Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Atheist fundamentalists on how to proselytize

Modern atheism increasingly looks more like a personality disorder than an intellectual movement. Unlike the secular philosophers of old, who at least bothered to grasp the fundamentals of the religion they rejected, many today have little to no grasp of the basics at best, frequently site contorted or distorted 'facts' to justify their beliefs at worst. Add to this the type of evangelistic zeal that, when practiced by fundamentalists of a religious nature, is immediately condemned with scorn and ridicule, and you have a group of people guaranteed to make your average flower wilt from the weight of their lack of self righteousness. Not that there aren't good, thoughtful, insightful atheists. There are. They just don't have the best selling books and, lacking the hatred for the right religions to hate, fail to get the appropriate media attention. Nonetheless, when you read about atheists trying figure out in a calm manner just how obnoxious they should be, it must be clear that we're dealing with a group that sounds great to itself, and stunningly unaware of itself to everyone else.


  1. Did you even read the article, or just comment on the headline? It says that the debate was at times heated, and centered on how to approach dealing with religion. It appears to me that you have no ability to grasp what is being written. You see something in a headline and then post a knee-jerk response. If you think that secularists, who are actually quite diverse, are being obnoxious merely for pointing out the fallacies of religious belief, then you don't grasp the topic, nor do you appear willing to try.

  2. troyson,
    If I were an atheist, I would be more concerned with the intellectually vacuous arguments and endless straw men to which the current leaders of the movement appear confined. P.Z. Meyers says he has reason and science on his side? Does he mean science has proven atheism is true? That's news for Richard Dawkins. And if it isn't, does he understand the limitations of the scientific method? Personally, I find most of the modern atheist movement to be hot air and shallow arguments that are only good for those who are intellectually incapable of coming up with points to support their beliefs regarding the absence of a divine being.

  3. Maybe you could give an example of a vacuous argument. Or better yet, maybe you could provide a rational argument for believing in some superman in the sky who controls our lives.

  4. Since I don't believe in a Superman in the sky, I see no reason to defend the idea. I think that modern atheists would do better if they dealt with the actual beliefs of religion. Otherwise they merely display their own ignorance.


Let me know your thoughts