Suddenly I feel a great deal of sympathy for the Sorry Trinity

[fpb]

Yes, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins. Have a look at this article and tell me whether, apart from the acceptable closing paragraph, it does not contain the worst arguments against atheistic politicians you ever read: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/04/09/americans_are_right_to_resist_an_atheist_as_president. Personally, I cannot think of a reason why an atheist should not be a national leader, except for the purely practical one that almost every atheist I meet is made in the image and likeness of the Sorry Trinity - obsessional, ignorant and intolerant. But unless you can write better arguments than Medved manages, then - remember the proverb? Better shut up and look like a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Comments

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

That's just odd.

There’s a difference between an atheist, however, and a Mormon or a Jew – despite the fact that the same U.S. population (about five million) claims membership in each of the three groups. For Mitt and Joe, their religious affiliation reflected their heritage and demonstrated their preference for a faith tradition differing from larger Christian denominations. But embrace of Jewish or Mormon practices doesn’t show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority, but affirmation of atheism does.

I don't understand how being an atheist = showing contempt for Christians. What if someone was "born into" atheism, and was raised by atheist parents? If he converts, he's showing contempt for his heritage, right?

For instance, Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed atheist honor this achievement? If he avers (like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris) that belief in God makes no more sense than belief in the Tooth Fairy, then how could he honor a great American for a lifetime of work in promulgating a silly and destructive myth?

Why would the President need to honor Billy Graham? Why should the President, any President, congratulate a guy on his proselytizing? I don't understand his arguments at all, beyond the usual assumption that atheists are somehow fundamentally bad people.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Like I said, Medved would have done himself a world of good by not publishing this. And I say this as an opponent of atheism.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Pride goeth before a fall.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

But, you know, I can't really attack this article as I probably am what you and Medved hate - an atheist and a nihilist.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Where did you get the impression that I hate you?

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

I don't think you hate me in particular, but you called atheists up there "obsessional, ignorant, and intolerant" which might describe me. I don't know.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I said that the Sorry Trinity were thus, and that most of those I meet online are thus. I certainly do not think you are one, and I think you would be horrified to see what passes for atheism in Britain.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

I don't really know a whole lot of atheists, let alone British atheists, but I understand that most Brits are the sort of nonpracticing Christians who would probably be considered atheists in America.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Most British are not Christian and have been socialized to hate and fear what they call "organized religion". This does not make all of them atheist - although the number of ranting, proselytzing, fanatical atheists is remarkably high: remember, two out of three of the Sorry Trinity, Hitchens and Dawkins, are British - but it makes them amazingly wayward in their thinking and profoundly incompetent in their arguing. Their ideas about religion are not only fanatical but astonishingly ignorant and stupid. Religion discussion threads on British blogs, as compared to American and Italian, are of a very low intellectual level, because they come from people unusued to debate on that issue. (The same people may often turn out to be a lot more intelligent on politics, sports, economy or even science.) At the same time, you cannot make them shut up about it. If you take an American or Italian blog on religious issues, you may be sure that nearly every one of the commenters will be in sympathy with the blog's basic religious stance: Catholic blogs will draw Catholics or people interested in Catholicism, Jewish blogs will draw Jews or people interested in Hebraism, Evangelical blogs.... you get it. And this has an interesting effect: because of the general constructive atmosphere and relative shortage of trolls, an outsider coming in will often feel a general sense of constructive engagement that may draw him/her in even if s/he does not share the local views, or at least give a picture of why and how this attitude can be felt to be reasonable and make sense. On a British Catholic or Anglican blog - and I have the examples to prove it - from a half to two thirds of all interventions will be made by atheistic trolls: always the same people, obsessional, sickening, coming back comment after comment with the same everlasting dreary hate-ridden jingle, hijacking the thread no matter what it was on - religion is superstition - you ought all to follow reason - your minds are diseased - etc. etc. Such are the fruits of bad education. It is impossible to understand what these people get out of days, weeks, months of sabotaging other people's discussions and repeating without imagination, insight or interest their sorry message of ignorance and hate, except for one thing: that religion is something that affects them so intensely that they simply cannot leave it alone, they must come back again and again. They would say it is in the hope that someone will be converted to their way of thinking, but the truth is that the mere existence of Christians sickens them so intensely that they cannot keep away. It is the kind of thing that you cannot either cope with or keep away from.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

Only by people who don't know the meaning of the word atheist.