I've noticed (a DUH! moment) that folks don't seem to like to have their beliefs challenged.

Over the past couple weeks I've been commenting on a blog started recently by an atheist. While I despise the atheist credo as much as fundamentalist faiths, I thought I'd give this chap an opportunity. I don't spend much energy online these days, as web content is not really very interesting to me. Especially the sophomoric musings of lazy wannabe intellectuals.

So I thought I'd see what this guy had to offer by poking at the places where he was just spouting atheist dogma, which is just as poisonous as radical Islamist and abortion clinic bombing fundamentalist Christian dogma. To make a short story shorter, this chap came unhinged at the following comment I posted:



So things are not fine then.

I certainly do not debate the merits of believing in oneself. I would
debate the merits of individuality in the Western sense, but I'm sure
you'll tackle that in another post.

I've been noodling over this post and wondering what the point is.
Honestly, not to be dull-witted, but I still kinda must be missing the
main point, as I do not find the stop and think about it moment here.

What I have come up with, though, is a thought about a friend of mine
from college, who I no longer keep in touch with. We called him "Sh#t
House Rat" because we determined that he was crazier than one. He
embraced this name. He was born again and incredibly intelligent. (Not
necessary mutually exclusive, you know. Einstein's downfall was his
faith, too, arguably one of the brightest minds to ever exist). He went
to naturopathic medical school in Arizona (I can't remember the name -
Southwest, I think). After two years in the program, he dropped out,
went back home to become a preacher in Pittsburgh (or somewhere
thereabouts).

When we were undergrads in San Diego, we'd often debate the merits of
the New Testament and whether things were real or mythical in the Bible.
Often times, I would make him physically ill. How, you ask? Because I
would confront his faith head on with things he could not deny, yet
clashed with his beliefs.

My point here is that obviously, our debates had no impact other than to
perhaps strengthen his resolve. The willingly deluded are not easily
swayed by the truth (have you been around since 2000? Have you been
paying attention?). In fact, when confronted with the truth, they
retreat further into their fantasy or lash out (witness abortion clinic
bombings, Pat Robertson's rantings).

I posit that scoffing only helps you feel superior, which is really
contrary to the point of trying to build community.
Let's tackle ritual some other time. I would like to show you that
ritual is very important and without it you become less human and more
robotic, which if that is your goal, fine, but I'd like to think that
you are after a more sentient reality than that.

I won't argue for dogma, because the unexamined life is not worth
living. And I think superstition is fun. Right Ganesha?

Looks to me as though the atheist is closer to my friend Sh#t House Rat than he'd like to admit.