JimC wrote:rasetsu wrote:
If atheism is a rational doctrine or idea, it doesn't depend on the saintlihood of past atheists for its force and authority. It is its own authority, independent of what any specific atheists may have done in the past.
A fair point indeed, but it is not the whole story. Typically, religious ranters go down this path by ascribing some evil of the past to atheists, but not just because of their human failings, but because their atheism was the driving force behind those evil deeds.
We already have many examples of evil deeds perpetrated in the name of religion; they would like to even the score...
Oh indeed. But I would suggest that it is a mistake to turn aside of any truth, solely for a tactical advantage, or to cover one's flank. I don't know what to name a person who does this, but they have sown the seeds of their own defeat.
I was surprised at the response to my argument. I was expecting to be disappointed.
To be blunt, the completion of the entire argument lies in some matters of ethics I haven't completely tied together. I think I have all the pieces I need now (strangely enough, thanks to William Lane Craig, of all people), but I am no ethicist, and my life is driven by other priorities than the thinking these days. And much like here, if I were to attempt to lead, too many would turn aside before reaching the destination. C'est la vie. I will die, and another will rediscover this path. Or perhaps, it will simply be discarded because of obstacles that
I cannot see. That's the genius of our species. As Armstrong said, "One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind" — the small steps, the steps taken by individuals, tend to cancel out; it's the giant leaps of groups of like kind that propels the engine of progress.