If atheists are to win their battle, they must separate religious culture from religious dictates
The atheist movement has been reinvigorated over recent years, but their appeals to logic and truth will become white noise unless they address the binding cultural roots of superstition.
By Jesse Kluver on Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 - 2,076 words.
Religion is the most powerful social phenomenon humans have yet constructed. When naturalists and supernaturalists square off in debate, naturalists often fail to see religion as something more than an outdated sack of viral ideas begging to be refuted by logic and reason. This failure prolongs the debate and the naturalists often lose footing, earning a reputation for being strident, overconfident, materialist, and shrill.
In the United States atheists are the least-trusted minority group (more distrusted than gays, recent immigrants, and Muslims) and an effort is underway for atheism and other naturalistic or secular worldviews to become as culturally accepted as supernatural worldviews. It is clear that their movement is determined, but it is equally clear that the resistance from religious communities, particularly among politically active religious schools such as Baylor University or Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, is strong.
Last month the British Humanist Association and Richard Dawkins backed a bus campaign in the UK, which was deliberately saccharine, and in Dawkins’ words, open, undogmatic, positive, and peaceful in promoting the naturalistic worldview. The slogan on the bus adverts is: “There’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The slogan is being countered this month by a series of disturbingly confident ripostes. Among them: “There definitely is a God, so join the Christian Party and enjoy your life.” If this were not enough of a religious kerfuffle, the atheists’ bus campaign was actually a response to a campaign run by jesussaid.org that condemned all non-Christian passersby’s to an eternity of hellfire and torture.
In the US last week the Council for Secular Humanism challenged the findings and methodology of a widely cited religion survey published by Baylor University. The Baylor survey purported to show that the United States is not becoming more secular. More reliable sources such as Pew, NORC, and Harris show the opposite; the United States is becoming more secular. The debate is spirited, pardon the pun, and the intensity is increasing. The public debate and the research on religious affiliation are consequential because the side gaining the most ‘followers’ by 2010 (the year of the next census in the United States) will win a significant political battle. Census information determines our political boundaries and our leaders use religious survey information to determine the salability of their political positions in their respective districts. But despite surveys indicating an increasingly secular, less theistic America, the atheists’ message is not as effective as it might be for a complicated reason.
Religion is not about what we often claim. We often claim it is only about whether a God or gods exist. This is certainly not so. Sometimes we claim religion is about truth––metaphysical or otherwise––and sometimes, annoyingly, “Truth” with a capital “T,” as if there were a difference. We often claim it is about the afterlife or the start of life or the beginning of life, the post-universe or the pre-universe, about what ‘caused’ everything or about ‘why’ we are here. Often we wonder, as Socrates famously formulated, where our morality comes from if there are no gods to call kind acts good––or wait a second––are the gods calling the kind acts good because they are good, or are they good only because the gods say so? I’m writing to assure you that you don’t need to worry. These claims about religion are only things we discuss on the periphery––while religion is serving its more fundamental function.
***
At an earlier point in my life, I would have said that religion is the babbling din people create together when they are convinced they are correct. But this is incomplete. Religion is also the collection of associations people make with and about each other when they purport to talk about life’s grand questions. It is a cluster of traditions and group histories and ethnicities and narratives. Religion is a way to observe life’s grand moments like birth and adolescence and marriage. And it is a way to grieve when life is lost, or, if one is so inclined, it is a way to cheat death entirely or begin life anew.
Religion is not simply an impermeable trash bag of dubious propositions waiting to be discarded as atheists often assume. It is more complex. It is a trash bag of dubious and sometimes dangerous and perverse propositions mixed with timeless truths and worthwhile allegory, coddled and nurtured and protected by the invisible hand of culture. The atheists’ approach thus far has been to essay a poke-and-prod at the bag of propositions, hoping to puncture it, thus exposing religion’s pungent dregs to the disgust of the coddler-at-large. But the coddler-at-large––culture––quite protective, rarely allows this. As if to say, “Don’t you dare come near my religion with that pokin’ stick!”
That has generally been the way of it. Americans are, indeed, uncomfortable talking about religion. Further, a poke at any God proposition is seen as an assault on the person who believes in Him. Humans, emissaries of their culture, become defensive when they feel their culture being impinged upon or confronted directly and the coddler-at-large has been carrying the trash bag of religion around for so long that the two have become almost indistinguishable; attacking one is attacking the other. I’m reminded of the theme song from the My Buddy and Kid Sister commercials, “My Buddy…wherever I go, He goes…my buddy and me.”
And really, this recollection is startlingly apropos. For many religions, God is a partner with whom a community or an individual can build a personal relationship, God is always present––an overseer of things, and for most religions, God cares deeply about whether or not we believe in Him. And, as anyone who has ever attempted to take a toy away from a toddler can attest, the process of separating the child from the toy is easier said than done. I submit that atheists have, for too long, focused on the toy, the trash bag of religion and religious propositions rather than on the connection between the culture that coddles it.
It is difficult for the atheist to discern sometimes where the implausible metaphysics ends and an individual’s culture, ethnicity, or other group identity begins. Where art critics or social critics or movie critics or food critics can openly criticize each other’s propositions about their art without fear of righteous reprisal and indignation, the philosopher or the scientist or the skeptical armchair naturalist treads wearily, often apologetically, when they challenge tired propositions and philosophies which would, but for culture, normally be headed for the wastebasket in any other domain for lack of evidence. Atheists are often pressured by culture to preface their remarks on religion by attempting to sound meek and mild. For example, “I’m not religious BUT I’m very principled,” or, “I’m not religious BUT I consider myself quite spiritual.” This is as if to say, “Don’t worry, you can trust me even though you don’t see me sitting in the pews on Sunday. Nobody needs to hang the threat of a tortured eternity over my head to get me to be a good person, I can handle it on my own.” This improper and unfair moral playing field, culturally imposed, is also a constant source of frustration for the atheist even if they don’t frequently address the cultural injustice directly.
***
It is self-evident to the atheist that faith is not a truth-tracking device; faith is a tool of the status quo. That the person of faith is not open to a reasonable discussion is a common and appropriate criticism. Sam Harris put his frustration this way:
“Faith is what credulity becomes when it finally achieves escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse – constraints like reasonableness, internal coherence, civility, and candor.”
The general implication is that the theist just needs the atheist to explain why they’re wrong, why their side has more evidence, more explanatory power, and then that’ll be the end of the debate. But until the coddler-at-large and the trash bag of religious propositions are separated and each assessed on their own merits, this debate will rage on and naturalists will remain a frustrated minority.
To the atheist, this can be a frustrating reality, but if the movement is to take hold and make progress, it must acknowledge that before religious propositions can be challenged, they must become disentangled from culture. Unfortunately, I know of no such campaign in the history of humankind that has effectively accomplished this disentangling without significant bloodshed.
Broader political implications of the religious debate
People go to church not only to worship, but also to buy face time with other members of their community, thus establishing implicit trust between strangers. Think of God as a personal reference, a third party that two strangers share in common. A stranger––but a friend of God––becomes an acquaintance to be trusted by default, rather than a mere stranger––distrusted by default. The more liberal and inclusive God is with his Facebook friends, the larger the circle of trust between strangers becomes.
It makes sense, then, that many, if not most, Americans believe in a more ecumenical god, an Everygod if you will. But this push to expand the moral circle and the circle of trust leads to many theologically naïve and inconsistent beliefs. This is further evidence that religion is not so much about the trash bag of particular propositions as it is about religion’s more fundamental function––acting as a social and cultural glue that fosters trust and peace of mind between people who would otherwise be strangers. A man standing alone on the street with a trash bag is a possibly psychotic vagrant to be ignored or avoided, but a thousand people standing together holding trash bags are a sane, fashionable, cohesive group with a purpose. Moreover, even if they’re dressed differently or have different backgrounds, they still have something interesting to talk about.
We observed a political application of the social phenomenon of religion last week when President Obama, appealing to the Everygod, made some astoundingly naïve and incorrect, but culturally palatable claims. Obama appealed to his fellow Everygod-believing Americans to sell his policy of expanding faith-based programs. Everygod is a god who, conveniently, exists for all Christians regardless of denomination and treats them equally. And, for the more free-spirited among us (again pardon the pun), Everygod treats humans of other faiths with respect. So much so that He also allows them into heaven after an undisclosed and undefined period of reckoning.
What matters to many people is not so much that others believe in any particular god, but that others have hedged their bets similarly, perhaps heeding a naïve form of Pascal’s wager, and believe in some god, in Everygod. According to President Obama, “No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate,.” He continued, “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” (Evidently our president skipped Numbers 31:1-18.)
It is difficult for me to believe President Obama is this theologically impaired, but for most people, to be impartial or to believe in no god is unacceptable. Irreligion is simply distasteful. It is a radical, reactionary philosophy––equally dogmatic, but more self-centered than religion. What our president clearly and publicly demonstrated is that it is not our theological or philosophical sophistication that matters, nor do our particular beliefs matter to most people. What is truly sacred to believers in the Everygod is the belief in the Everygod itself and whether or not this belief manifests itself socially.
I close with three recommendations for the irreligious. Before addressing religious propositions point by point, they should:
1. Highlight the ability of humans to function socially without religion (e.g., bowling leagues, community recreation, family time, neighborhood barbeques).
2. Campaign to separate religious beliefs from the nurturing hand of culture.
3. Address the fact that the playing field is unlevel, that atheists are presumed untrustworthy and immoral until proven otherwise.
Atheists are more comfortable with facts and logical propositions than they are with culture and subjective and social meaning. On a logical point-by-point basis, they will generally win a debate and evidence shines brightly in their favor. But debates are not won on truth alone. Logic and reason will quickly become white noise to the ears of the theist until the social and cultural phenomenon of religion is deconstructed and disentangled from the trash bag of religious propositions. If atheists are successful in a ‘separation of dogma and culture’ campaign, they will eventually garner a significant backing and will hopefully become less demonized in the process.
(+8 rating, 8 votes)
Loading ...22 Comments
Leave a Reply
Jesse Kluver
27Charlottesville, VA
Jesse Kluver is a PhD candidate at the University of Virginia studying organizational behavior and social psychology.
Articles by this author
-
Scientific illiteracy is a mammoth menace
The lack of scientific knowledge and rational thinking in the US is a detriment to the nation and must be fixed
-
If atheists are to win their battle, they must separate religious culture from religious dictates
The atheist movement has been reinvigorated over recent years, but their appeals to logic and truth will become white noise unless they address the binding cultural roots of superstition.
-
How the Republicans fell for the soft bigotry of political iconography
The Republicans have appointed a Black man as their new Chairman, but this merely shows their preoccupation with political iconography and symbolism at the expense of serious policy.
Hahaha…wow….all this seemingly impervious logic and you still can't make the easiest logical deduction of them all. I'm gonna try to not make this a debate about your belief in God, so lets not bring up articulate yet ultimately pseudo-intellectual theories like Dawkins' Boeing 747 Gambit.
First of all let me just say, I'm cool with people writing this kind of stuff. There should be more, so that we can have tangential and reasonable discourse about faith. And personally I prefer atheists(well agnostics really) more than people of other religions due to the way they go about understanding life.
So don't hit me with the stereotype of "the pompous intolerant religious brat".
I do agree with some of your finer points about Americans today believing in some sort of an ecumenical God. Not sure why you were surprised by Obama's ignorance regarding the Bible. If people (of any religion) really carefully read their respective scriptures, the world would be a different place today.
As far as discrimination against the Atheist minority goes, it is something that needs to be addressed. It’s totally up to them to make their voices heard. They make up a good chunk (about 16%) of the US demographic, so it shouldn't be that hard.
But here's my problem with atheism and atheists:-
You claim the higher intellectual/moral ground, which is OK, as theists and people of most other philosophies all do the same. But through all your smooth talk about a need to fix society, you ultimately display so many of the qualities of the people you criticize.
You believe, like they believe, that your own philosophy of life is what's best for society. And as much as you've tried in this article to show that you don't see religion and atheism through a superficial black and white lens, you end up thoroughly demeaning the theists.
Sometimes it seems that the reason atheists are so vehement about denying the existence of God is because they're so disappointed by the people who do believe in Him.
Check up on history. Lately, Atheism has as much blood on its hands as anyone else. Communism, Nazism's leanings toward evolutionary supremacy, etc. Think of the possibilities of a Darwinian ideology driven future readily adapting manifest destiny to attain power and land. Same as the crusaders did the past 1000 or so years.
"The problem with the secular narrative is not that it assumes progress is inevitable (in many versions, it does not). It is the belief that the sort of advance that has been achieved in science can be reproduced in ethics and politics."-John Gray
(try this article)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/socie...
And about the 'separation of dogma and culture'. Let's think from your POV. When the majority of a society has similar beliefs, then it's reflected in their culture. If you're thinking that they should become logical enough so that there's a separation between the two, then you're expecting from them a level/sort of logic which would make them renounce their religion in the first place (i.e. according to an atheist's logic).
See, that's the paradox of there being a truly secular state when the majority is not made up of atheists.
Excellent article Jesse! I will Stumble it.
Jesse:
I don't have much of a beef with what you are saying and do respect a religious person such as yourself who is much more intellectually honest than many others who throw their hat into the ring of the theist/atheist arguments. I would like to say, however, that many atheists, and all of the 'big dogs' of atheism ie. Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, entirely support the culture behind religion. I have heard upwards of several saying that they would have no problem people continue going to church for funerals, weddings, celebrations, even on a weekly basis. No one is suggesting taking down religious art or architecture or removing religious music. Though perhaps they should be more vocal about it than already, however Richard Dawkins is a member of a group called Atheists for Jesus, so I don't know how much more vocal one can get in that respect. All atheists are saying is are the truth claims your religion is making justifiable, and if not, then why do you believe them?
Jeff: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Just an FYI about my religiosity. I'm about as atheist as they come haha. I think it's interesting that you interpreted my shallow defense of religious culture as an evenhanded statement from a somewhat religious individual.
Also, many thanks for your reply to Muntasir. I wasn't about to respond to the myriad unrelated comments about Hitler, creationism, Communism, and so on in a post about culture and the political tension between atheists and theists. I found your response to be more than adequate
I am half Jewish, my mother and her whole side of the family is jewish. More than half of the jews I know are essentially atheists, including my mother. They reject everything in the old testament, they don't believe in god, heaven, or hell. But they go to Temple, they celebrate their bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah, and are very closely tied to the jewish community. It is not uncommon for jews to be atheists, seeing as though most modern jews (with the exception of Hassidic) don't really take anything in the Old Testament seriously because for the most part, it is a really bad book. You don't have to give up an inch of tradition or ritual in becoming an atheist, the major problem when it comes to Christianity and Islam is that we are unwelcome. There would probably be far more atheists, and far more atheists still participating in their inherited rituals if we were welcome in the churches and mosques. I've been told outright that I am living in sin and am going to hell many a time by people I've known my entire life, and for Muslims, apostacy is punishable by death.
So, I would like to just end saying that the atheist strategy should be more towards getting religious people to be more comfortable with atheists so that atheists feel more welcome to participate in traditions and rituals related to their upbringing, and so that also, religious people know that they do not have to give up any of their culture when becoming an atheist.
Oh, as for atheism being dogmatic or self-centered, both equally ridiculous statements. Atheists are the first people to say they don't know when it comes to a number of different questions, all they are saying is that they reject religious assertions that they DO know the answers to these questions when they clearly there is no evidence or evidence is to the contrary.
VERY interesting take on this. I'd love to hear specific proposals about how we might bring religious people to be more comfortable with atheists. My suggestions for atheists were rather vague and I wish I were creative enough to proffer some solid ideas.
Any concrete thoughts on this matter?
As for self-centered, a religious person believes that the world was built with them in mind, that God has a plan for you, and that they're special. That they know certain truths that others do not, they're the "chosen people", and other such equally ridiculous claims. Atheists are humble, they accept things to be true because theres sufficient evidence and reject things when there is insufficent evidence, and when it comes to questions that are still unanswerable, they will openly admit that what they're doing is speculation.
Muntasir:
The idea that atheism is to be blamed for any of those atrocities is ridiculous. First of all, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. The Vatican celebrated his birthday and he used God alot in his speeches. Even if he was an atheist, though I won't say that he is, the majority of the nazis who committed deeds under his rule were not. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution in the sense that evolution is a blind process of natural selection whereas social darwinism is essentially the same thing that humans have been doing with livestock and the domestication of animals for thousands of years.
People killed under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were killed in the name of communism, not Atheism. They were killed because they were political dissidents. When people attribute crimes against humanity to religions it is solely because someone read from the Bible and said "God wants us to kill these people" or "God told me he wants us to kill these people" or "These people are heretics and if we let them live they could infect our children with their blasphemy and then our children will spend eternity in hell". Not every crime committed by religious people was because of religion.
The genocide of the Native Americans, though justified by religion, was mostly fueled by an unsatiable greed for gold. It is usually never brought up as a tally for the crimes of the religious side. Look at any atheistic society with values of democracy, liberty, and freedom, Sweden would be a good choice as they have upwards of 85% atheists in their nation and they're doing better in the US in almost every category imaginable. One could even look in our own country with regard to statistics related to atheism, an atheist is disproportionately less likely to go to prison than a relgious person (they make up 12-15% of the population and only take up 2% of the prison population).
However, that does not matter because the simple fact of the matter is that there is no doctrine to atheism. The only common link between atheists is a single assertion that they do not believe in god. They can be nihilists, humanists, moral absolutists, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, dog people, cat people, etc. That's why it is so hard for atheists to have any political pull because they're so different, gathering atheists has been likened to 'herding cats'.
I thank you both for eloquently voicing your views, and hope that both of you can pick apart anything that I've said that was unjustified and make it known to me so that I may either concede to that point or improve upon it.
Look, everyone knows Hitler was or claimed to be Christian. I used the term "leanings", by which I meant him and his Nazi counterparts were fascinated by the idea of scientific racism i.e. finding absolute logic on why the lives of non-Aryan or healthy people had lives that were of no value. Hitler himself was interested in eugenics along with racial hygiene which led to the commissioning of the later atrocities. And I'm hoping you didn't mean atheism has had no role in shaping day to day culture in communist societies.
I didn't say people killed in the name of Atheism, but rather tried to point out the adverse effects secular mentality, especially the deadly cold blooded logic which does not hold the value of a lone human life as something special, has had on massive populations.
And that's how it sorta works, and might in the future. Like you said, atheism isn't a unified philosophy or belief, it's just a "disbelief ". And its hard for people to unite around something like that.
Mosques aren't used in most places for anything other than prayers. Marriages and other such riuals aren't carried out in it. So an atheist wouldn't have much to pass the time. And no one's going to ask you if you are an atheist and tell you to get out.
As for apostasy, its only punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, and that too if you speak out ill against the religion you used to be a member of. And you might not get this, but to them it is the equivalent of betraying one's nation. And what do all nations do with traitors?
That of course doesn't mean those actions are justified. But anyways I'm tired of sounding apologetic cause my comment still stands.
You obviously see much of religion as having a cultural affair, but Islam is supposed to be a complete lifestyle which one lives by. Its not about going to mosques and celebrating Eid.
Therein lies a big difference in our perceptions of religion
I again defer to a proper understanding of history and reason regarding Nazism and Hitler and racism and eugenics and the 'adverse effects of secular mentality' and the 'deadly cold-blooded logic which does not hold the value of a lone human life as something special.'
I'll leave it to the readers to decide if those things are relevant to the article or if more secular societies like Sweden are devoid of compassion.
You seem to draw a false distinction between religion being intertwined with culture and religion being a 'complete lifestyle which one lives by.' This is precisely my point. For some people, their religious identity colors every aspect of their existence. These are people with typically quite insulated worldviews––so far unbreached by dissenting points of view. In other words, they aren't good targets because their opinions are not liable to change.
For the majority of church-going westerners however, religion is intertwined with culture but it is not an all-encompassing way of life. In addition to their religious faith, their worldviews are shaped and influenced by a complex barrage of oblique or diametrically opposed views as well. These people are better targets for the secular agenda because they are simply more likely to come around to the idea that religious propositions and the culture of religious appeasment can––and ought to––be separated.
Jesse, though it's a "disbelief", I think it's safe to say Atheism is your "religion". When you say you want to separate faith from state, you should see that you are in a way trying to impose your own "religion" into the working of the state.
Religion has a strong connection with a lot of people as it tells them the purpose of life. Therefore, it is arrogant to assume it won't play a wide role in their lives. It's ultimately a matter of democracy, where the majority religion dictates (loudly or through undertones) the way some things work in society. Religious people of all faiths will insist that their religion is totally tolerant to others. And that's the problem you'll face. It's a utopian society that you're talking about.
The type of change that you want to bring about first of all requires changes in the personal philosophy of the people. You'd have to first invalidate to everyone their religion by using logic. And if that's what you aim to do, then good luck to you mate.
On the notion of having "typically quite insulated worldviews", I consider the people who have a foot on both boats to be hypocritical. Because they should either follow their religion fully, OR reject it if it has errors/practices that just doesn't make sense to them.
Anyways, thank you for the debate, I learned a couple of things in the process.
Lets look at some figure for Victims of repression, twentieth century (through 1993) and ask ourselves if we can trust atheists any more than others.
Type of government Total Own citizens Others
Democratic 2,028,000 159,000 1,858,000
Authoritarian 28,676,00026,092,0002,584,000
Totalitarian,
non-Marxist-Leninist 27,691,000 1,265,000 26,425,000
Marxist-Leninist 110,286,000101,929,0008,357,000
Other (guerillas) 518,000 464,000 54,000
If atheists take win any battle then run for the hills!!!
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1525
sorry it all got bunched up but follow the link to see table, thanks.
The article makes a relatively clear point about individuals, communities, and religious identity.
It does not discuss forms of government.
Further, the question was not whether atheists couldn't be trusted more than others. The assertion is simply that they are the least-trusted group. A fine distinction but a necessary one.
Your table and comment don't seem to follow the premise of the article, but it contributes two important problems worth addressing.
1. Let's ignore the fact that you've interchangeably used 'atheist' and terms such as 'marxism.' You are attributing to an entire group, the actions of individuals. In fact, in the U.S. atheism is most prominent among prestigious scientists who, by most accounts, are a peaceable people.
2. Unlike other differences of opinion, it is clear from your comment that you view atheists as morally lacking in some way. This is not the case for other religious minorities. In other words, as long as a person has SOME religion, and it doesn't really matter which one, they're seen as more morally upstanding than their atheist pals. Seemingly by virtue of their metaphysics.
But this is the premise of the article: that religion is not simply about theological metaphysics or epistemology. It's about community and culture. To be religious is to belong to a community to which the atheist is an outsider. It makes sense, then, that the atheist would be distrusted more than any other group.
But an explanation is not a justification and unfair treatment is unfair treatment.
The Marxist Leninist example is fitting in that there have never been atheist societies as dominant cultures outside of Communist countries. To defend your point I'd say that atheists are not necessarily Communists.
This however posses an extreme problem for atheists looking for role models! sure we all know individual atheists but what country are they from? …they have no home land of their own but rather exist within society where freedom is the norm. In extreme authoritarian societies they have been known to be persecuted or be the persecutor. The atheists trick of downgrading Faith on the basis that Religion somehow = the biggest reason for wars down threw history is pure spin, because the truth of the matter is that history records mass genocide has been practiced more effectively by atheists using industrial methods of extermination than theists.
So back to the question: how can atheists win trust? the answer must surely be in the practice of freedom and liberty of speech and beliefs but hey No! …that's too much for some folk who believe that individuals aren't free to express opinions of morals and beliefs if someone somewhere can be found to take offense. PC gone wild is a totalitarian state built on liberalism at war with itself.
Atheism is a religion based upon science as understood today, a system called the survival of the fittest, not realizing the fittest are often the most degenerate that hold back progress and true advancement of mankind. One reason most turn away from predominant Christianity, are the same survivalist that find religion (Christianity) the greatest ladder for their venture and goals to success.
Secularist's will denigrate the Old Testament story of the Promised Land, not realizing God at this time is leading a people through the politics and kingdoms of man, what do you do with such (giant) evil if not removed that will eventually grow to be your downfall. There are said about 1,000 wars going on in the world by man this very day, are these based upon mans secular ways of moral and just-wars?
Where secularist's become truly lost, is believing the anti-Christ (church is body of Christ) or false churches are of Christ. The Bible warns often of these times, of many false teachers/preachers, prophets, and anti-Christs that will lead many astray. In America I have noticed many following George Bush's god, they join in religious Crusades at the drop of a hat, or should I say raghead camel jockey.
This must be one of the stupidest explanations I have ever heard.
First your premise is wrong. Atheism is not a religion bases on science. Nor does science preach the "survival of the fittest" in the Nazi stereotype you would like to attribute to this phrase. It's people like you, that their scientific ability stops at adding 2+2 that are the problem not atheists or believers.
Atheists do not believe in a divine power. That is what differentiates them with believers. There has been no evidence displayed to this day to show that people of faith or more moral or just than atheists. Many of the wars going on in this world are in fact do to beleif and religion.
You got a spring or two loose.
Excellent article, thank you. I'm a committed atheist and have regular, frustrating arguments with religious people. I had only very recently realised how pointless this is and the article threw light on why: it may have SEEMED we were arguing about the same thing but that now appears not really to be the case. I almost always have a good feeling when I recognise my own contribution to an unsuccessful personal encounter and I am now more willing to accept responsibility for these clashes.