I realize you're inviting persons to come in and talk about it ... It's just if ATS live knew before hand how one sided the topic was going to be, why
The presentation of organized Atheists was pretty heavily blasted without defense. I don't think it's particularly your opinion that's the issue but
it was a bit like listening to the equivolent 100 lashes on a bare philosophical back.
Originally posted by neformore
I don't like the pettiness of "just because you've done something, we have to counter it with our own version".
There is a wider issue at stake here though, and religion has had a free ride for so long on it.
How often do we have to have the 'where do morals come from?' horse riding through the country side unopposed? You don't think it's a bit intimidating
that the Ten Commandments are sitting right out side the place in America where justice is done?
Nearly half of those commandments are mostly to do with God being jealous, taking names in vain, drawing pictures of him or her, and avoiding doing
your grocery shopping on a particular day. It isn't until half way down that we get into the 'do not kill' area. I think a human could come up with a
perfectly adequate better list.
Letting the religious (all religions) take full one hundred percent unopposed credit for morality and the advancements there of is a dangerous
precedent. To let any religious body claim that I rely on them is not acceptable to me. Religions didn't invent moral philosophy or free speech. In
fact, an Atheist in the west was one of the first to make a case for free speech and thought and it was religious people that rejected it. Further to
that, the first versions of freedom endorsed didn't extend to Atheists.
It isn't all petty or schoolyard. There's an element of it that's about truth or at least presenting a possible truth that should be acknowledged. The
fact that the majority of Americans wouldn't elect an Atheist President shows that, whilst not perfect, movements such as New Atheism aren't entirely
missing the point.
Without persons like Hitchens and Dawkins, I think things would be much worse. Even as Sam Harris distances himself from 'religious' like Atheists,
the person still supports there being less emphasis on the requirement for religion quite vigorously.
What does that achieve, exactly?
The answer is simple. Nothing.
A simple poll response of the number of Atheists out and about in America would disagree with this.
I'll stop here because I'm actually not intending this to be a full on debate or a crucifying of poor Nef.
All I'm saying is, that in the last couple of thousand characters I've made more of a talking point than the entire of the ATS studio did in that five
I understand persons may not have time to prepare for topics / probably aren't being paid / may be addressing topics that aren't interesting to them
... but if that's the case, I'd suggest that there are plenty of ATS'rs who would be happy to show up to do some talking! Or find a topic that will
warrant some better discussion back and forth, or the revealing of the topic in a fresh light.
Even as a confident Atheist I wasn't interested in taking the offered call-in discussion because I was expecting to be Bill O'Reily'd into next year.
edit on 11-6-2013 by Pinke because: I'm dyslexic