A friend has started blogging. I respect his intellect. Since I've known him, he has migrated from Atheist to Agnostic to Deist. Some would think that I would have a problem with this, but I do not. Unlike the "New Atheist" movement, I am not evangelical about atheism. The concept of atheism should be self evident to those who are ready for it. If your intellectual process leads you to deism, or even belief in the Christian Gods, so be it. I will only speak out when fundamentalism becomes an issue.
My deist blogging friend is finding his voice now, and it is a powerful voice already. He takes on Wired's "The Church of Non-believers" in a recent post.
The New Atheists tend to define the ideological conflict as being between the Brights and the Dims, the Rationalists and Superstitious. Dawkins has argued that parents should be forbidden from teaching religion to their children. I would tend to define the most important ideological divide as being between the Relativists and the Absolutists. Between those who believe that we should live and let live and Those Who Know What’s Best.
Source: Front Toward Enemy
I would like to encourage the Atheist community to drop in at Front Toward Enemy to read the post. Leave your thoughts, start a dialog, or even better, post and link. FTE is on to something - Is the New Atheism movement fundamentalism by another name? Does the position of moderate religion enabling fundamentalism ring true? Does Dawkins call to do away with all religion make any sense?
I've always been a skeptic. Skepticism lead me away from Christianity, and serves to keep me safe in the marketplace of ideas. Something about what Dawkins and Harris is selling bothers me. The skeptic in me says question this too.
