(August 19, 2014 at 2:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The OP asserts that atheists are rational and theists are irrational and somehow hampering humanity; is that also condescending?
I think, and I'm no philosopher, but can something not be shown to be rational or irrational? Could one not line up facts to support a conclusion and then call that conclusion rational as well as the reverse?
So I don't think asserting that one this is rational and another is not is condescending as it would imply that facts are rational or irrational and I don't believe that is a quality they can possess.
As for theists (I'm new to the term but I did look it up so I think I understand it now) being in some way a hamper or detriment to humanity is something that could be debated. I don't know if I possess the faculties to articulate such a debate with one such as yourself but I feel others might.
I suppose you would have to start with an agreement on how you define "hamper or detriment" and "humanity". If you could agree on those things then I believe debate to be possible.
If the individual who asserted that claim can defend it then is it condescending if it's defense is adequate and acceptable? I'm not sure, but it may be unpalatable, but I don't think that's the same thing as condescending.
