Maybe you’re overestimating how reasonable atheists are or how effective reasonable people can be.
These sort of questions remind me an interesting book I read years ago. It’s not what most atheists want to hear but it gives realistic description of the situation.
Perhaps we are still animal?
Or perhaps the human animal craves power and control, which is what the Dominionists want- power and control over people with the use of their ideology.
Humans are animals. Exactly what I said.
I think I’ve heard of that book. I doubt it says that atheists are not reasonable or ineffective. I agree with this, from the description,
Drawing on the latest research and illustrating his argument with commonsense examples, McCauley argues that religion has existed for many thousands of years in every society because the kinds of explanations it provides are precisely the kinds that come naturally to human minds. Science, on the other hand, is a much more recent and rare development because it reaches radical conclusions and requires a kind of abstract thinking that only arises consistently under very specific social conditions. Religion makes intuitive sense to us, while science requires a lot of work.
Yup it is a coded message.
But we can leave it at that. 
You were the inspiration, not the recipient. 
I deleted because this comment was actually in response to Coffee.
Seems so convoluted and in the end it really doesn’t explain much, it’s rambling.
I like things straight forward, I’m an bit more pragmatic and down to Earth.
Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.
Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.
What’s the point?
Science, religions, heaven, hell, political beliefs, even God, they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.
Yes! That’s always possible and you’re right to mention it here. Everyone has biases. I do try to remain aware of my biases.
What’s important to this thread is that I am trying to point out how ineffective reasonable people are in today’s world. I look at trump and his insane antics. I see the swarms of people attracted to his rallies. I see how truly stupid they are in their hatred of anyone not white, christian, straight, and 'merican. A reasonable person stands absolutely no chance of convincing them that trump is very, very bad for a democracy. Reason is powerless with them.
While I have not read that specific book, I have studied Gesell. The book you refer to is based on Gesell’s works. While Gesell began (I think) the nature vs nurture comparisons in the '20s, Piaget performed similar maturation studies in the '60s and pretty much dominated academics during my studies.
Looking at my own maturation as well as those of the hundreds of middle schoolers I have taught (math/comp. Sci.), I agree with the premise that religion is more natural than science for a child to understand. Science is hard. It requires quantitative skills that are not readily available to most young minds - although it is amazing how “natural” it can be for a few of them.
But natural does not always mean better. The “natural” draw of religion to provide a fantasy of magical men and cartoon physics goes just so far. We have walked on the moon. We flew a “helicopter” on mars. Religion did not get us there. We had to evolve beyond the thousands of gods we have naturally imagined. Our relatively short lifespans mean that each of us has to continue to evolve beyond the make believe.
Okay. I’m sorry I missed the point. Me feel stupid.
I quoted from the description of a book linked by thatoneguy. I neither endorse the book or the description or plan on reading it any time soon. Too many books, too little time. I quoted to show thatoneguy’s comment is inaccurate. I accept some critique of atheism, but he overstates it and probably misinterprets the book.
This is easily disproven. It is the attitude that the rich and powerful want us to take. Divided we are powerless against the top 5%. They only needed to separate us into two groups of 47.5 and keep us from accomplishing anything. We rolled over like dogs wanting their tummies rubbed and dutifully built our bubbles.
I’ve given up on my other volunteering, like feeding the chronically hungry because I kept running into political problems. My efforts are going to bridging the divide now.
Or, easily proven…
You have proven that a comedy show can find unreasonable people and make fun of them. This word “disproven”, I do not think you know what it means.
Yep, that’s true (except the definition part). But I also see the trump rallies, fox “news”, and I meet trump supporters I honestly can’t talk to. Where do I go for your disproof?
Here
Braver Angels: Seeking to de-polarize America - CBS News
This is not a magic formula that someone figured out 7 years ago. It uses classic skills of listening and empathy building. They got lucky, and found a way to create workshops and found others and it has grown rapidly. It’s not for everybody. It doesn’t have to be.
Also, me. I don’t know how far back the archives for CFI, but I was a Christian when I came here. Write4U might remember calling me a troll, but that was a long time ago. I was liberal, you know, a “good” Christian, but there was a lot I didn’t get. Then I changed.
Or there’s this guy.
Accidental Courtesy | Film about Daryl Davis Meeting KKK Members | Independent Lens | PBS
I was using that quote because it was a classic example of the confused phraseology, when there’s a much more succinct explanatory way of putting it.
There was no critique of you or atheism, I wasn’t even addressing that to you, it was to Coffee, because I’m curious what he thinks of the notion.
Well that and me simply showing that there’s a more succinct, dare I say constructive even, way to explain something profoundly fundamental.
I have mentioned the book here several times over the years. The book is about how atheists will always be fighting an uphill battle because religious belief comes naturally to us in a way that rationalism does not.
In other words, even if atheists are effective, that still isn’t enough.
I agree. What you want and what they want are totally different and there’s probably not any chance of finding common ground.
Fully agree. I’m repeating myself, but not everyone is into the same thing. A lot of people are just not interested in how far science can take us.
I don’t understand that. Practically everything you touch and see in your daily life is a product of science. How can someone not be interested in how this evolution continues?
We know that. The battle against unreasonableness is constant. Freedom isn’t free.