wrote on my blog:
“And by the way, when I start demanding ‘under atom’ on the moneys, or ‘in atom we trust’ in the pledge, then I will do what most of you should have done 50 years ago - seen a psychiatrist.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7890194/
#125353
And (jokingly, no doubt, she will say):
“Well, some of us probably enjoy talking to lunatics. Not sure if we all do, but I quite enjoy it.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7890194/
#125490
I took me two minutes on Google to find Richard Dawkins describing Christians as mentally ill:
“Faith is such a successful brainwasher in its own favour, especially a brainwasher of children, that it is hard to break its hold. But what, after all, is faith ? It is a state of mind that leads people to believe something — it doesn’t matter what — in the total absence of supporting evidence. . . . Faith cannot move mountains (though generations of children are solemnly told the contrary and believe it). But it is capable of driving
(cont.)
. . . people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”
(The Selfish Gene, 1976, ch. 11)
http://www.rubinghscience.org/
me...wkinsmemes.html
Would you say that is mocking and insulting, Benny? Or would you try to assert that Dawkins is an altogether atypical atheist, of no particular importance?
Here are some of the comments of atheist Jim Lazarus about fellow atheists who are prejudiced against Christians:
---------------
Yeah, I know, what I said is harsh. But I can't support a movement that depicts theism as a mind disease. It's incredibly arrogant, in my never so humble opinion. I realize that you're trying to do what you believe is a good thing. I don't agree that it is, though.
* * *
Btw, I'm not alone in this assessment. There are several respected atheists that I talk to who are of the same opinion. I will not state their names, because it should [be] their decision to make their views public, and certainly not mine.
* * *
I haven't mispresented your establishment. My problems were based on the arrogance and narrow mindedness of its attitude, evidenced by the way that you've been acting toward believers the entire time. Your catch phrases and slogans are especially telling. Right on the front page: "Fighting to Free Humanity from the Mind Disorder Known as Theism".
And I don't feel especially uncomfortable saying that you have not dealt with many intelligent and well respected believers.
Suggesting that belief in theism is worthy of comparison to beliefs of men in mental institutions demonstrates the same close-minded and arrogant attitude that I mentioned in my post.
Simply because some believers support ridiculous things does not mean that they all do, or that theism itself is necessarily a deranged idea.
* * *
If you support a movement, and some of your fellows are hurting that movement, then you ought to address them and call out their errors.
* * *
On the point of the RRS/FAOR project being close-minded and arrogant, I referenced your slogans, which are great examples of close-mindedness and arrogance.
* * *
My position is more along the lines that you should be less arrogant and close-minded toward theism, because there are many believers who hold to mature conceptions of theism that are not worthy of contempt. When you classify theism itself as a mind disorder, you do many people a disservice. And because your view is close-minded and arrogant, there's no inconsistency in my having little respect for it.
--------------
From my article praising this attitude:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...theist-
jim.html
Here is Jim's original article:
http://consolatione.blogspot.com...sts-on-
run.html
Obviously, if atheists themselves are starting to react against the more extreme and insulting among their own fellows, then I am not incorrect (having been the recipient of the same sort of bilge) to also speak out against it.
Atheism, like Christianity, is made up of all sorts of people. But it is undeniable that certain broad, grossly unfair criticisms of Christianity are rampant in the atheist movement as a whole. One can always find exceptions. The more the merrier. But exceptions don't negate the rule.
Commenting by HaloScan
