<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The “militant” atheists are guilty of … poor etiquette?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bnfree.com/the-%e2%80%9cmilitant%e2%80%9d-atheists-are-guilty-of-%e2%80%a6-poor-etiquette/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bnfree.com/the-%e2%80%9cmilitant%e2%80%9d-atheists-are-guilty-of-%e2%80%a6-poor-etiquette/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-%25e2%2580%259cmilitant%25e2%2580%259d-atheists-are-guilty-of-%25e2%2580%25a6-poor-etiquette</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:43:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Happy Skeptic</title>
		<link>http://www.bnfree.com/the-%e2%80%9cmilitant%e2%80%9d-atheists-are-guilty-of-%e2%80%a6-poor-etiquette/comment-page-1/#comment-260</link>
		<dc:creator>Happy Skeptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:27:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bnfree.com/?p=416#comment-260</guid>
		<description>These are both (The blog and Ken&#039;s comment) interesting perspectives and each draws me for some reasons.  I&#039;m simply matter of fact about it and end up very surprised when people are not aware of it [my Atheism].</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These are both (The blog and Ken&#8217;s comment) interesting perspectives and each draws me for some reasons.  I&#8217;m simply matter of fact about it and end up very surprised when people are not aware of it [my Atheism].</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ken</title>
		<link>http://www.bnfree.com/the-%e2%80%9cmilitant%e2%80%9d-atheists-are-guilty-of-%e2%80%a6-poor-etiquette/comment-page-1/#comment-258</link>
		<dc:creator>ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bnfree.com/?p=416#comment-258</guid>
		<description>It is possible to be a religionist and reject organized religion, depending on how one defines religionist. The Transcendentalist movement with seminal figures like Emerson and Thoreau is an example. So is the deism of Jefferson and Thomas Paine. One can have a religious sensibility without struggling to construct creedal statements which need to be taken on faith. A suspicion of the transcendent rather than rigidly held doctrines may be sufficient to inform one&#039;s life. Neither is there a necessity to rely on some traditional or hierarchical authority to buttress these views. Poets do this all the time. 
Basically, atheism is not a moral position and has nothing to say on the subject. As others have pointed out, it exists solely in reference to the question of God&#039;s existence or non-existence. There it begins and ends. Like believers, atheists can be snooty, self-centered, obnoxious, ill-informed and intolerant, and as history informs us millions have been exterminated by political regimes based on materialism and atheism (China, USSR, etc.). Therefore, it has no relationship with humanism or ethics, although skeptics may imagine it does. 
Why biologists have become the &quot;go to&quot; people for the final say on all aspects of the human condition mystifies me. Thirty years ago it was Carl Sagan and the astronomers who enchanted and mesmerized us. I suspect the biologist&#039;s focus on human biology to the exclusion of all else is the most likely reason for our enthusiasm, in light of the fact that no other species is as self-absorbed as we are, unless you happen to be a shark or a jackal. 
I would no more consider Richard Dawkins an authority on religion than I would consider my plumber an authority on quantum physics. Specialists are the least trustworthy people to put any faith in (forgive me) outside their area of specialization. This should be apparent to anyone who has ever dealt with such people in the medical profession, or in academia. In fact most of them are doofuses who wouldn&#039;t survive a day in this world were it not for the fact that society has fortunately constructed stolid, well funded institutions as safe havens to enhance the specialist&#039;s chances for survival.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is possible to be a religionist and reject organized religion, depending on how one defines religionist. The Transcendentalist movement with seminal figures like Emerson and Thoreau is an example. So is the deism of Jefferson and Thomas Paine. One can have a religious sensibility without struggling to construct creedal statements which need to be taken on faith. A suspicion of the transcendent rather than rigidly held doctrines may be sufficient to inform one&#8217;s life. Neither is there a necessity to rely on some traditional or hierarchical authority to buttress these views. Poets do this all the time.<br />
Basically, atheism is not a moral position and has nothing to say on the subject. As others have pointed out, it exists solely in reference to the question of God&#8217;s existence or non-existence. There it begins and ends. Like believers, atheists can be snooty, self-centered, obnoxious, ill-informed and intolerant, and as history informs us millions have been exterminated by political regimes based on materialism and atheism (China, USSR, etc.). Therefore, it has no relationship with humanism or ethics, although skeptics may imagine it does.<br />
Why biologists have become the &#8220;go to&#8221; people for the final say on all aspects of the human condition mystifies me. Thirty years ago it was Carl Sagan and the astronomers who enchanted and mesmerized us. I suspect the biologist&#8217;s focus on human biology to the exclusion of all else is the most likely reason for our enthusiasm, in light of the fact that no other species is as self-absorbed as we are, unless you happen to be a shark or a jackal.<br />
I would no more consider Richard Dawkins an authority on religion than I would consider my plumber an authority on quantum physics. Specialists are the least trustworthy people to put any faith in (forgive me) outside their area of specialization. This should be apparent to anyone who has ever dealt with such people in the medical profession, or in academia. In fact most of them are doofuses who wouldn&#8217;t survive a day in this world were it not for the fact that society has fortunately constructed stolid, well funded institutions as safe havens to enhance the specialist&#8217;s chances for survival.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dee long</title>
		<link>http://www.bnfree.com/the-%e2%80%9cmilitant%e2%80%9d-atheists-are-guilty-of-%e2%80%a6-poor-etiquette/comment-page-1/#comment-257</link>
		<dc:creator>dee long</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bnfree.com/?p=416#comment-257</guid>
		<description>Very provacative article. I love the part about buying peace at the price of invisibilty and silence.  We non-believers have done the world irrepable harm by lying down and letting these misguided and often bigoted people run over us.  Now is the time!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very provacative article. I love the part about buying peace at the price of invisibilty and silence.  We non-believers have done the world irrepable harm by lying down and letting these misguided and often bigoted people run over us.  Now is the time!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

