The Loathing of Christianity by the "New" Atheists

Tonight is the night of the big debate between two Christian evangelists, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, against two atheists from the "Rational Response Squad."

In this newsletter link, Comfort states:

"The atheists made it very clear they didn't like what we said," Cameron explained. "They were full of mockery and sarcasm, belittling the many great scientists and intellectuals who recognize the existence of a Supreme Being. But the average American isn't viciously anti-God. In fact, polls show that more than 90 percent believe in His existence. Our hope is that the program will cause people to think deeply about the evidence presented, and challenge them to consider this most important issue of life."

How interesting it is to recognize, in advance, that the audience (which was comprised of fifty Christians and fifty atheists) reactions during the debate shows such a stark contrast between the two camps. The Christians were polite and respectful during the debate while the venomous and hateful atheists unloaded nothing but anger, mockery, and insults:

As per ABC's stipulations, the audience was composed half-and-half -- fifty Christians and fifty atheists. The Christians were very quiet and polite -- the atheists weren't. It was very apparent who was who in the audience. It seemed that no matter what we said, it was completely ignored by Brian and Kelly (the atheists) and then followed up with their anger, mockery, and insults. But as with a good open air, the heckler is simply a platform to speak to the crowd who is listening. In this case there is a crowd of millions who will hear clear, concise evidence for the existence of God. How incredible. So I am delighted, because of what we were able to say.

Found this article called The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it via Parabiodox's blog.

Author Madeleine Bunting concludes:

This isn't the kind of debate that the New Atheists are interested in (with the possible exception of Dennett, who in an interview last year was far more open to discussion than his book would indicate); theirs is a political battle, not an attempt to advance human understanding. But even on the political front, one has to question whether all the aggression isn't counterproductive. Robert Winston voiced increasing concern among scientists when he argued in a recent lecture in Dundee that Dawkins's insulting and patronising approach did science a disservice. Meanwhile, critics in America argue that the polarisation of the debate in the U.S. is setting the cause of non-deism back rather than advancing it.

Dawkins is an unashamed proselytiser. He says in his preface that he intends his book for religious readers and his aim is that they will be atheists by the time they finish reading it. Yet The God Delusion is not a book of persuasion, but of provocation - it may have sold in the thousands but has it won any souls? Anyone who has experienced such a conversion, please email me (with proof). I suspect the New Atheists are in danger of a spectacular failure. With little understanding and even less sympathy of why people increasingly use religious identity in political contexts, they've missed the proverbial elephant in the room. These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimised - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.

More info: Prepare for a Conflict: The Nightline Face-Off
No-Holds Barred Battle Over the Existence of God

HT's:

The Way of the Master.com

The Guardian.co.uk

Parabiodox blogspot