There is much that could be said about this, but I will
stick with one thing, based on discussion at about the 2 minute mark: When atheists insist that
atheism does not drive behavior, and then then campaign on behalf of
atheism, ridicule religion and religious believers in the name of
atheism, seek to change laws in favor of their atheistic positions, recommend the extermination of religion, and practice falsehoods like Dawkins's in support of
atheism, they prove that their
atheism drives their behavior and that their premise is false, disingenuous, and (as far as I can tell) useless for anything but giving
atheism rhetorical cover from being implicated in atheists» atrocities.
Ann and John initially circle each other warily (neither has seen another human being in a long time),
with their fundamental differences a potential
sticking point: Ann is a devout Christian, a salt - of - the - Earth farm girl, while John is a cynical man of science, his
atheism worn right there on his sleeve.