Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
True, and deists were looked down upon as as bad as atheists at one point by Christians, but now they're more buddy buddy.
During the Kansas trial for the stickers in textbooks about evolution, the Christians were always talking about the atheists this, the atheists that, when some of the most compelling testimony against intelligent design was given by a Christian, while on the flip side one of the star witnesses for intelligent design rejects a young earth and accepts an old earth and common descent; to things the Kansas Christians attribute to the "evil atheist agenda to corrupt our children"! But he wasn't referred to as an atheist...
I agree it is about context, and I think labels can get in the way a great deal. That's why I'd rather use the words as they are defined, and if there's something else to discuss, then discuss that. Many times people argue against "atheists" when in fact they're arguing against philosophical naturalism, or against nihilism, or something else.
|
I actually find it kind of worrying that science has been taken up by the more militant crusading atheists (haha, see how easy labels are?), specifically Dawkins. It categorizes science as aggressive and confrontational. Worse, it makes it look like an ideology, when all science is is a state of mind, a cognitive tool that best tells us about our physical surroundings and history.
The categories of atheism are quite fascinating. Hitchens is like a libertarian. His only reason for hating religion is that it amounts to a fantasy of a celestial North Korea.
It's always interesting to learn why people believe what they believe.