- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
What your original screed was about was "A curse on both their houses" with scientists and religious leaders - ignoring that there is a case to answer.
As to Spoodles:
Spoodles, basically said that if the the universe was meaningless we would all be amoral monsters. That is what Spoodle's crap boils down to.
Which is to say that those of us who do not percieve a specific meaning to the universe, we are all go around eating babies.
And hey, if somebody takes that message and decides to go kill some heathens, well thats just a religious right fundie nutcase.
And you don't see any problem with that do you? The most you will do is claim I am "Building a straw man" while ignoring that this is precisely the product of religion's claims of morality.
All atheism boils down to is a lack of belief, the idea that hey, we don't know but we aren't just going to take the first answer that comes along.
But what do you have in America? You have the religious left telling everyone that atheists can't express wonder, be moral, or care about other people, and the religious right doing the same but with an added little aspect of trying to do something about these horrible atheists - who can't express wonder, be moral, or care about other people.
The essential argument between atheism and religion isn't actually about God. God has suprisingly little to do with it, that is just an argument over the evidence. The essential argument is that the religious don't want to admit that people don't need God to be good people.
That is why you have angry atheists. You sit there comfortably arguing that we are foaming at the mouth fundementalists - meanwhile it is not your humanity that is being denied by these pricks.
