If someone wants to believe in something completely ridiculous such as religion, why should atheists care? Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” What Jefferson didn’t realize is that those who believe in only one God will often do much more than merely break your leg.
As a point of fact, religions are dangerous. People use religion to justify the most absurdly cruel acts and attitudes. Few will argue that religion was the principle motivator for the 911 attacks.
Some religious people will point out that there are lots of things in the world that people use to justify cruel acts and attitudes and yet atheists only seem to focus on religion. This is true. It also doesn’t excuse the cruelty that religion is responsible for inspiring. There is a difference between religion inspired violence and cruelty and other justifications for cruelty. That difference is faith.
The Bible defines faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Faith can’t be reasoned with or compromised. When someone has faith in something, no amount of logic or evidence can change their immediate view. Such a thought numbing mindset is not just a justification for cruelty, hate, and violence; it is a direct cause of such things. Steven Weinberg put it this way, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
If people just believed ridiculous mythologies and didn’t act on those beliefs, atheists wouldn’t have a problem and probably wouldn’t spend any amount of time refuting the ridiculous ideas of religion. If I run into a crazy person telling me that Elvis is still alive or that Martians inserted an anal probe in his or her butt, I don’t sit down with the person and go over the logical problems with his or her beliefs. But then again, these people aren’t out there making laws based on their beliefs either. Nor is there a significant voter block trying to push politicians for more Elvis based laws. These Elvis believers aren’t stealing tax payer money in the form of tax-exempt statuses or trying to define marriage as having to be preformed by Elvis impersonators.
The point is that religious people do all those things and they have tried to force their ridiculous beliefs on society without providing sufficient evidence for those beliefs. Perhaps a religious person would understand the position of atheists better if they considered what it would be like if the Elvis-lives ideology was being propagated the same way they are propagating their religion. Would religious people sit by and accept that Elvis is still alive? Would they refuse to believe it, but not bother to criticize the Elvis believers? Would they maybe mock the belief that Elvis is still alive and perhaps call that belief ridiculous?
I bet if 80% of the population believed such a ridiculous belief and were trying to push that belief on everyone going door-to-door on Saturdays, erecting Elvis temples on every street corner at the tax payer’s expense, lobbying congress to make Elvis friendly laws such as changing our national motto to “Elvis Lives,” etc. etc. non-Elvis believers would start to speak out.
This is the world atheists live in. We care about religion because we are forced to care about religion. If religious people stopped forcing their ridiculous ideas on society, then atheists would stop criticizing those ideas. We would, simply think to ourselves that you guys were crazy and not bother refuting your craziness. For example, I generally don’t even bother to informing people that there is no intelligent life on Mars.
If you enjoy this article, please consider sharing the link and subscribing to the Philly Atheist Examiner column using the "Subscribe" button above!
On Faith Series:
On Faith: Sarah Palin’s feminism, faith, and abortion
On Faith: National day of prayer and masturbation
On Faith: Can religion handle sex?
On Faith: Is the media biased against the Catholic Church?
On Faith: Is the Pope above the law?
On Faith: What is heaven like?
On Faith: Disbelief in the pulpit
On Faith: Catholic Church’s attempt to blackmail Washington fails
On Faith: Is proselytizing overseas religious freedom or coercion?
On Faith: Should religion have a role be in U.S. foreign affairs?
On Faith: Should the president be a religious figure?
On Faith: Does God allow Haiti to suffer?
On Faith: Media biased against Christians?
On Faith: Free speech vs. God
On Faith: Religion’s Impact 2009
On Faith: Climate change a moral issue?
On Faith: Good News -- Oral Roberts is dead
On Faith: Just war or holy war in Afghanistan?
On Faith: A crèche in the White House?
On Faith: Swiss ban on Islamic minarets
On Faith: holidays or holy days?
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: What happens when we die?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: The Nature of Good and Evil
Atheism 101: The Problem of Evil
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the lord, liar, lunatic argument?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Atheism 101: Refuting Presupposition Theology
Atheism 101: Refuting Dispensational Theology
Comments
"Religion" is too broad. There are so many religions that any ill can be categorized as a religious belief. You also have people who act in opposition to what their professed religion teaches. And then you have people who act in harmony with their beliefs and do a world of good.
I can definitely say that my religious beliefs have made me a better person. Learning to exercise my beliefs has led to acts of kindness I would not have done otherwise. Religious organizations help people who are down on their luck, are suffering because of their own mistakes, or are victims of abuse. Untold millions are feed, clothed, rescued from danger.
Allowing tax-breaks for ministries is not a bad thing. If you donate to a ministry, your donation is also tax-deductible. All that means is that the Government doesn't feel like they need or deserve a portion of your altruism - which is absolutely true. They tax us enough on everything else.
"Learning to exercise my beliefs has led to acts of kindness I would not have done otherwise."
Rene,
Forced acts of charity are not charity. If your only motivation to commit acts of kindness is because your religion tells you to, then you are still a selfish person. So by this statement you are admitting that your beliefs have not actually made you a better person, you are just doing what others tell you do to.
Secondly, I won't deny that religious charities do a lot of good, but the primary goal of a religious charity is not to relieve suffering but to save souls.
Genuinely good people will commit good acts regardless of their religious belief or non-belief. If someone is compelled to commit good acts only because they are instructed to by their religion, then the notion that their religious belief has made them better a better person is an illusion.
Aaron,
Like it or not we are all taught about charity and learn to do good things to others. If you observe the behavior of 1 and 2 year-old children you'll notice that they are naturally selfish, greedy, and annoying to children around them. It's only when parents and others teach them to be kind, or to share, or to forgive that they learn these civilized behaviors.
What I'm saying is that we're all "forced" (or expected) to do nice things by something bigger than us. For some it's religion, others it's their upbringing in the home, for others it may be an interest in social causes.
The Bible does tell us to do good things. As a follower of Christ I try to do loving things because I love Jesus and want to obey Him, not because I'm scared of Hell or my Pastor makes me do them.
Mike, your answers keep getting stupider and stupider. One and two year olds don't have fully formed brains yet! They are not capable on a biological level of being selfless. Being kind and sharing is in part learned behavior, but it is mostly useful behavior. Those toddlers who don't exhibit those behavioral traits will not survive.
I would argue that politics was the principle motivator for the 9/11 attacks. They didn't attack churches; they attacked the Pentagon and the corporate state, and they were going after the White House (or was it the Capitol?). The twin towers were government against the little guy from day one (Google gary north world trade center eminent domain). Osama's fatwas were more about US military presence in the Mideast than US cultural perversity, though his disdain for the latter is as well known as it is justified.
Weinberg was wrong. To really make people miserable you need politics: the Inquisition, evil as it was, killed 50,0000. That was less than a month's work for Lenin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot. I believe most of the guys who did the job were decent people once you got to know them. (My son is a US soldier: I think the war in South Asia is an abomination, but he is decency and better personified.)
Needless to say, one doesn't need to be religious to be political.
I would argue that politics was the principle motivator for the 9/11 attacks. They didn't attack churches; they attacked the Pentagon and the corporate state, and they were going after the White House (or was it the Capitol?). The twin towers were government against the little guy from day one (Gary North, "Eminent Remains"). Osama's fatwas were more about US military presence in the Mideast than US cultural perversity, though his disdain for the latter is as well known as it is justified.
Weinberg was wrong. To really make people miserable you need politics: the Inquisition, evil as it was, killed 50,0000. That was less than a month's work for Lenin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot. I believe most of the guys who did the job were decent people once you got to know them. (My son is a US soldier: I think Bush-Obama's war in South Asia is an abomination, but he is decency and better personified.)
One doesn't need to be religious to be political.
I just find that the entire methodology of theist thought is what bugs me. It's so backwards, and unquestioning. Goddidit is just such a BS and unsatisfying answer...
Larian,
You're right, "the Big Bang" did it is much more satisfactory. There are no flaws or BS in that explanation.
Henry,
What American cultural perversity, so deserving of Osama bin Laden's hate, are you talking about?
The kind of cultural perversity that does not destroy priceless historical artifacts just because they represent a different culture?
The kind of cultural perversity that allows free expression of religion?
The kind of cultural perversity that allows women to sit next to men in a classroom? The kind that protects them from spousal beatings? The kind that preserves their lives after they are raped?
Are you saying that religious people who commit grave atrocities do so because of their religion? This would mean that people do not have free will. I know plenty of atheists who have done some despicable things, but I certainly do not claim that their behavior is caused by atheism. That's absurd! People are responsible for their own actions. Many try to escape guilt by using religion, for instance, as a way to justify their hate so they feel righteous. It's really that simple. A religious person who commits violent acts will do so even if they become atheists. Religion (or lack thereof) does not automatically make someone more prone or less prone to being evil.
Sorry, I think it's time we blame individuals for their actions and not try to use religion, politics, bad childhoods, etc as an excuse for violence.
Are you saying that religious people who commit grave atrocities do so because of their religion? This would mean that people do not have free will. I know plenty of atheists who have done some despicable things, but I certainly do not claim that their behavior is caused by atheism. That's absurd! People are responsible for their own actions. Many try to escape guilt by using religion, for instance, as a way to justify their hate so they feel righteous. It's really that simple. A religious person who commits violent acts will do so even if they become atheists. Religion (or lack thereof) does not automatically make someone more prone or less prone to being evil.
Sorry, I think it's time we blame individuals for their actions and not try to use religion, politics, bad childhoods, etc as an excuse for violence.
Myles,
Thanks for the good questions.
Spend an hour or two watching prime-time TV or listening to the radio on ten random channels. Spend 15 minutes looking at the headlines at a magazine rack. Or read Neil Postman's *Entertaining Ourselves to Death.* Our popular culture is morally bankrupt. What kind of culture makes heroes of airhead actresses and athletes, not to mention murderers like Bush and Obama?
I said the disdain was justified: the kettle is no less black just because the pot that calls it black is also black. Islam is certainly no improvement. Sharia, however religious, is thoroughly political for the reasons you mention and therefore a proper object of the wrath Staks directs at religions.
Staks,
It's good to hear someone who understands that "forced acts of charity are not charity." The US zeitgeist since 1932 has been that government can be compassionate, but your words put the lie to that: taxation is compulsory, and the transfer of money is therefore not charity. The corruption and dependency that the welfare state has bred are symptoms of the fundamental evil of government "compassion."
Christians are not forced by our worldview to be charitable any more than you are by yours. Yes, we are so in the hope that people will be converted, but that's no different than you urging people to give to atheist charities to show that atheists can be charitable. We are both giving fish where needed but ultimately wanting to teach people to fish. Where we disagree is in the definition of fishing.
Actually, one of the beautiful aspects OF religion, is that even if I don't WANT to do something God would want or don't FEEL like doing something God would want, because I do love God, I think of this and WILL do what God wants because "it's the right thing to do". It has nothing with whether I'll "get into Heaven", or anything else, except just the fact that it's a "good" thing and it's something that God would want me to do (be kind to a stranger, not to judge, be more patient with my kids, husband, etc., ) I am greatful that God wants me to do these good things and greatful that I don't just do them "when it's convenient for me to do so". No, I'm not perfect that's for sure, and nobody is (Benjamin Franklin tried to be, and tested himself to no avail). I don't always suceed in what God would want me to do, but I do try, and try, and try, despite, again, whether it's convenient for me or not. Being too "tired" is no excuse...."just not in the mood" no excuse....
Try it....
Spiritualy is not a dangerous concept. Religious dogma is. It isn't the Creator's fault the we humans cannot practice His/Her ways in the manner He/She envisioned because we are given free will. I often think the Creator weeps at our brutality and the horrific acts carried out in His/Her name.
Most atheists and agnostics don't actually care about religion; it's just that you never hear from us.
This is the spotlight fallacy, a special case of Biassed Sample. The faulty reasoning here is that atheists do in some meaningful way generally care about religion. There was a Pew study on this, with correctly governed statistics; amongst 81% of atheists and 89% of agnostics there was "little to no" interest in other people's faith, provided non-violence.
Examine your data please, Examiner.
It's a rather small point, I know, but if you argue something, then you're recommending it; "Few will argue that religion was the principle motivator for the 911 attacks" means that you're saying that you believe that most people think religion was not the principle motivator.
Just sayin'.
You are not really an atheist. You believe in God but hate him. Recent studies show that amongst the militant atheists, well over half have deep unresolved issues with their mothers. I sense the sad little boy morphed into seething resentment in you.
Well Steve, I don't own a gun nor am I violent in any way. So I can't really be considered militant. Second, I have a very good relationship with my mother (thanks for asking) and I am not really sure if she still believes in a god any more. I might have de-converted her. I can assure you that I really don't believe in your god or any other god for that matter. The evidence is just not there. On a related note, isn't God supposed to be a father figure (rather than a mother figure)? Maybe you have issues with your daddy. Thanks for playing.
It's really sad, I think, when people who DO believe in God, always have to do away with our thoughts and traditions to please athiests. This country was built on God believers mostly. Why should the majority of those believe have to silence their freedom of speech for athiests? We shouldn't have to. To each their own.
Idiots SHOULD be silenced! Religious believers lack responsibility for their own existence.
I'm sorry the prohibition on stoning gay people inconveniences you Sandy. The fact is that The US Constitution, which this nation's founding document, explicitly states that America is a secular nation. That means that the laws cannot be based off your Bible, but rather must be based off of the common good for all people. So while you are free to talk about stoning who ever you like for what even reason the Bible states, threatening to do so is a crime in this country... and well it should be.
Your (the) cartoon left out the most despicable acts these people do and that is taking advantage of our senior citizen as they get closer to death. The fear that is created by these maggots is sickening (sometimes actual physical sickening) "Old people - send me all of your money so that you will be prepared"
How come you atheists are so dumb. Surely you can come up with something challenging to consider instead of your stupid tired little rantings.
Well, my friend. I have now read your section on Atheism 101 about why atheists should care about religion. The error in it is quite easy to see and comprehend. You quote Hebrews; faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). True enough. Yet you abuse the passage as well as the concept of faith . You are wrong to assert that when someone has faith in something, no amount of logic or evidence can change their immediate view. For anyone of real faith realizes one important fact: faith and reason cannot contradict one another.
A belief in a God is a point of philosophy, not religion. It is a truth readily and conveniently overlooked by many nonbelievers. The history of the Catholic Church is deep with Saints who assert that faith and reason compliment rather than contradict one another. Aquinas, Augustine, indeed any Doctor of the Church says as much. So as philosophy is based on reason, and the existence of a God is a philosophical matter, it follows that faith must be congruent with philosophy. We are, ahem, graced with the ability to reason. No just God (and a just God is again a rational philosophic conclusion) would allow for any type of knowledge to contradict another. Knowledge, being of three basic styles (empirical, rational, and faithful) must be in harmony or it would have no value. The real truths of science, philosophy, and religion must be congruent.
That people, even Popes and Imams, have used religion poorly is without doubt. No human being is perfect; ergo, any human being can err. Yet how many secularists, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, have also done horrible things against humanity (one wonders if perhaps they together killed more and caused more calamity than presumably religiously inspired actions) without the aid of religion? Still, to assert that religion is based solely on faith is a rather hollow claim. It begs the question of whether the accuser actually researched religion or is simply acting knee jerk.
I like how you made up that Faith is a kind of knowledge. That is great. Can you prove that? Of course not, that would be empirical knowledge. Faith is a different kind of knowledge that does not require proof, just naked assertions. Brilliant.
The old Hitler, Stalin, and Mao argument. Really? Is that the best you can do? For the record, Hitler was a Catholic. But that aside, I dealt with this issue in the latest article (which you already read and commented on) dealing with the Discovery Channel gunner.
Yes, faith is a kind of knowledge. But as what it teaches is indeed not empirical, it cannot be fully judged by empiricism. That it is not empirical does not mean it is wrong,
I know Hitler was a Catholic. Kindly do not speak to me as though I am stupid. I am trying to be reasonably conversational with you and trying to avoid snide responses. Hitler's actions were not Catholic. They were secular.
I will double check, then your article. But I think we both agree that anyone, religious or atheist, can do bad things. But I must reassert that secularists have done far worse injury to humanity than religion has.
You stated that Hitler was non-religious. I corrected you. You now claim that his actions were secular, but Hitler claimed that they were religious in his own book. You now claim that secularism is the cause of all evil in the world. That is just laughable. No one dies when people act too reasonable. Claiming that faith is a kind of knowledge is a joke. Faith knowledge cannot be independently verified and that is why it is not knowledge. This is what I alluded to in my comment. Oh, and you are attempting to change the topic of the discussion to avoid what is discussed in the article.
Hitler was wrong. Merely that some individual claims he is acting for or within the Church doesn't make it so. Hitler was not acting Catholic. He was acting secular, for whatever glory he sought for himself or the Aryan race.
You once more put words in my mouth. I never once said that secularism is the cause of all evil in the world. I said that it has done far worse injury to the world than religion.
Independent verification is not necessary to prove something is true.I knew the minute I met my wife that she was who I was to marry. I knew, in a deep and profound way. And as it did not violate anyone's legitimate rights, there was no reason not to believe it.
I have not changed the topic. You are the one who quoted Hebrews and I am addressing that in all of its necessary implications. If you didn't want to discuss faith you should have used a better Scripture passage.
Again, Hitler himself claimed that his actions were religious. The Church at the time also aided him. You claim that secularism caused more evil than Religion, but you have not laid out any evidence for such a claim. As I pointed out in the article about the Discovery Channel gunman, there is no doctrine of secularism and such a comparison simply doesn't work.
"Independent verification is not necessary to prove something is true." Actually it is. That is how we can know that something is true. Otherwise, we can just make up anything and call it true and no one can challenge us on it. This is how religion has gotten away with all their make believe stories for so long, but now we are starting to call them out on it. You can't just claim "Truth" you actually have to prove it.
Just thought I'd like to mention here that the Catholic Church supported the Nazi's. Hitler had FULL support of the Pope.
You and Hitler are wrong on both points. I did give evidence, the gulag of Soviet Russia, the Great Leap Forward of Mao, Ivan the Terrible, the excesses of the Roman Empire: history is alive with secular tyrannies. It may be true that there is no doctrine of secularism, but that's only because secularism is disordered; there is no particular style to it but the selfishness of the moment.
Truth can be tested against Reason, as I have said. With my example of marrying my wife, what I knew intuitively did not contradict logic, and is verifiable by that standard. You are speaking of empirical truth, which does of course require scientific evidence. Philosophic and theological truth are judded by different standards.
I think I addressed that in the article about the Discovery Channel gunman. Thanks
Stalin also collected stamps, but I don't see you drawing any generalizations against uppity philatelists.
Communist personality cults are not the least bit atheistic. Stalin and Mao were God-substitutes, demanding unconditional obedience without justification just as theistic religions demand of their followers. Those who reject religion and superstition could use the same intellectual tools to reject Communism, if so inclined.
We see the same in North Korea today: can you imagine what would happen to you if you went to Pyongyang and tried to spread atheism?
Dictators banish God from their realms for one reason and one reason only: because they hate competition.
You did not. You did not address my remark my all. Yet I now find your rudeness rather quaint. Petulant, in fact.
It's not possible for all religions to be right. They contradict each other.
It is possible for all religions to be wrong though.
The true danger of religion is this "why do atheists care? what does it hurt? let me belive what i want, and you can belive what you want"
by believing in these stupid religions you give them legitimacy.
That means that because part of the bible is considered "true" by you, the rest of it must have some legitimate value - if not to you, to others. and the bible itself teaches some terrible terrible things:
it teaches hate (2 Chronicles 15:12-13; Deuteronomy 17:12) and encourages discrimination (Numbers 25:1-9, Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6)
The bible openly chastises women (Corinthians 15:34-36, Colossians 3:18) and gay people (Romans 1:24-32, Leviticus 20:13), encourages rape (Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7-11, Deuteronomy 21:10-14). it openly supports slavery (Ephesians 6:5, Timothy 6:1-2) and human sacrifice (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 21:9).
The bible guides us in how to properly capital punish people (Kings 18:36-40), children (Kings 2:23-24), or entire towns (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
The bible is dangerous, christians are dangerous. Beware of them.
Religion is the root of many social problems. Trying to avoid or neglecting this view is what has given religion its apparent powerful status. If educated people spoke out more, people would listen, but most keep quiet thinking it is not their problem. Such attitude only promotes the superstitions religious views bring to the table. And not only this, they are also giving credence to other superstitious views. Just recently I spoke with a woman who says she believes a black cat crossing one's path is bad luck. She also believes in not walking under a ladder "just in case." Religion does something similar for it puts doubt in people witnessing simple, normal life events, but people believe in a god "just in case." A bad approach, but very prevalent nonetheless.
(I asked the woman what had happened before ladders appeared, but she did not have an answer. I also asked her how long it took for the black cat crossing someone's path to take effect on the person, ten minutes, twenty four hours? She smiled and said that was a good question, but did not have an answer either.)
While I definitely understand where you’re coming from—a lot of stupid things have been done in the name of religion—I think there’s an inherent problem in your argument. You state that “The point is that religious people do all those things and they have tried to force their ridiculous beliefs on society without providing sufficient evidence for those beliefs,” yet it seems to me that that‘s exactly what you are doing.
Let’s take, for example, your example of the hypothetical Elvis-based belief system “trying to define marriage as having to be preformed by Elvis impersonators.” You’re obviously correct that non–Elvisians would argue that that unfairly infringed on their rights, but what basis would they have for that argument? Why is the belief that only Elvisian marriages be appropriate somehow inferior to the belief that non-Elvisian marriages also be appropriate? Either way, it boils down to someone’s belief, and so it is with every law every written.
In the history of this nation (and probably every other), I doubt you could find a single law that has ever been enacted for reasons other than someone’s belief. Whether that someone be the king, the tribal elders, or an oligarchical electorate, it still boils down to what someone believes—that person’s religion, if you will. Your religion, it would seem, is atheism, yet your absence of belief in God has no more external evidence than my belief in Him.
Where, then, is your “sufficient evidence for those beliefs” stemming from your lack of theism? Why is your belief structure somehow logical while mine is somehow “ridiculous”?
Again, I want to reiterate my wholehearted agreement with your premise that a lot of people have done a lot of stupid things as a result of what they deem to be “faith” (which is a topic for another time), but if you argue that good people only do evil things as a result of religion, you’ve got to also accept that those others’ metrics are most likely disparate from your own. They probably don’t think what they’re doing is evil (else why would they be doing it?), and their belief cannot be validated any less than yours.
In short, your argument allows the interpretation that you be a good person who is foisting a great evil on the world, as a result of your religion. And more importantly, it leaves you powerless to prove otherwise.
You fundamentalist atheists are just as amusing, dogmatic and terroristic as the theists--same attitudes, same tactics, same results--just a different set of dogmatic fundamentals. I enjoy watching you as much as I enjoy watching the religionists! You are a Hoooooooooooooooot!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!