Dawkins, Hitchens, and crew were deconstructionists of the critical theory variety.

No, they weren't. They were rationalists looking at ancient dogmas with a rational perspective, running rings around theists who attempted to rationally debate them, because, well, there's very little rationalism in any theistic interpretation of the universe.

The thing is, religion is not really about the nature of the universe. Religion is about controlling people for the collective good of the tribe or nation. What the atheists and theists alike, failed to understand was that is pointless to use rationalism to critique something that exists to control masses of irrational people.

The problem with the outspoken Atheist is that he is blind to the fact that many people are simply incapable of even remotely strict rationality. He thinks that his rationality can be taught to all. It cannot. No more than you can teach calculus to all.

The problem with the debating theist is that when he hears from the atheist that his belief system is designed to control people, he doesn't develop a square jaw, a strong brow, and say "Yes." Instead, without even thinking, he adopts the atheist's position that he must argue the rationality of his irrational religion, when he should instead have been arguing that there are enitrely too many irrational people for them to be governed by a rational system, and that an irrational system is therefore a basic requirement for civilization.

Dawkins, Hitchens, and crew were deconstructionists of the critical theory variety.

No, they weren't. They were rationalists looking at ancient dogmas with a rational perspective, running rings around theists who attempted to rationally debate them, because, well, there's very little rationalism in any theistic interpretation of the universe.

The thing is, religion is not really about the nature of the universe. Religion is about controlling people for the collective good of the tribe or nation. What the atheists and theists alike failed to understand was that it is pointless to use rationalism to critique something that exists to control masses of irrational people.

The problem with the outspoken Atheist is that he is blind to the fact that many people are simply incapable of even remotely strict rationality. He thinks that his rationality can be taught to all. It cannot. No more than you can teach calculus to all.

The problem with the debating theist is that when he hears from the atheist that his belief system is designed to control people, he doesn't develop a square jaw, a strong brow, and say "Yes." Instead, without even thinking, he adopts the atheist's position that he must argue the rationality of his irrational religion, when he should instead have been arguing that there are enitrely too many irrational people for them to be governed by a rational system, and that an irrational system is therefore a basic requirement for civilization.

Dawkins, Hitchens, and crew were deconstructionists of the critical theory variety.

No, they weren't. They were rationalists looking at ancient dogmas with a rational perspective, running rings around theists who attempted to rationally debate them, because, well, there's very little rationalism in any theistic interpretation of the universe.

The thing is, religion is not really about the nature of the universe. Religion is about controlling people for the collective good of the tribe or nation. What the atheists and theists alike, failed to understand was that is pointless to use rationalism to critique something that exists to control masses of irrational people.

The problem with the outspoken Atheist is that he is blind to the fact that many people are simply incapable of even remotely strict rationality. He thinks that his rationality can be taught to all. It cannot. No more than you can teach calculus to all.

The problem with the debating theist is that when he hears from the atheist that his belief system is designed to control people, he doesn't develop a square jaw, a strong brow, and say "Yes." Instead, without even thinking, he adopts the atheist's position that he must argue the rationality of his irrational religion, when he should instead have been arguing that there are enitrely too many irrational people for them to be governed by a rational system, and that an irrational system is therefore a basic requirement for civilization.

Dawkins, Hitchens, and crew were deconstructionists of the critical theory variety.

No, they weren't. They were rationalists looking at ancient dogmas with a rational perspective, running rings around theists who attempted to rationally debate them, because, well, there's very little rationalism in any theistic interpretation of the universe.

The thing is, religion is not really about the nature universe. Religion is about controlling people for the collective good of the tribe or nation. What the atheists and theists alike, failed to understand was that is pointless to use rationalism to critique something that exists to control masses of irrational people.

The problem with the outspoken Atheist is that he is blind to the fact that many people are simply incapable of even remotely strict rationality. He thinks that his rationality can be taught to all. It cannot. No more than you can teach calculus to all.

The problem with the debating theist is that when he hears from the atheist that his belief system is designed to control people, he doesn't develop a square jaw, a strong brow, and say "Yes." Instead, without even thinking, he adopts the atheist's position that he must argue the rationality of his irrational religion, when he should instead have been arguing that there are enitrely too many irrational people for them to be governed by a rational system, and that an irrational system is therefore a basic requirement for civilization.