I fought back the urge to shed a tear for those poor, derided atheists of the past, as Pintopolis writes:
I’ve yet to hear a christian exhibit concern for the centuries of derision that many among them have pointed at atheists and non believers. When that bad habit can be acknowledged by those criticizing New Atheists then I’ll take the criticism of New Atheists seriously.
Why should they when the distrust on which their predecessors based that “derision” was completely justified by subsequent events? John Locke’s stunningly prescient recommendation in 1690 that atheists be individually tolerated, but not permitted a position of dominance over others may be the most accurate long-term political prediction in the history of Man.
I have no objection whatsoever to the hostile tone in which Dawkins and Harris have framed the debate. (They’re saying very little today that Meslier didn’t write in 1729.) I love that bright lines are being drawn. What the New Atheists don’t understand is that the derision they experienced before will be as nothing compared to what is coming. They will not be able to take the heat that is going to come at them from a thousand different directions, not with all their easily demonstrated logical errors and verifiable factual inaccuracies.
UPDATE – I suppose post-facto reconciliation isn’t all that bad, especially when it’s funny:
THE descendants of Papua New Guinea cannibals who killed and ate four Fijian missionaries in 1878 have apologised.
On second thought, don’t laugh. If PETA ever takes over, your descendents are going to be tearfully apologizing to cows, pigs and chickens.