Interesting article that apparently comes out tomorrow…?
I just don't understand how people miss Sam's message and try to twist the words of what he's saying. "Extend an olive branch" ...HELLO. That's what he's doing with Conversational Intolerance.
People are still clinging to the idea that god exists - and so they are CHOOSING to not understand the argument. If you can't seperate your belief for a 15 minute conversation about - mythology, theology, philosophy, etc ...Then by your own devices, you're not going to "hear" the argument.
People are saying he's attacking everyone as if they're fundamentalists and that he should be teaming up with moderates. #1, No he's not. And #2, I disagree - what he is doing is putting true perspective out there that has elevated the conversation - some just either can't attain that height or choose not to.
Either way, if you don't understand the argument your thinking is still blinded by religion and/or faith. How many times do people have to make the connection between Zeus, Ra, Satnam, Appolonius, etc. before people understand that ALL GODS ARE MANMADE. After a period of time, they are all relegated to MYTHS and legends. Simply put, cultural icons.
So, we do away with the term "atheist" - we concede we're not trying to disprove the Biblical god anymore than we're trying to disprove Zeus or Allah. We're simply saying that with hundreds upon hundreds of religions created over the history of mankind - there is something spiritual about our existence, that does not need to be found in a holy book - it's already within us.
There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist" because how can you be a fundamental extremist about observation, evidence and rationality? One side of the debate concedes that god exists even before the argument starts. The other side of the debate says that there are a multitude of holy books on hand, all with different dogmas and creators - so why must we start the conversation with the #1 principle being that god "already" exists…?
The burden of proof lies at the hands of the believer - not the skeptic.