It all seems good except for one thing: The "Theist" only refers
   to members of a branch of Christiandom started by: John Nelson
   Darby. I could go through an elaborate proof, regarding the
   historical development of Dispensationalism and Futurism and the
   various "Great Awakenings" leading towards a conflict between
   certain groups and that of Scientism... leading to modern day
   Atheism... But I find that branch rather dull. I was raised
   Methodist, dabbled heavily in Eastern Orthodoxy, experimented
   with various other churches and religions... and none of them
   would have ever said, 'IGNORANCE IS BLISS". The argument may
   hold in the sector to which its directed, but that small sector
   is not representative of the majority of what you refer to as
   Theists. It's an easy mistake. I never had anything to do with
   that branch of Christianity because it never made a darn bit of
   sense to me at all. They speak an entirely different language.
   My mother would call them "Scary Christians" as opposed to
   regular ones. Theists? No. Nutcakes. Were it not for Darby,
   Dawkins would have nothing to complain about. I could go into
   the influence of Darby and the "great awakenings" upon modern
   Islamic fundamentalism as well - how the influences of
   Darby-branch 'Christian' missionaries corrupted pockets of Islam
   (and also led to the creation of Orthodox Judaism), leading to
   the fundamentalist Islamic extremist groups (who also do not
   represent most of Islam).... ... but it's them 1840s. That's
   when everything got fucked up all around. Oh well. I could also
   trace back Hitler to Darby's influences. Yeah. "who would I go
   back in history and kill?" Darby. I can't believe there's a guy
   I don't like but... it's Darby.