If one sees religion (like i do) as, at core, the claim to Truth write large, or at least to the means by which one can arrive at Truth, then it appears that Darron’s brand of anti-religion (i.e., that the scientific method–as narrowly defined by proponents of this approach–is the only way of arriving at Truth) is actually turning into the religion that he so decries. This evolution of things is particularly intriguing given Darron’s missionary zeal in proclaiming this Truth, you know?

(And before you given me the whole “atheism is a religion only if not collecting baseball cards is a hobby” line, i’ll just point out that if you go on and on trying to convince me how much better it would be if i stopped collecting baseball cards, you’ve got yourself a hobby.)

p.s. Of course, i think that the philosophical underpinnings of postmodernism and deconstruction are at best silly and in any event blatantly wrong, and i’m incredibly aware of the limitations of human memory and cognitive processing (having done a little bit of scholarly research in areas tightly related to those), so i’m not likely to be swayed by a “make up your own mind in all matters” approach.

It’s very difficult to talk logic, rationality, and sense into those who are already deeply devout, but it’s very easy to talk to someone who is young like me and say, “be sceptical, don’t take things on faith, make people back up what they say with evidence, and make up your own mind in all matters.” And once that mentality is ingrained into an individual I’m sure it makes it very difficult for any kind of religion, or “unreality” as I like to call it, to get into the mind. Cheers!

However, slash and burn attacks are unlikely to get anyone to agree with your lines–rather they’re likely to get people to move to a more extreme position just to be able to disagree with you (which, incidentally, is IMO the greatest flaw in, for example, Richard Dawkins’s recent arguments against religion). You might find, if you engaged me in a rational debate, that my lines may be different than yours but aren’t really very much different (i am devoutly religious, but entirely in favor of public secularism, after all)–however, if you’re going to gratuitously slam religion (whether mine or that of others) before trying to find out if there’s common ground, i’m much less likely to take the trouble to engage you in constructive discourse.

1. Religious people praying to the chosen God in the privacy of their home.
2. Religious people praying in public places.
3. Religious people prosthelytizing in Churches.
4. Religious people prosthelytizing in public places.
5. Tax-exempt religious organizations using those funds to lobby members of government. (Moral Majority anyone?)
6. Religious groups pushing their “moral codes” into law (Sharia law for instance)
7. Government run by religious groups (Islamic law)
8. Honor killings.
9. Governments “crusading” against “evil”.
10. Whackjobs flying planes into buildings and committing mass murder.

Just a quick braindump from me. Personally I stop at #3. While this post might seem any-Islamic or something, I’m just calling it like I see it right now. However, note that #9 is for ‘ol Dubbya. Religion really does poison everything. We should definitely have a level of tolernance for people’s beliefs, but taking a critical look at where to draw the line is of paramount importance in this day and age of suicide bombers and religious nut-jobs out to push a “faith-based” agenda. That term “faith based” just makes me cringe. I want to scream out, “what? We don’t have enough emphirical evidence for how this world works?!?!? ! We need your “faith based” reasoning to come in and show the “true path(TM)” or something?”.

Sorry, chilling out is not something I ever do when pointing out lies or inaccuracies. Regardless of the sting, people should be called on their BS. If they can’t support their side of the arguement with testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable evidence, then they should just babble to themselves in their closets about their whacky ideas. In public I call believers out and it’s amazing how much they shrink away when you ask them if they believe in the resurrection or virgin births or any such non-sense. If anything, it makes them re-analyze their illgotten and blindly-accepted beliefs, which I think is a good thing. This battle is one mind at a time, and it’s high time atheists were on the offensive. Cheers!

Clark -

I’m sorry but for some reason you’re comment was spammed until now.

Darron -

You claim you want to build a better world with “reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance” or is that only for people who believe like you?

If anything, I would have hoped that some atheists would have begrudgingly praised Romney for his change of heart. Lighten up a little.

Samuel -

I have to agree, Huh?

What David B isn’t necessarily wrong, but I do think that religion is a huge support to fostering freedom that should not be dismissed. Some societies may appear to successfully abandon religion (Europe) and still be liberal democracies. But I think their increasing dependence on one institution (government) will make freedom more vulnerable down the line.

I mean, it doesn’t scan as if you read what i wrote, really. Did you mean to reply to someone else, or did the one-liner nature of the reply result in something too opaque for me to unpack? Please explain.

I hope all the world’s religions soon find a special place in the waste basket of history!

Cheers!

What conclusion shall we draw from all this? That atheism is a very pernicious monster in those who govern; that it is also pernicious in the persons around statesmen, although their lives may be innocent, because from their cabinets it may pierce right to the statesmen themselves; that if it is not so deadly as fanaticism, it is nearly always fatal to virtue.

Of course Voltaire was an atheist and made many impassioned defenses of atheism. But he sure wasn’t sure he wanted an atheistic leader or people.

A similar view can be found among many neo-conservatives who often were atheists who felt like religion was important for the masses.

Note I’m not defending these views. I think they are defensible though and have been held by some atheists.