I love religion!

[Zagreus]

My point is that many atheists just dismiss religion, and I think it's an interesting subject. You said it made you laugh, well why? I'm arguing that atheists shouldn't just dismiss religious people's ideas as silly superstitions.

You were the one who brought up fundamentalists, not me. Maybe we should just avoid discussing fundamentalist ideas here, as we seem to be both agreeing that there is no beardy man in he sky. I am saying there is more to religion than that, and that's why I find it fascinating.

You are mixing up religious stances with the cultural phenomenon. The latter indeed is very interesting and this whole site testifies of that. What makes you think that atheists just dismiss religion?

Thanks for such a detailed response. I’m replying bit by bit to not miss anything!

I don’t think I am mixing these two things, but I will admit I have a not particularly orthodox view on religion, which seems confusing at first as it takes a while for me to get the ideas across. As a cultural phenomenon, we agree religion is interesting, but I also think religious stances are fascinating, even if I don't agree with the viewpoint. Half the interest is trying to see ideas from others’ perspectives.

Some atheist writing I have read simply dismisses religion as silly ideas, and that’s where I get that view of other atheists from. I can quote examples from this very forum if you want, where comments are made that religious ideas are simply bull shit, or some such. There is a patronising tone in some atheists’ language towards believers’ ideas, like people with faith are childish and they should grow out of their ideas. That is what I object to. I’m not saying it’s necessarily people here, but it’s something I have seen.

The former constitutes no one coherent idea but a plethora of ever shifting ideas ranging from the extreme naive to the multi-layered multi-colored oecumenal variant of religious humanism. Since I value free thought I value the right to belief. I will never attack that right. What I do attack is religious claims being made here out in the open.

When you say it like that, how can you not find it interesting?!? By ‘here’ do you mean this forum? If so, that’s fair enough. I’m not saying people should tread on egg shells around the religious, just don’t be rude and assume they are stupid. Depending on the conversation, I’m eager to challenge religious thought; this conversation is my defending my interest in it though.

I do think it's critical to understand what particular stance the religious bring forward and to merit each position on it's own. Please correct me on this whenever you feel I am not doing justice to the position put forward but please don't generalize that into a "many atheists just dismiss religion". Also I dislike the idea that this is pictured as an us and them thing. I have disagreed here with atheists and theists alike no matter how much I appreciate other aspects of there presentation here on AF. Just like there is no one standard set of religious claims, there is no one standard set of atheist argument. It seems to me that when you make that suggestion you are generalizing atheists for generalization of religious claims.

---

You have made an excellent point that I am guilty of, and was waiting for it to be pointed out! I’m telling people not to generalise about religious views, but then saying ‘most / many atheists’; you are right and I should not do this, but it’s a demonstration of similar language. Maybe people criticising the ideas of others should be aware of this too. You can stereotype, but it always has flaws.

You are also right it is no ‘us and them’ scenario. After all, I am an atheist arguing the religious corner at the minute. I was aware I was doing this, but it needed pointing out. Again, I’m not having a go at this forum; it’s simply a general comment.

I have catholic background and grew up in a time when some emancipation in church took place. I am all aware of the range of stances that can be taken on this matter. There is a difference between belief in god(s) and belief in belief. There is a difference between religion as a moral container and religion as a unique origin of absolute moral. There is a difference between Vatican condom prohibition and the personal stance of a catholic believer. Between missionary help and fundamentalist bombing. There is a difference between religion as a cultural phenomenon and personal beliefs. And because of this range in configurations of religious claim I choose to counter each religious claim separately in debate. If you ever longed for devotion to religious content from a non-believers perspective, you can find that here.

Ok, here’s a major difference between us, and something perhaps I should explain. I was raised pretty much an atheist; my parents left me to choose what I was interested in, and I chose dinosaurs! Evolution was what I was raised with, not religious doctrine. Therefore I see, from my perspective, religion as both a cultural phenomenon and a set of personal beliefs for the believer. It wasn’t drummed into me, so I guess maybe I’m not so hostile towards it as a viewpoint. Noah’s ark was always a story to me. I was 20 before I twigged that Christians actually thought Jesus was God himself. I’d just never really considered it.

Again, I just like finding out other people’s views, and find religious history interesting. I still maintain that religious belief is interesting, especially the stance of the faithful, but then I’ve not had to break away from it as you have. I find the atheists who are most confrontational towards religion tend to be the ones who were raised religiously. That speaks volumes I would say.

I highly value Richard Dawkins' opinion about the epistemolological aspects of religion and I think the accusation that his critique is shallow and without indepth knowledge of theological grounds is a shallow attempt to dismiss his critique by avoiding the content of the matter. It is a reference to some still deeper grounds, it's the mystical card being played. If there are any straight answers they should be given, if there are non they shouldn't been feigned.

From what I’ve seen Dawkins is a very good biologist, and I won’t argue with him there. However, he attacks literalist religion, nothing more, and is very rude in basically saying religious people are superstitious and should grow up. I will go into more detail if you wish (indeed I’d enjoy it, as I’ve been trying to run these ides past people for a while.) Some of Dawkins’ ideas on the formulation of religion as a social construct I think are not too far off, but there’s a lot he misses. His dismissal of polytheism in The God Delusion just got to me, as he didn’t even deal with it in the way psychology does. He just assumes if there’s no God in the Abrahamic sense then the polytheistic religions are wrong. Hinduism is vastly more complex than that, seeing as it looks like a polytheistic faith, but is actually monotheistic. That’s where I’m coming from saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Brahman is not the same theological concept that Yahweh or Allah is.

I also have frequented theist fora. I found that 98% is about bible interpretation preferably in one specific tradition, it is not about critical examination of historicity and it certainly is not a cross denomination comparitive approach. Instead I found that there is an utter lack of willingness to compare across religions. I wonder if there are really groups of enlightened christians disagreeing with the fundamentalists. Indeed where is their hideout and why not join us here in debate against the variants of religion that are indeed detrimental to our society?

This is not like the religion forum I found. I think I might have struck gold there, especially considering the stuff I’ve learnt from a couple of the members.

Thanks for your reply Purple; hope that might be food for thought.