I guess what tickled me was that the article didn't seem to have any inherent truth in it. I'm spiritual non-religious myself, yet I believe that the most direct route to consciousness does not have to pass through the spiritual-non religious/atheist route, nor does the route have to be one from religion to consciousness. I think that there is a counterexample for everything listed in the article. The points in the article just point to questions for the self to answer.
Point 1: Do you think for yourself?
Point 2: Are you open or blind?
Etc.
And if the article is really just about questions (as I see it) and not so much about attacking a specific point of view, then IMO there's no reason to attack anything. I can understand the idea that the article can knock people to one side or the other, and thus kind of understand the intent behind the article. At the same time, I know I wouldn't do it with the same tone if I wanted to communicate the same message. I think many things can be said in the name of humor that really should be left unsaid. But that does really only say something about me: that I am a gentle and sensitive person and I would want to communicate in a way that reflects that. It doesn't really say anything about the article itself. So, in my mind, I now respect the right for the article to exist.
|