darth_ender said:
I don't mean this to be rude, but I find it a common tenet of many atheists that their rants are more about how others, most particularly Christians (at least in Christian majority countries), are wrong. I mean, my thread is dedicated to putting me on the defensive. I have deliberately taken a defensive role, inviting others to critique Mormonism. But it seems far too many atheists (and I will agree, too many religious people) feel it necessary to elevate their stance by criticizing those who disagree rather than letting their own merits speak for themselves. All three links you provide seem to fall exactly into that category. I can easily blame the blogger and not you. Don't fall into that trap yourself. Obviously you believe you are correct. Let atheism speak for itself.
I hope this came across properly.
This might be best understood within the context that the majority of current atheists likely either have religious relatives (who may possibly believe the atheist to be destined for damnation) or were once themselves religious. From such a perspective might it not make marked sense that the typical atheist apologetic should be less about a stand on atheism's merits (which may not actually exist in any great measure) as opposed to a seeming rant against the majority of 'mislead' believers?
For if one were to ascend the mount of atheism so as to look down upon all of the 'foolish' toiling believers who yet strive towards the impossible and improbable whilst denying themselves of the certain, is it truly a wonder that the logical assumption of the atheist might be, upon reaching such an apex, that such an arrival is a demonstration of mental prowess?
Yet should the atheist merely sit atop his mountain and make claim that his position is far superior (rather than stressing the inferiority of the position of his opponents) with what might he be expected to support such an argument? In making his apogee has he not stripped himself of supposed pretense; filled his heart with pride; and abandoned many former comrades along the way? What do such accomplishments attain that one might use to support a claim of a superior position?
Does he not share a similarity to the adolescent who has sacrificed the imagination of youth in favor of more tangible reality: instead of filling his days with wonder, hope and possibility, he must now reside within a more sober state in which his limitations must be keenly felt, his accomplishments belittled, and his expectation of a happy-ever-after truncated?
For what does the atheist possess that is so worthy of defense? So worthy of self-congratulations? Is not his position a solitary one? His discoveries self-effacing? The depths of his purposes made hollow?
For in seeking to plumb the extent of his existence has he not merely discovered that he is not, in fact, digging an all-important passageway through to the center of the Earth, but is, instead, merely playing with a plastic shovel in a sandbox? With such a reality firmly realized, what might the atheist stand proudly to defend?
