Merely being right is twisted into hurtful and twisted one moe time into charges of “phobia” or “hate”. It’s an old tactic that is wearing thin – the more this argument is exposed to the light of reason the weaker it gets.
For some reason, Salon is on a crusade to bash the hell out of atheists, living and dead. Their editors might want to question what the hell is going on (unless it’s a deliberate editorial decision), for the sequence of anti-atheist pieces is eroding the site’s credibility. It makes Salon look like an apologist for religion. And the latest atheist-bashing piece is particularly bad, because it’s not only written very poorly, but its argument is so incoherent that I can barely summarize it.
The new piece is by Sana Saeed, and although it might pain you to read it, it’s not too long, and I’m curious what readers make of it: “Richard Dawkins is so wrong it hurts: What the science-vs.-religion debate ignores.” Its point seems to be that there is no conflict between science and religion, but I don’t understand how Saeed’s arguments support that point.
Here’s Saeed’s profile from…
View original post 1,682 more words