What I don't understand -- on either the believers' side or the atheists' side -- is this compulsion to "defend their faith," or their lack thereof. It seems *completely* ego-driven to me, almost as insane as someone declaring that their view -- and only their view -- of vaccination is RIGHT, and anyone disagreeing with it is WRONG.
And there are actually a few facts in the case of vaccination; there are none with regard to the existence or non-existence of a God. It's a BELIEF, people. Or the lack of one. Get over it. There is no need to "argue" for one's point of view, or to try to "convert" someone to believe it. That is the very stuff of ego, and of a *lack* of comfort with one's beliefs. Evangelism is a sign of weakness, not strength. I roll my eyes at the in-your-face atheists as much as I do at the in-your-face believers. BOTH are just acting out a seemingly eternal "ME, ME, ME...*I* am RIGHT, and if you disagree, you're WRONG" soap opera. And I, for one, just don't get it. What ever happened to -- if someone asks -- explaining what you believe or don't believe, and then LEAVING IT THERE? No need for argument (especially about something that can never be proved one way or another), no need to assert dominance or superiority, no need to try to bolster one's shaky "faith" by trying to "convert" someone to share it. All of that stuff is so PETTY in my opinion. If you feel compelled to *declare* your faith or lack thereof, why not just do so, in a single article or post, and then STFU? If others dispute it or disagree with it, they are free to respond with a single article or post or comment themselves. This would be the way that sane people would address issues that *can never be resolved*. But to ARGUE? I'm tempted to repeat a story I've probably (being an old fart who occasionally repeats himself) told before, how the first arrival of Europeans was seen by the Japanese. Their history books refer to this period as the "Arrival of the Barbarians." And WHY? Primarily because of this issue of attempting to argue or force one's faith on other people. That was an extreme No-No in feudal Japan. One believed what one believed, mainly kept it to oneself, and allowed others to do the same. It was *unthinkable* to try to "convert" someone to your set of beliefs or lack thereof. Then the barbarians arrived, with their European (and Catholic) sensibilities, and tried (often using violence and torture) to convert the people they considered "heathens" to believe the same things they did. Suffice it to say that the Japanese were unimpressed, and after a short "trial period" of dealing with these barbarians, banned them from their shores for some centuries, until a fleet of gunships made them (again, using force) to reconsider. I know that this complaint about arguing is a recurring theme with me, but hey!, it's a recurring theme on this forum. There are some here who are SO addicted to arguing and trying to assert their dominance that they like to pretend that argumentation is the *only* way that people can or should interact. I suggest they have it wrong, and that it's the *only* way that THEY can interact with other people. For them, everything's always gotta be about ME, and what *I* believe or assert, and any deviation with that is viewed as a slap in the face, a challenge to participate in a duel. I think it's silly, and juvenile, and based on overblown ego and addiction to one's attachments. I wish they'd fuckin' grow up and get over it, already. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Re "Atheists," you'll be happy to know, is spelled correctly in the article.": > > Indeed - but only after a reader's comment alerted the sub editor to the error! > > Yes, I understand Francis Spufford's exasperation with Dawkins and co. Of course, part of the problem Christians have with the New Atheists is that they - the Christians - have insisted on a literal interpretation for so long that it seems evasive when they now back-pedal to a more "existential" defence of the Faith. > > You've read GK Chesterton's essay "The Ethics of Elfland" haven't you? If not, please do. It's short and sweet and I'm sure would drive Dawkins completely bonkers. His view of Christianity is very much this-world centred (rather than other-worldly) but is very far from being pessimistic. It's actually rather cheerful, which is what "Gospel" (Good News) should be. > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: > > Seraphita, you may enjoy this article: > > http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/31/trouble-with-athiests-defen\ ce-of-faith?CMP=twt_gu http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/31/trouble-with-athiests-defen\ ce-of-faith?CMP=twt_gu > > ("Atheists," you'll be happy to know, is spelled correctly in the article.) > > It's by Francis Spufford, a countryman of yours--you may even know of him. His book "Unapologetic" was just released in the U.S. From several excerpts I've read various places on the Web and this piece in the Guardian, it looks to be an informal, highly personal defense of Christianity (Anglican flavor). I'm tempted to buy it. See what you think. >
