--- <s3raphita@...> wrote :
Re "But every so often, it's probably good to present the point of view of a more balanced atheist.": This "Cephus" is just setting up a straw man; then knocking him down and feeling pleased with himself. Just take a look at Richard Dawkins debating with the (former) Archbishop of Canterbury at Oxford University. You may or may not think that Dawkins has the better of Rowan Williams but Williams is clearly *not* stupid and doesn't employ any of the ten "statements" that Cephus castigates. One issue that strikes me about the difference between Barry and myself is that he's American; I'm English. And what kind of difference would that be? Well, in the USA, religion (including fundamentalist versions) is big - indeed it's big business. In the UK, religion is now marginal. It conjures up images of well-meaning but ineffectual Anglican vicars with little input into current societal changes. To me religion is harmless - rather sweet perhaps. Your statement is inherently absurd. Please maintain the distinction between Religion and Spiritualism. Religion is like a banana skin, spiritualism is the banana. Dogmatic, under-developed religions can be harmful. Generations of women suffered from guilt complex due to christian genesis story. To Barry the mention of "religion" triggers memories of some unresolved trauma from his childhood or adolescence. To Barry it's all about visceral emotion; to me it's all about sweet reason and nuanced reflection. Here's Dawkins/Williams in civilized debate . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq2f5TA2nCs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq2f5TA2nCs
