"Faitheist" Crap

Yet another self-deluded putts with a messiah complex who happens to be an atheist is making the rounds. Not long ago Chris Stedman's book Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious was published and seem to find a small following almost immediately. It is a little baffling why ignorant fools like this get anywhere. Even though I have not read it and probably won't I have read a few reviews and have read/watched/listened to interviews of Stedman and a few of his devotees. He, like many before him, has apparently based most of his own views on both atheists and theists on a slew of myths and stereotypes.

Reread his book title. Notice anything? The implication is that atheists routinely fail to find common ground with those around them. This is based on what? He also specifically uses the word "Religious." Virtually every atheist I have ever come across does not have a problem with religious people. I and many others have issues with Religion. Religion, as in, the institution. I do not like the doctrines, hierarchy/leadership, and rites and rituals. One of Stedman's dip-shit acolytes went further by stating in a HuffPo piece: "There was no venue for atheists to join in interreligious dialogue, so Chris created a space where believers and atheists alike could share their stories, humanize one another, and promote pluralism among conflicting voices." If he had modified that statement by saying there was no "formal venue" he might have had a point. It would have been weak and rather debatable but it would not be the blatant lie that it is as worded. Atheists have family, friends, coworkers, who are believers. Have these fools deluded themselves to the point that they think the rest of us are some type of secular hermits? Of course, the topic sometimes comes up. It is also not unusual for atheists to work with theists towards common goals. We have always done that and always will.

That bring me to another aspect guys like Stedman never seem to get. They routinely pay lip service to "plurality" without ever being aware that there approach is self-defeating. They'll insist on "interfaith" cooperation without acknowledging that by definition and attitude atheists are being excluded or denigrated. I do not have faith. Atheists do not have faith. If we wanted that we wouldn't be atheists. Is it okay to tell African Americans that they can join a new Civil Rights movement if they first bleach their skin? Why should we find "common ground" on strictly religious terms? Finding common goals is actually pretty easy. How many people want others to suffer and die? We can build housing, push for cures to diseases, oppose the abuse of others all without a religious structure. That in no way implies that the religious can't remain religious. The insistence that religion should set the rules for cooperation seems to be a doomed approach. If people want to they can come together for a common purpose without any extra baggage. Want to stop child abuse? I know I do. Why can't we work together for that positive outcome. I won't talk smack about religion and no one else needs to talk about religion at all while working on such a worthy project. It isn't necessary.