Smashing Chamber Pots

Something that continually puzzles me is how many atheists are willing to offend Christians when they know most Christians won't respond in kind.

I started listening to Penn Jillette's God, No! and didn't even make it through the introduction.

Now, I really like Penn Jillette, I've liked him for years. He's articulate, brash, opinionated and really smart. I watched a video channel of his online for a long time because I enjoyed his no-BS insight and commentary. But on this topic he was simply too offensive even for me, and that's saying something, because I don't offend easily.[1]

When one side decides to be deliberately offensive (sometimes finding refuge in proud self-deprecation like "I'm just an asshole"), they show they are more interested in the ideas than the people they're debating. People that don't care about people can't be debated. Ideas don't exist apart from people. Facts certainly do, but ideas don't, and no discussion can exist apart from feelings and convictions and personal histories, some of which dispose us to believe or not believe certain things.

I don't mean that we should invite blubbering sentimentality on either side, only that ideas mean very little outside of human attachments, and if you injure an attachment for an idea, you've sort of smashed the chamber pot rather than emptied it.

I know if I met Penn Jillette, I'd like him, and I think he'd like me. I just can't absorb the offensiveness on this particular topic.

[2013-03-09]

c0

[1]
I'm willing to have a mutually respectful conversation on anything. But to hear someone you respect ridicule your ideas is uncomfortable, even painful, especially when you've gone out of your way to consume new ideas contrary to your own.

c0