A first-time comment: why are we obsessed with religion?

October 25, 2012 • 3:42 am

Here’s a new comment I received and didn’t publish, but decided to put above the fold.

Casey commented on David Lose tells us how to interpret the Adam and Eve Story

I find this website very strange. If you don’t believe in God, if you don’t believe in the Bible, if you don’t believe in Jesus…. then why do you spend so much time talking about it, looking up articles about it, doing research on it? I don’t believe in ghosts, and in an average day, they never cross my mind and I don’t search for groups of like-minded people to bash ghost believers with. Whatever you believe, this whole discussion is hateful.

A few obvious reasons:  ghost-believers don’t kill or oppress people who are aghosteists, nor base a system of morality or approved sexual behavior on ghosts, nor make women second-class citizens in practicing Ghostianity, or tell their children that they will burn for eternity if they don’t share their beliefs, and so on, and so on, and so on. . . .

101 thoughts on “A first-time comment: why are we obsessed with religion?”

  1. those two links in your article just take me to the UofC xMail log-in screen Jerry

    Other than that I have nothing to say to “Casey” since s/he hasn’t got the mental tools to see the gaping hole in her argument

  3. It is true that many people have done terrible things in the name of religion but it is also true that people (e.g. Stalin) have done terrible things in the name of atheism and science.

    There are some people in the world who seek power over others, even the power to take the lives of others.

    For those people, religion is often a tool they use. But that doesn’t make religion itself bad, there have been many good things done for the sake of religion as well.

    1. “there have been many good things done for the sake of religion as well.”

      To work with a narrow window for the sake of discussion – Lately? Such as…?

    2. Stalin didn’t do anything in the name of “atheism” or “science” as far as I know. He suppressed the church because it was a rival source of power, and Russian communism saw religion as a rival for its own terrible creed, which had many of the characteristics of a fundamentalist religion.

      You’re right of course, that many good things have been done – and are being done – by people motivated by their religious beliefs, just as there have been and are being bad things. Those who prefer to see religions as universally evil are simply not looking at the evidence. (And looking at the evidence, along with treating others as you would like to be treated, is a key aspect of humanist thinking).

    3. Oh, not that old canard again….

      Absolutely none of Stalin’s crimes were committed “in the name of atheism and science”.
      They were committed by a ruthless, paranoid dictator for good old-fashioned reasons of lust for personal power and suspicion of rivals, combined with the all-consuming desire to transform the USSR into a major industrial and military power as rapidly as possible – whatever the human cost. Stalin may have been an atheist, but he didn’t do what he did because of that. Yes, he suppressed the church, but mainly because it was a competing focus for people’s loyalty and affections, much as were the trade unions and rival factions within the communist party he also suppressed. In the dark days of late 1941, with the Nazis at the gates of Moscow, he allowed the churches to open again, as the nostalgic patriotism they could inspire was a quality the USSR was in desperate need of. In other words, his opposition to Christianity was largely pragmatic and he was quite willing to tolerate it as long as it proved useful.

      Next, I imagine you’ll be telling us that Hitler was an atheist….

    4. “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
      — Steven Weinberg

      Belief in the absence of evidence or despite evidence (faith) is antithetical to rational thought and easily leads to negative consequences.

    5. From Russiapedia:

      “In 1888, Joseph’s mother managed to obtain a place for him at the local church school where he [Stalin] was to be trained as a priest. Giving in to his mother’s request, he entered the school in the town of Gori, graduating in 1894 as the best student.

      Despite his health problems, young Stalin finished high school as one of the best students and eventually won a free scholarship to the Tiflis (now Tbilisi) Theological Seminary.”

      Stalin was ideologically opposed to Mendelian genetics and the Darwinian evolution. Both groups were purged from Soviet science and knowledgeable supporters died in prison camps or were simply shot. Totalitarianism walks hand in hand with ideology and religion. Stalin was infected with both.

    6. “… it is also true that people (e.g. Stalin) have done terrible things in the name of atheism and science.”

      It’s hard to comment on that without breaking da roolz.

      But really… Bollocks!

      /@

    7. Stalin did terrible things, but not in the name of atheism or science.

      Anyway, we’re not talking about people doing terrible things [i]in the name of[/i] religion. We’re talking about people doing terrible things [i]because that’s what their religious tradition instructs them to do[/i].

    8. It is true that many people have done terrible things in the name of religion but it is also true that people (e.g. Stalin) have done terrible things in the name of atheism and science.

      Amen, sister! Absolutely right.

      Oh, but if only Stalin had abandoned his atheism and embraced the true religion brought to us by the great god Quetzalcoatl, Russia would have been spared the horrors of the Purges.

      b&

    9. It is true [to borrow from Steven Weinberg and expand] that WITH OR withOUT religion there will still be evil people among us doing evil things for fun or profit (along with good people among us doing good for goodness sake); WITH religion, however, we additionally have among us GOOD people doing evil things for prophet (as well as a useful pretext for evil people to do evil things for fun or profit in the name of prophet).

    10. I think your argument should be not that religion isn’t bad, but that religion is not entirely bad.

      Yes, religious people can do good things, and to their credit they explicitly try to make that a priority. But all people can do this, religious or not.

      The point in which religion is undeniably bad is that it tells you to believe in false things. It distorts your view of reality. It fosters a totalitarian mindset that encourages the religious to impose control on others, because not only do the religious believe they have a good thing, they believe it’s the only good thing, and that others must share those beliefs or else. This is a characteristic the religious share with Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. They are willing to kill and die for their one true faith.

        1. He certainly used religion to forward his purposes. This much is undeniable, and those who argue against it argue against mountains of historical evidence. Those who claim National Socialism was an atheist cause are either ignorant or dishonest.

          I don’t know what Hitler’s personal religious beliefs were, but it is often claimed he was an atheist, and there seems to be some evidence for that. If he wasn’t a Christian, or a theist of any sort, he certainly had his own Germanic mystical mythology that drove him in the same way that more mainstream religions drive crusaders and jihadis, so in this respect he had all the fanatical zeal that is the hallmark of religion. The man was insane enough to think he himself was Jesus or his equivalent, so you are absolutely right in this sense he was quite religious.

    11. The question of who did what in the name of what seems to me to be an irrelevance. The questions that need anweering are:

      1. Are you a memeber of an organisation that condones, tacitly or otherwise, past atrocities or past incitement to commit attrocities?

      Many religious people are. The Catholic Church has only partially repudiated its past crimes; the CofE has not repudiated the crimes of its founder Henry VII and has not repudiated its persecution of Catholics and others for several centuries; Calvinist Churches, with a few minor exceptions, have not repudiated the the burning of Michael Servetus – note that many Baptist denominations are Calvinist; Protestant Churches, again with a few minor exceptions, have not repudited Luther’s tract on Jews, which reads like a blueprint for Kristallnacht; Biblical literalists have not repudiated the atrocities they believe their God condoned in the Old Testament. Incidentally, most Baptist denominations are officially Calvinist and many are Biblical literalists. I could go on with Orthodox Christianity and Islam etc. Of course it is possible to be religious and not be tainted in this way. For instance if you are a Jain.

      As an atheist I could be a member of a similarly tanted organisation. I could be a member of a neo-Nazi or Stalinist organisation. However the claim that Stalin, for instance, carried out his atrocities in the name of atheism only has any real purchase if not believing in a God was a predictor for being a member of Stalinist organisations. Incidentally, far from being scientific, Stalin’s regime was the opposite, for instance the regime officially promoted a form of Lamarkism while Darwon’s theory was consideres to be part of a Chrietian plot.

      2. Are you a member of an organisation that condones, tacitly or otherwise, or takes part in present atrocities or mistreatment of people?

      many religions condone and even encourage child abuse (spare the rod?) and child indoctrination. Again it is quite possible for atheist organisations to do the same, but are most atheists membes of such organisations? Probably quite a lot of Churches would and religious people disapprove of the Christian persecution of child “witches” and homosexuals in Africa but how many are prepared to say so openly and hoe many Churches are propared to officially condemn this?

      Again it is quite possible for an atheist to be a member of an organisation that do similar things. But there is nothing about being an atheist that implies that this is likely and, in fact, most atheists are not memebers of such organisations.

      3. Are you a member of an organisation that condones, tacitly or otherwise, or promotes bigotry?

      Many mainstream Churches do (e.g. Atheists are not fully human.) Again this could be said of a few atheist organisations and there is nothing to stop an atheist being a bigot. However there is nothing about atheism that implies this should be so.

      3. Are you a member of an organisation that would, if it had sufficient political power, carry out atrocities or mistreatment of people for irrational reasons and with no opportunity of discussion?

      This is perhaps the most important question. Religious belief is irrational and there is something about it that blinds people to the agendas of those in power in religious organisations or those they support for religious reasons. There is a perception that prominent religious people must be good people and even if they seem bad it is only because we are incapable of undestanding fully the reasons they things or advocate things.

      Again there are atheistic organisations that are similar, but there is nothing about atheism that implies that you will be irrational, or will be a member of or support an organisation with irrational aims

  4. Any belief is up for vigorous discussion in a democracy; god belief does not get an out simply because it is a religious belief since god believers affect the lives of many people, and in most cases, adversely.

    Apply this to other beliefs like sexism or racism. Casey’s implication is that since I am not a sexist or racist, then I should not ever talk about it and just let the good times roll for those who do. If I do bring these people to task, then I am ‘hating.’

    Challenging beliefs is not a hateful activity–it is a crucial and valuable aspect of a healthy society. Religious believers are welcomed to practice their beliefs, but they do not get to do so in a criticism-free bubble as they are not special snowflakes in their own snow globe.

    1. That reminds me of a comment my friend once made:

      Why is it that religion can’t be criticised? Have you ever seen someone criticise, let’s say, nazism, and someone come up and say “Stop criticising nazism! Why can’t people just believe in whatever ideology they want to believe in?”

  5. Three further reasons; inherently fascinating and the light it throws upon the historical method.

    But mainly, the idea that the New Testament is possibly the most important document in the development of the West. Culturally, historically, intellectually, sociologically; who, if they believe that you can not know enough, wouldn’t want to understand it?

  6. Casey, unlike belief in ghosts, belief in Christianity (not to mention other religions) has enormously damaging effects on a worldwide scale.

    Look at the religiously driven Republican hostility to science — especially evolution, on which biology and increasingly important biotechnology are based (not to mention a good deal of medicine).

    Sarah Palin thinks it’s stupid to study fruit flies. Do you, Casey, understand why so many brilliant, phenomenally well-educated scientists spend so many years of their short lives studying fruit flies? If not, you should really look into it.

    Christianity also drives enormously harmful social policies that seek to deny equal rights to homosexual people and limit or outlaw abortion and contraception.

    Christian churches in Africa incite and support the brutal murders of countless thousands of women and children accused of being witches. American churches invite those same witch-hunting African clergy to speak to their churches in the US and shower them with adulation for their courage in their imaginary war against a non-existent devil.

    That’s just the tip of a big and shitty iceberg.

    The list of reasons why people like you, Casey, should be concerned about the real-world effect of Christian belief goes on and on and on.

    If you are genuinely interested in this, I sincerely hope that you stick around and read more of Jerry’s stuff. You can start by looking through the archives of this bl… website. You can also seek out the blogs of people like Ophelia Benson, Greta Christina and PZ Myers.

    I do hope that your questions are sincere, that your mind is open and that you will make an effort to look in to the questions that you have asked.

    2. Maybe some of the older stuff PZ & Greta et al posted would be of use but lately visiting the places these people currently blog will further push people away from any kind of rational thought. We (Atheists) need to present ourselves in the best possible light to genuine enquirers & visiting the blogs of people who IMO have “Jumped the shark” isn’t doing anyone any favours. Jerry Coyne & Richard Dawkins would be my choices over Myers & the rest of those at FtB!☮

      2. Bismarket says “We (Atheists) need to present ourselves in the best possible light”.

        This from a Thunderfoot fan whose Twitter handle is “The Offensive Atheist” and whose profile pic is some kind of devotional statue/dildo hybrid. Priceless.

        2. You don’t have to be a Thunderf00t fan (I’d never heard of him before the FtB kerfuffle) to recognize the dishonesty, hypocrisy, and bizarre in-group dynamics taking place in the Atheism+ “movement”. I used to be a regular Pharyngula reader, but stopped several months ago because of that nonsense.

          They’ve earned their #FTBullies sobriquet and are certainly not a good introduction to atheism and freethinking.

          1. “…bizarre in-group dynamics taking place in the Atheism+ “movement”. I used to be a regular Pharyngula reader…”

            Well, there certainly must be some bizarre in-group dynamics, as afaik PZ still hasn’t claimed to be in the Atheism+ movement… 

            “… certainly not a good introduction to atheism and freethinking”

            Neither is such blatant strawmanning.

            Hey-ho.

            /@

          2. Erm…then what’s with the big A+ logo in the sidebar at the right?

            PZ has disavowed leadership in the movement, as I recall, but only in the context of the standard rhetorical technique of claiming that it’s a leaderless grassroots movement of the people and that he certainly wouldn’t do anything so gauche as take a leadership position. No, he’ll be happy to simply do all the things that movement leaders do — write, speak, organize discussions and conferences and conventions, and the like — all without actually being a leader.

            But if he’s since distanced himself from A+, as your comment would seem to indicate, then that’s big news that I’ve somehow missed.

            Cheers,

            b&

          3. PZ has disavowed leadership in the movement,

            your “recollections” are tainted by your inane biases, as per usual.

            PZ has repeatedly stated he deliberately chose NOT to become affiliated as a member or in any other way with A+, mainly exactly BECAUSE people like you would use him to attack it, as you just did.

            some people here have really lost their friggen minds over this. It’s quite sad to see, really.

          5. disaffiliate |ˌdɪsəˈfɪlɪeɪt|
            verb [ trans. ]
            (of a group or organization) end its official connection with (a subsidiary group)

            Well, PZ is an individual, not a group, but in any case, he never had an official connection with A+!

            No-one’s said he’s not supporting it, just that he’s not in it!

            You’re looking increasingly desperate, Ben. :-/

            And more and more likely to irk Jerry.

            /@

          6. Then help me understand the distinction, here.

            Who is it who’s actually “in” (whatever that means) A+ as opposed to those who merely “support” it (whatever that means)?

            Has A+ already advanced to the point that it has official membership rosters, a board of directors, bylaws, and all that?

            If so, that’s news to me.

            If not, what’s the difference between supporting it and being in it?

            b&

          8. “No”?

            “No” what?

            “No,” there’s no difference between support and membership? Then what is the point you’ve been trying to make?

            “No,” there’s no official organization? Then, once again, what’s the difference between supporting it and being in it?

            “No,” there is a distinction but you’re not going to explain what it is? Then why have you been so keen up until now about making it and whence all the upset over those who haven’t been making it properly?

            I hardly think it unreasonable to ask for clarification on a point that you’ve seemingly been passionate about, especially as it relates to self-identification. What is the relationship between A+ and those who say and write good things about it? What do you and others like you want to be called? Members? Supporters? Fans? Eh-plussers? Are there different levels or aspects to affiliation — and, if so, how do you want us to refer to those differences?

            Up until this “no” response of yours, I would have thought that this was something very important to you, based on the way you’ve been writing about it. But if it’s not important to you, I hope you’ll excuse me if I share your disinterest and continue to use the same sorts of language to use to refer to A+ people as I would any other loosely-defined movement.

            b&

          11. Then, Ant, if it is not important to you that I or anybody else understand the distinction between being in A+ and supporting it, I’m afraid you’ll just have to live with me not making it — especially since it’s not a distinction I’ve ever seen him make. Quite the contrary, in fact, as I initially pointed out (with respect to the oversized A+ logo on his blog).

            Sorry that you’re so embarrassed by PZ that you want to distance yourself from him and yet you’re unable or unwilling to articulate the nature of your differences with him, but I’m afraid I can’t help you with that.

            Cheers,

            b&

          14. I’m sorry, Ant, but you’ve lost me. Whatever references you’re making are too obscure for me to get, and you’ve made it clear that you only care about making said references and will not explain them to those not in your club.

            Enjoy your time on the soapbox!

            b&

          15. Soapbox? When you’re the one that’s getting aerated about this!

            *sigh*

            “I’m afraid you’ll just have to live with me not making it” ~ “And you so bloody hot at abstract set theory!” (ie, I think you’re smart it enough to figure it out. But maybe not…)

            “it’s not a distinction I’ve ever seen him make” ~ “Yet he did.”

            “you’re so embarrassed by PZ that you want to distance yourself from him” ~ “Not in the least.”

            “Helvetia” ~ See Marta’s comment & Jerry’s response.

            Clearer now?

            /@

          16. Ant, I think you’ll find that PZ is keen on “Atheism+”, but I’m not au fait with what’s going on there.

            I was hoping against hope that my mention of Ophelia, Greta and — gasp! — PZ wouldn’t be a red rag. I should have known better. *sigh*

          17. Hmm… I didn’t say PZ was distancing himself from A+ nor did I say that PZ wasn’t keen on A+, only that he didn’t identify as part of the group, to Patrick’s point on “in-group dynamics”. Maybe PZ is in a larger group of which A+ is a subgroup or which A+ intersects with, but (afaik) he’s not part of that subgroup/intersection. Clear?

            Don’t apologise, ambulocetacean. I’d also endorse PZ, Ophelia, Great, Richard Carrier, and others at FtB. If anyone finds the posts about A+ and on how some people are being shits towards FtBers and other bloggers tiresome, just skip those posts; there’s still plenty on daft beliefs (not just religion, but homeopathy and so on) and the harm that they do. There’s some good criticism of accommodationism too: Ophelia’s takedown of Chris Stedman’s recent piece (an extract from his book) was superb.

            /@

        3. Thunderf00t fan,where did i say that? Please stop putting words in my mouth. FYI i couldn’t care less about FT, also i am not trying to attract, convert or change religious minds so what does it matter what images i use?.☮

      3. Cut it the hell out, could you?

        You got complaints about how someone else runs their blog(s), post ’em there, not here.

        1. Hang on, i commented because there’s a place here to do it, if you don’t like what you read censor me, it seems to be quite the thing at A+ forum.

          1. Excellent. Since there’s a place here for you to comment, why not post anything else that comes to your mind that is also not related to the topic?

            Look. I think of this website as Switzerland. Some of us are neutral or indifferent about other blogs and other blog writers. Some of us aren’t.

            But what we manage to do here, regardless of our opinions, is to leave our issues with other sites at the border. It’s what keeps us from hurling pumpkins at each other.

            Unless our host declares otherwise, let’s all think of this place as Switzerland, shall we?

          2. Yeah, Marta’s right. I don’t particularly want to see other websites discussed here, as it’s not the appropriate place, and this is certainly not the appropriate thread. I won’t ban those who bring the issue up, but if you pursue it I will ask you to stop. If you have issues with other sites, bring them up on those sites.

            kthxbai

          3. I wasn’t the 1st person to mention those blogs. I disagreed that someone enquiring about Atheism & related topics should be referred to them, i even suggested alternatives.I would suggest that there may be some vested interest by some people in defending them, but i’ve no axe to grind so will say no more about it.☮

  7. In an ideal world I wouldn’t spend so much time on these things. I think I could ignore God, the Bible and Jesus if:

    1) There weren’t so many people indulging in reckless faith-based thinking.

    2) They weren’t in positions of power.

    3) Their views weren’t afforded such an automatically privileged position in society.

    4) They didn’t assume a privileged access to one ‘Truth’, which they impose on the rest of us.

    5) Each of them did not insist we have to study their every last bizarre doctrine and obscure proponent before they’re even willing to consider counter-arguments.

    1. Casey! I was content most of my life to just be a humble agnostic. But then you folk started winning political offices to force your *beliefs* on those of us who prefer facts and science and stuff. That’s why I am now an atheist.

    2. 6) If only they didn’t come pounding on the door on the weekend mornings.

      7) If only they didn’t put their claims on our currency.

      1. “In Ghosts We Trust”

        …yes, that’s what I was thinking. It’s not the particulars, it’s the amount. It’s not the drug, it’s the dose.

        1. My house is down a dirt track a kilometer from the road so I never get faith heads bothering me.
          Except once from the Joho next door who called atheism the Darwin religion.
          I still chuckle about that.

  8. As a skeptic theistic beliefs, ghosts, pseudomedicine and pseudoscience, et al. are always being monitored by my skepdar and targeted by my weapons of mass instruction.

  9. I do think that arguing the fine points of theology is generally pointless, since the large majority of religious people are not religious because of it and do not think in those terms, and because religious people who do delve into theology tend to be too far gone to be convinced otherwise.

    Discussing the origins of religions, their sordid histories, and their present negative effects, seems to be more productive.

    1. I think it is worthwhile to counter the arguments of theologians. As you say, most religious people are not religious because theology has convinced them to be. But, many of those religious people hold theologians up as champions that validate their beliefs, even when they’ve never read any theology.

      These theologians, who are considered by themselves and many others, to be academics lend credibility to religion that is not warranted simply because they are considered to be academics by so many.

      Discrediting theological arguments, and the academics who use them, will not automatically convince the average believer to drop their religious beliefs. But it will apply pressure in that direction.

  10. It’s the nature of ideas, if they exist in the public, then the public will discuss and criticise them. And the hope for any person is that if they are going to criticise it, they are going to do it from a point of knowledge rather than ignorance. It seems dangerous to allow for the spreading of ideas without any form of critical assessment; it’s trading on credulity as its measure of worth, rather than its quality.

    In short, it’s about wanting people to think rather than wanting them to believe.

  11. Just to add to your list of “and so on”‘s Presidential and other candidates do not mention their belief in ghost nearly every time they speak.

  13. Just the other day, I posted a facebook comment to a statement made very much like the one Jerry has shared…and it went, a little something like this:

    “I’d agree with you wholeheartedly if there wasn’t a slew of misfortune and misery in this world due to religious ideas and certainty that this or that god exists…and it’s certainly not like the major religions and their holy books are ideal spiritual guidebooks (they happen to be on the wrong end of an enormous amount of ethical debates; gay marriage, civil rights, women rights, children rights, stem cell research, etc).

    But yes, if we lived in a world where we did not encounter things such as – “God Hates Fags”, “Behead those who insult Mohammed”, the strong catholic stance against condoms in Africa causing far too many to die of HIV/AIDS, the sick and twisted pedophile priesthood cover-ups by the catholic church, the stunted mental growth of far too many children due to evangelical religious parents and their insistence on christian science, not to mention the complete domination of religious nonsense in the violent middle east – then yes, if we did not live in a world like that, I’d be right there with you, and not even bother arguing about this or that innocuous deity. If religious folk could keep to themselves and be content with their own private beliefs and traditions, and respect the rights of others to believe in other gods or no gods, then I wouldn’t bother but that just isn’t the case.

    So until a time like that comes, or when religiosity is a minority or at least not a political/social powerhouse, I think it’s a good idea to continue raising the issues, debating if the situation arises (if a religious person approaches and begins to prosletyze at you), ridiculing absurd reactions and sentimentalities (danish cartoons, women being forced to wear full body veils, creationism)….

    And it’s always necessary to remind people, that when this whole equating argument of “fundamental atheists are just as bad as fundamental religious people”….no, in order to be called a fundamentalist christian or muslim, you need to blow up buildings, take part in suicide bombings, say horrendous things about gays/lesbians and try to limit their rights to marry, etc…..

    but in order to be called a fundamentalist atheist, well, if you ridicule a religious belief, make jokes about the inanity behind it all, raise your voice and call the other side names (idiot, stupid, moron, whatever….and yes I agree, oftentimes a tasteless and childish tactic), try to remove God references from government buildings (I agree, it’s mostly a dumb waste of time, but really, we should separate church and state as much as possible, it’s meant to be that way to protect all people, religious or not), write a book criticizing and analyzing the problems with religion and the dangers that come with an unquestioning faith in a god….those things alone are enough to label you a fundamentalist atheist….”

    1. And is it really necessary to have God Bless America inflicted upon me during every seventh inning stretch during the baseball playoffs? It’s truly sickening and I just can’t take it anymore. Anyway, go Tigers!

      1. That’s what the “mute” button is for.

        Seriously.

        And it appears it’s only for games broadcast on Fox. Funny that.

        I wonder what they’ll do if the Blue Jays ever get back to the World Series?

        1. I imagine they’d play either “O Canada” or “YYZ”. My preference is “YYZ”.

  14. @ <blockquote.If you don’t believe in God, if you don’t believe in the Bible, if you don’t believe in Jesus…. then why do you spend so much time talking about it, looking up articles about it, doing research on it?

    The disturbing corollary of this idea is that one would not investigate anything with which, a priori, one disagrees. This does not make sense and closes down intellectual enquiry.

    On a scale of 7, I rate at 6.9999 recurring that I do not ‘believe’ in the God of the Hittites. Nevertheless, I look forward to the findings of the translators who are working on the 150,000 clay tablets found in Hattusa, their capital.

    Why? For the light they will throw on the relations between the empires of the Fertile Crescent around 1200 BCE and on the spread of the Indo-European languages across the Euro-Asian landmass.

    Post 9/11 and the Catholic paedophilia scandal, it would be shocking if there weren’t hateful comments about religion in these threads The discussion is not ‘hateful’; perhaps only in the sense that apologists find odious the subjection of the origins, development and actuality of Christianity to rational analysis.

    Even then, there are plenty of Christians about who are willing to participate in those debates; the quality, honesty and consistency of their contribution are another matter. The quotation above wishes to shut down the debate. Who is to do that and how do we ascribe to her the authority to do so?

  16. “If you don’t believe in God, if you don’t believe in the Bible, if you don’t believe in Jesus…. then why do you spend so much time talking about it, looking up articles about it, doing research on it?”

    I’ve always followed Sun Tzu:

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.”
    Sun Tzu

  18. The sad thing is, in my experience at least, most atheists and agnostics I know actually do feel about like the comment writer expects. They are indifferent and oblivious to what religious authorities and their allies are up to and why it should be important to the self-interest of the non-believer.

    Convincing current non-believers to become active theocracy-opposers is a much more useful and achievable strategy than deconverting religious believers.

    1. Dave Lush says: “most atheists and agnostics I know … are indifferent and oblivious to what religious authorities and their allies are up to and why it should be important”.

      That’s a point that isn’t made often enough. But the need for an atheist awakening doesn’t obviate the enlightenment of the religious.

  19. “Of course people are free to believe in any daft thing they want, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. The problem is that daft beliefs about religion, just like daft beliefs about medicine, do harm other people.”
    — Prof. David Colquhoun, “Science, philosophy and religion: which best offers us the tools to understand the world around us?”, 5 November 2011

    I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes, but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.
    — Arthur C. Clarke, 1984: Spring (1984)

    Criticising daft beliefs is a social good.

    /@

  20. I like the debunking of things, especially the debunking of long standing, well put together mythologies. Stuff like ghosts requires a very minimal amount of debunking for the most part. Debunking religion is a constantly changing, ever shifting animal, and its also connected to all manner of cultural and historical stuff.

    Especially having been a Lutheran of the ELCA, I was a member of a fairly liberal church, but even then, the pastors still told us a whole lot of stuff without ever explaining *how* we knew, or what other evidence there was for it. Being bereft of a skeptical voice, I like to learn and share that information with others, as a few bold atheists were with me when I was growing up. If everyone was an atheist, I’d probably still be at least a little interested in religious history, just because I’m interested in history.

  21. IMO, Casey’s question is a good one. In part, my fixation stems from the fact that I can’t believe that so many people believe such rubbish so easily, so I explore their beliefs trying to find a good reason. So far I haven’t found one.

  22. Let’s give Casey his/her proper due: She/he called this place a website.

    Okay, I’m done now giving Casey his/her due.

  24. Clearly Casey thinks it is acceptable to believe in something based on a lie or a lack of evidence. I am not sure that I accept that view.

  25. My wife and I contribute to MADD (Mother’s Against Drunk Driving) even though neither of us is into drunk driving. Casey – I guess you would be puzzled and call us haters for that too.

  26. It’s the blind privilege, Casey.

    The expectation that if you’re campaigning for President and find yourself in Asheville, NC, you must kiss the ass ring of Billy Graham. (As Romney did.) Even though Graham’s ministry LOOOOOONG equated Mormonism with cults and assigns all of their adherents to hell.

    1. I wonder if Casey is old enough to remember the Reagan administration.

      Remember how HORRIFIED we were when we were told that Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer? And used that “advice” to counsel Ronny on decisions of state?

      Well, Casey, every single day is like that with regard to religion. Every. Single. Day. In every political group from local town counsel to the United Nations. Religion and religious privilege is “consulted” and informs the decision-making process.

      Mundane things like an opening prayer at a city council meeting. Non-mundane things like eliminating funding for women’s health issues.

      Not just the US, either. The entire Muslim world is turning its back on western Enlightenment values in order to institute barbaric methods of governance.

      Religious privilege, Casey. It infuses every corner of the world.

      The question is, why aren’t you horrified?

  27. To quote from Adam Lee’s excellent piece in Salon, “We’re atheists not because we want to gather and engage in collective back-slapping, not because we want to chortle at the foolishness of benighted believers, but because we care about creating a world that’s more just, more peaceful, more enlightened, and we see organized religion as standing in the way of this goal.”

  29. “I FIND THIS WEBSITE VERY STRANGE. IF YOU DON;T BELIEVE IN GOD, IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE, IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN JESUS… THEN WHY DO YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME TALKING ABOUT IT…”

    We spend time talking about it because we atheists are SURROUNDED by Christians who are constantly telling us that for sure [alleged] God exists and for sure we are going to be OH SO VERY sorry (for EVER and EVER, and not a second less!) if we don’t ourselves come to believe [alleged] God exists before we die, and who even try to implement laws and government policies that favor religious believers and discriminate against/disenfranchise we nonbelievers.

    “…LOOKING UP ARTICLES ABOUT IT, DOING RESEARCH ON IT?”

    We lookup/research the claims of religion so as to [1] learn what are the merits (or lack thereof) of religion may be, that we may [2] understand that which we embrace or reject. What would you have us do, accept or reject BLINDLY without first looking-up and researching that which we are told we had best believe or else???

    “I DON’T BELIEVE IN GHOSTS, AND IN AN AVERAGE DAY, THEY NEVER CROSS MY MIND…”

    Same here; but if on your average people were in our face (on the radio, TV, in newspapers and magazines, on billboards, on street corners, ringing our doorbells, and trying to pass legislation that favors ghost-believers and discriminates against and disenfranchise we nonbelievers in ghosts), then you and I both WOULD be daily thinking about [alleged] ghosts and their persistently pesky evangelists.

    “…AND I DON’T SEARCH FOR GROUPS OF LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE TO BASH GHOST BELIEVERS WITH…”

    Who needs groups of like-minded people to bash religion? I can’t speak for all atheists of course, but I do not “search for groups of like-minded people to bash” religious believers with.

    “…WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE, THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS HATEFUL.”

    No kidding? “THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS” nothing but “HATEFUL”??? I don’t think so, but if you really do think that this whole discussion is hateful, the solution is simple: eschew this discussion.

  30. if you don’t believe in Jesus…. then why do you spend so much time talking about it, looking up articles about it, doing research on it?

    We atheists get along really good with jesus and the gods, couldn’t be better. They’ve been so quiet for centuries that it is almost like,…they don’t exist.

    It’s their followers that we have problems with. The main cults, the fundies openly hate the USA, many of the people living in it (including me), and will destroy it if they can. They are as of now one even election away.

    I’ve already seen it with the first fundie president, Bush. Two of my friends are dead in Iraq and my 401(K) plan was murdered along with tens of millions of others.

    It can get a lot worse.

    1. BTW, casey is just trolling.

      He knows why we study religions.

      It’s a matter of personal and national survival for us.

  32. Casey, you don’t understand. We don’t hate you or your fellow Theists. We love Theists, they’re human after all and we are humanists. It’s Theism and the actions it inspires Theists to take that we hate.

    You know, hate the sin, love the sinner? You’ve heard it before.

    Except unlike so many Theists, we don’t deny others the right to marry the person they love and all those other things Theists think they have to do to people because of what a religion tells them. I’d expand on this, but Jerry already covered it in his last paragraph.

    You should care too. It may well be that the sect that gains control of the government may not be your sect. You wouldn’t like that.

  33. Dear Casey

    You can find answers to your questions by attending Eschaton 2012, a conference in Ottawa, Canada. Please see http://eschaton2012.ca/ You will meet other readers of this website and twenty plus speakers who will be at Eschaton: Celebrating Reason at the End of the World. Everyone is welcome!

  34. OK, analogous question – Since it’s the job of doctors to keep us well, why are they so obsessed with diseases? 😉

  36. Simply because I choose to not be involved with socially sanctioned mental illness, otherwise known as religion.

Comments are closed.