Salon.com MobileDawkins had it right (as usual): it is not at all necessary to be an expert in Leprechaunology and the various related historys, sects, beliefs, and interpretations to be convinced that there are no Leprechauns and that Leprechaunology has nothing meaningful to say about life or the universe.
Here, as in religion, being "ignorant" is a sign that one found better things to do with one's time, energy, and attention.
Monday's USAToday drilled down into the number. Of that 15% between 41% and 23% believe in a higher power and are simply not happy with organized belief. They are agnostic, and still theistic. So between 8- 10% of the US is atheist.
Somehow, it feels like all of the actual atheists are on this board.
Clausewitz argued that you need to know and respect your enemy to win wars. The problem here is that Hitchens, Dawkins, and a whole bunch of atheists on this board do not know theists. They reject the concept of diversity in theism. The poster telling Chrsitians they need to accept the Bible as literal or not be fellow travelors is a great example. His own rigidity makes it impossible for him to understand how people can use intellect to emphasize the Gospels and place the rest in the context of "commentary". There are many who claim Christianity, but few actually follow the Gospels, the Word. Those who do tend to be left Christians, not evangelicals. When atheists demonize all Christians as ignorant rightists, they lose the allies they need. WHen atheists tell left Christians "you need to accept the whole book as literal", they show a truly pround lack of understanding of many non-fundamentalist Christians (the majority of Christians, because ARIS shows fundamentalists losing people to non-denominationals).
There are not enough atheists to win any battle without theists allies. That fact alone is why Dawkins' and Hitchens' argument that atheists should oppose theists with ridicule, etc is an ineffective strategy. When atheists should divide and conquer, Dawkins and Hitchens are telling them to annoy, irritate, and drive their natural allies into the arms of the right. That's a stupid strategy. WHen you tee us off that way, we of the left agnostic/Christian theistic tradition ignore you. We have the numbers to oppose evangelicals. Atheists just don't. We have the numbers to effectively ignore atheists as well. Atheist protection in the US depends on left Christian enforcement. THink about that.
Most college graduates are exposed to atheism. Most do not buy. Perhaps some of the atheists should contemplate why the number of stheists has remained pretty stable and small in this country. It is not because the majority is "mouth breathing ignoramouses". It is, in part, due to the obvious contempt and snottery I have seen demonstrated here. To be blunt, the radical atheists and the radical Christian right both suffer from a surfeit of hubris. If we don't agree with either of you, we are to be called names, demonized, told what to do, told what you think we are. Given the attitudes, why should I want to be like either of you? Given the name calling, why should I believe you have a "moral core", that you help the helpless? You can't behave on an anonymous message board. How can you tell me that I'm a fool for believing that something unknowable is out there? It's not like you can prove it isn't there, just as I can't prove it is. The viciousness here does not make atheism look very attractive at all. The viciousness of evangelicals has already begun the process of discrediting them (as the lack of baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention this past year shows). People are tired of contemptuous bullies on both sides.
If atheists want people to listen to them, to discuss, they need to show respect. Dawkins and Hitchens have demonstrated, over and over, that they want atheists to be contemptuous and to attack. Hitchens' attacks on Mother Teresa, Dawkins' book, etc, has lost the secular left a lot of ground. The ARIS numbers might have shown more seculars if fewer public seculars didn't act like jackasses. Normal atheists don't run around putting people down.
Eagleton's book sounds interesting. I will buy it. That is one of the most profound failures of the atheists on this board- you had the opportunity to convince me not to. The tenor of the discourse here convinced me Eagleton has a big point. That should give some of the atheists here pause.
of terry ("so, that's why god had that guy kill his son to prove
his loyalty.") "which "guy" would that be, exactly?"
I'm sure it's the Abraham - Isaac story, conveniently forgetting
that the Christian god did the same to his "only begotten son"
By the way, here's how a Jew deconstructs that famous passage (John
3:16 - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life.")
"God loves you SO much, he killed his kid - and if you believe
that, you get to spend eternity with that Psycho-Killer". Is it any
wonder that those who could equate that with "Love" are the authors
of holocausts throughout the world.
An amusing exercise in all this is imagining who were originally
Catholics, who Protestants - it leaves a definite scar, that early
inculcation.
To Pilgrim and others:
The process by which people are socialized into a culture is one by which their "free will" is constrained and many "options" are eliminated to the point of becoming invisible and / or impossible. It is not merely a matter of "could one do otherwise".
For an elegant exploration of the matter I suggest Daniel Dennett's "Elbow Room"
"First off, I'd like to ask the Salon editors why they are so scared of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and their ilk. There must be a reason because it seems like hardly a month goes by when some sort of acceptable "Christian," i.e. someone who isn't a fundamentalist, isn't given a soap box to challenge the hateful and just downright mean trinity of atheism."
I think it all comes down to Democrat political manoeuvering. Alienating people of faith is not admittedly good for winning at the polls, but the cost to Salon's intellectual credibility is well pretty much exemplified by O'Hehir's shameless cheerleading in this 'book review'.
It also probably has to do with Joan Walsh's friendship with Anne Lamott. Walsh just loves her hippy, dreadlocked liberal-Christian gal-pal and can't stand to see her empty-headed, inconsistent notion of faith knocked on its ass by meanies like Hitch. Hence the parade of Karen Armstrong, Chris Hedges and now Eagleton to offer endless apologetics for the faithful and to pillory the atheists.
