Hey again all,
I have been away for a while, but I will admit that I missed you guys. I have been happening upon a lot of mainstream articles about atheism, and it's modern incantations, and I thought I would share one.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...religion/1
The article makes some strong points, and I found it quite pertinent. It is what I have been saying for some time, something I am sure I have said here before. That the bottom line is freedom of thought, and that "dogmatic" or "militant" atheists are crossing one of those very important lines by acting like the mentioned convention. To demand that others see the world as you do is the hallmark of fundamentalism. It is what turned many of us off of mainstream religion. That the article states that there was no mention of "Collaboration, compromise or shared ethical commitments" between our groups is telling.
It feels like some of these more hard line dogmatic atheists have been given a modern world that finally gives them freedom of choice, and so they step up to the plate and try to deny others the same freedom. I am sure some of you will say that atheism is based on "the facts", but I see no difference between fanatics on both sides. As I know I have said before, the problem is not belief or disbelief, it is fanaticism.
Dawkins new book was good as well, but isn't the argument that Genesis is not a accurate account a very, very long dead horse? I live in the secular north, but I can't think of anyone I know that tries to "deny evolution". At least he is taking smaller bites now.
Any ways, thanks for listening. I hope I am still welcome here, and look forward to your responses.
The,
-Pip
I have been away for a while, but I will admit that I missed you guys. I have been happening upon a lot of mainstream articles about atheism, and it's modern incantations, and I thought I would share one.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...religion/1
The article makes some strong points, and I found it quite pertinent. It is what I have been saying for some time, something I am sure I have said here before. That the bottom line is freedom of thought, and that "dogmatic" or "militant" atheists are crossing one of those very important lines by acting like the mentioned convention. To demand that others see the world as you do is the hallmark of fundamentalism. It is what turned many of us off of mainstream religion. That the article states that there was no mention of "Collaboration, compromise or shared ethical commitments" between our groups is telling.
It feels like some of these more hard line dogmatic atheists have been given a modern world that finally gives them freedom of choice, and so they step up to the plate and try to deny others the same freedom. I am sure some of you will say that atheism is based on "the facts", but I see no difference between fanatics on both sides. As I know I have said before, the problem is not belief or disbelief, it is fanaticism.
Dawkins new book was good as well, but isn't the argument that Genesis is not a accurate account a very, very long dead horse? I live in the secular north, but I can't think of anyone I know that tries to "deny evolution". At least he is taking smaller bites now.
Any ways, thanks for listening. I hope I am still welcome here, and look forward to your responses.
The,
-Pip
