This thread is fascinating, as is the article Kade posted. The article itself was a bit sensational, to be honest. It was designed to appeal to atheists, likely written by an atheist. There is nothing wrong with that, but it could hardly be taken as exhaustive or objective. Again, as it is an opinion piece, there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
However, I take some exception to the notion that
...an intellectually free America, as intended by our founders, remerges[sic] as more and more atheist/agnostic freethinkers come out of the closet and stand against theism’s last bigoted prejudicial stronghold of intolerance.
I would reason that in "an intellectually free America," atheists and theists could live side by side, sharing, tolerating, and even intermixing their ideas. The implied premise that intellectual freedom requires atheism is rather tired, I think. I also find the notion that said premise was articulated by the founders rather far-fetched.
Indeed, I believe the founders to be a shining example of rational theism. Acting upon humanist and core Abrahamic principles, the founders crafted possibly one of the finest of all human documents. Would that the author would recognize this.
I was amused at how many negatives the author managed to tack onto the final sentence. "
...last bigoted prejudicial stronghold of intolerance." My, what a mouthful.
The last sentences of an article are of disproportional import. They are the last words digested before the reader can reflect on the full writing, and, unconsciously or not, often comprise a restatement of the paper's core thesis. I find the argument - his thesis - that bare theism promotes bigoted, prejudicial intolerance rather...one-dimensional.
In short, the author seems as intolerant as those who are intolerant towards him. I feel that the
rational approach would be to set aside invective and emotion and investigate what precisely causes such a divide. Perhaps if the causes were identified, the friction could be lessened by dialogue and conversation. Maintaining a collectivist view of the situation, as in so many disparate cases, only serves to exacerbate tensions. There are always individuals who do not fit neatly into the artificial constructs of the author's imagining, and it is they who emerge from the faults of his logic to poke holes, merely by
existing, in his argument.
If the author, who professes the possession of an open and free mind, can so willfully package all of theism in such an unflattering mold, what possible grounds does he have to reject the "bigoted," "prejudicial," and "intolerant" theists who transgress his belief in a like manner?
I will disclose that I am a Muslim myself; you readers can judge whether theism has blinkered my rationality.
Having said that, I am saddened by some of the other posts on here. Are no theists curious as to what caused a particular atheist to reject the notion of divinity? Are no atheists curious as to why or how theists can accept a premise they feel is absurd?
The death of curiosity is the death of reason. One cannot merely inform himself, nor can he sample only those ideas which are in concordance with his own; the perspective of those foreign to him is required in the formulation of any objective frame.
Still, threads like this are the reason I frequent this wonderful place :o
What sophistry.
