Well could you first of all link me to the Ethics and Morality forum. Second of all, I would have to see your posts and actions on atheistic/non-religious message boards. I mean if you make a balant attack posts or ignorant remarks without approaching it from a mild, philosophical you are bound to get bashed. It seems like your posting method is that which provokes people and consists of unwarranted agression. I'm sorry if you had experience with atheists, but you have to consider that there are christians that act the same way or even act worse when skeptics do the same exact thing.
Militant atheism stems mainly from militant theism and what they see as the dangers of organized religion. Most do what they do because they feel that getting rid of religion solves the problem. In reality the core problems and factors are still not addressed by their approach. Atheist tend to feel marginalized and tend to frown upon how most people blindly follow religion without asking some of life's fundalmental questions. Let's face it most religious people are frankly secular feel good spiritualists, that confide in whatever make themselves happy. Atheists see this as negative and feel that theism can get in the way of human potential and prevent man from taking the initative to take the improvment of his/her life into his/her own hands.
So it's a two way street, and I'd say the reason why people are agressive towards religion is because religion is sometimes agressive towards them. It is hard when a good ammount of society misunderstands you, specifically the US, and I can understand why some would sometimes be angry. It is however a bad sterotype that atheists tend to be militant or troll constantly on beliefs. Only a small group does that aka Dawkins and co. I respect Dawkins as a scientist and a biologist but have to say his arguments/assertions are cookie cutter arguments that have been used for 200+ years all he's doing is repackaging them. Sagan on the other hand was much more familar with the philosophical arguments, and did much more as an skeptic/humanist etc. He wanted to better mankind as opposed to bring an end to religion.
My .02
But the problem begins when they attack Christianity in general. I'd say certain of Atheists are justified if they focus their efforts on the crackpots like Jerry Falwell or Phelps. But they don't; they attack Christianity (and us Jews) in general, assuming the crackpots speak for everyone.
They assume that any Christian/Jew is a 'fundie', and with it, accuse the believer of thinking the earth was made in six days or something. This is bad for Christianity, because the crackpots do believe in those childbook stories of creation.
By painting Christians with this broad brush, they harm the whole apparatus. I am here to defend the apparatus.
I agree, of course, with your statements about Carl Sagan, and thoroughly enjoy reading his books (Demon-haunted world is spot-on 98% of the time. Here he seems to critisize psychotherapy with a greater zeal than that for religion--a sensible approach. It's patently clear Sagan is acutely and shrewdly aware of the social benefit Christianity and Judaism play for humanity).
One thing about the Demon-haunted world is Sagan seems to be perhaps too preoccupied with the emergence of the occult. THe occult is hogwash, sure, and alot of persons call those psychic hotlines, sure, but let's not forget that the very people calling those hotlines or visiting the palm-readers would never visit a science lecture hall or open a Scientific American mag in the first place, so there's nothing lost there.
Sagan may have wanted to force science on people.This to me seems noble at first, but it's a failing cause, since I believe people were born scientists; they aren't made. Just my $2...
