the real motive

preoccupation

Question:: 
Is it not true that a fundamental strategy of the "atheist" is to neutralize the theists in service of a larger objective: to erase a sick preoccupation with the theme altogether? If so, aren't we sinking to their level? Obama won not by calling the guy names in return but by a more holistic argument that rendered McCain small and pitiful.
Atheist Answer: 

I'm gonna say no.

Religion is hardly an unjustifiable preoccupation when it attempts to pervade so many aspects of life: politics, education, civil rights, foreign relations and so on. Anyone who supports the separation of church and state can combat the above. To those of us who also think each religion is labouring under a false premise, though, it's doubly sad that they have such power.

Obama made positive arguments, sure, but he called Republicans out when they accused him of associating with terrorists, perpetrating voter fraud, being a Muslim, etc. Atheists are the targets of similar smears: that we have no morals, that we want to outlaw religion, that we want to take children away from religious parents, even that we're Satanists. Too many people are willing to swallow this stuff hook, line and sinker for us to stay silent.

Further, Obama generally criticised the Republican administration as a whole, not McCain himself. He went on and on about what a disaster "the last eight years" had been. Similarly, rather than insult theists we try to attack religion itself, encouraging people to abandon it and become non-theists (like Obama's call for Republicans to vote Democrat). I can't speak for all atheists, but we do try to reserve personal vitriol for those who constantly use it against us, if only to show them up as hypocrites.

In short, we are not mounting unprovoked attacks. We are defending ourselves against a huge body of anti-atheist propaganda. Sometimes, the best defence is a good offence.

- SmartLX

Syndicate content