Do you wish there's a god?

[Acrobat]

Laying aside passive cultural christians, fundie evangelists are the predominant type of contemporary christian in most of the boards life, so it's pretty much a given that the majority of comments are going to swirl around them. I guess it might take a decoder ring, but for the most part..the folks here aren't bothered by christians™..so when they launch into some complaint they're thinking specifically of the sorts of dirtbag christians that everyone recognizes for a dirtbag, including other christians.

Here's an interesting question, though.  What is it that makes people see them as low hanging fruit relative to the likes of..say, Aquinas?  Aquinas was no more or less a nut than the common contemporary.  Thomist christianity is no more or less compelling than fundie evangelism. OFC theology gives insight into people..it's a story about people, not gods. Those insights aren't always flattering, at best they describe something better described elsewhere and else wise..at worst, they serve to buttress absurd doctrinal commitments and present no insight beyond this whatsoever.

What makes people imagine that some faiths luminaries are any more credible than the common joe on the street? Is this anything more than an attempt to transfer the assumed reputation of an individual human being to the contents of their faith? How well deserved are those reputations, if that's the case?

You ever argue with a fundie about the things that they don’t believe in? That’s sort of like what arguing with your typical atheist on the internet is like. Such atheists are not merely arguing against fundie arguments, but their atheism itself is formed in relationship to such arguments. Even worse, they don’t even seem to understand evangelicals all that much either. I doubt a single fundie evangelical would ever suggest, as I have for someone like Belaqua, that he seems to understand a great deal about things I believe. But rather that atheists primary rely on caricatures of theistic views.

The difference between faith “luminaries” and the common joe on the street, is that the former has spent more time thinking through their beliefs, than the common joe. Sort of like one might say of a newly minted teenage atheist, fresh out rebelling against their religious parents, and the sort that attempt to think through various atheistic worldviews. What do such atheists luminaries, offer that the teenage angst atheists types don’t? More considered thoughts, ideas to think over, a conversation more reflective, than just flinging feces at each other.

An ideal conversation, for me isn’t so much as an argument, or as combative as the sort of conversations that take place here, which appear more like games, and dick measuring contest, than anything else (which can be amusing on occasions). But one where people engage their beliefs, think through various criticism, reflect honesty, in order for people to form better understandings of themselves and others. This in short supply in theist vs atheist conversations. Two people spend most of their time talking past each other, or looking for a cheap quip to get kudos from their respective choirs.