Tract #51: Why Do Atheists Attack Religion?

Tract #51, Why Do Atheists Attack Religion?, is ready for you to print and hand out. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

051_attacking-religion.pdf


Why Do Atheists Attack Religion?

Religious people sometimes feel like they are under attack by atheists — and, sometimes, they’re right. Other times, they feel attacked when they are not being attacked at all. Let’s consider a few examples.

It has been popular to say that attempts to grant legal rights for homosexual couples is an “assault on Christianity” or that asking companies not to alienate their non-Christian customers is a “war on Christmas,” and certainly there is a strange sort of appeal to being able to say that you are part of a persecuted group (a persecuted majority, in the case of Christians). But the world would be a much better place if we all tried to get along and understand each other’s point of view instead of treating every disagreement as an insult and every difference of opinion as an attack.

Posted on November 13, 2009 at 10:07 pm by ideclare · Permalink
In: About atheism, Tract

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by Andre Roussil
    on December 20, 2009 at 5:18 am
    Reply · Permalink

    Atheist illusions

    Mad Dog Vachon, a wrestler from the 60′s said that people who claim that Wrestling is fake are idiots. Of course it’s fake you dimwit! Don’t you get it – no one cares. Those who blather on and on about how logical and skeptical they are, only end up proving they are pathetic geeks. That people dare to believe in wrestling upsets them with an evangelistic fervor combined with a snooty sense of moral and intellectual superiority. The last thing these people are doing is convincing others to give up their faith in Wrestling.

    Doesn’t this sound familiar? Ah yes, nouveau atheists and skeptics alike blog away on numerous sites pointing out the King has no clothes. What they hope to accomplish escapes me. There are many intriguing and fascinating things about religions and human political structures that can be examined without this petty, humorless, confrontational and vested criticism.

    The big picture is that we are all in the same boat and subject to the same human foibles. Not believing in the old bearded guy in the sky doesn’t make me any smarter or better than believers. It’s all too easy to point out hypocrisy and moral inconsistencies in the practice of any religion without getting our hands soiled. As an Atheist, I believe that religions are originally forms of government. They have laws, judges, police, and armies as well a full compliment of legal concepts that we emulate in modern law and government. The purpose of religions was to establish and maintain common good and governance – a political system. Most religions are no longer in power and have accepted the supremacy of civil law. This is not a choice, as religions without power will eventually disappear. I doubt, even the most ardent religious people in the U.S. wish to throw out the declaration of independence and the constitution and turn the U.S. into a monolithic religious theocracy. In their heart of hearts, they do not have faith in their bible thumping leadership to run the country. I believe American citizens have faith in the constitution, British common law and their peculiar electoral system of checks and balances designed to avoid centralization of power. If they truly had religious faith, they would believe that the Bible(s), which have been used as books of law for millennia, should supercede the constitution and common law. Aside from being traitorous, people realize that the U.S. would soon decay into a violent civil war if this happened.

    What burns me up about many Atheists is their virulent reaction to religion. Were they tortured by a priest in their youth? Religion is the Devil and they are the exorcists. Religious leaders may be guilty of hypocrisy, lying, doubletalk and outright meanness but that’s normal for politicians. Religions are not the issue; It’s more about human nature. We should be happy most groups are satisfied with the system as it is and respect the law. Sure they may lobby a few places to teach creationism, so what, It’s bound to be temporary. Who would hire a scientist who considers creationism a science? The most avid creationist would sweat bullets if they found out one of the engineers maintaining the 747 they fly in were also a “creationist”. They don’t really believe creationism is science, but it’s an affirmation of political power to impose it on others. There is no danger of the U.S. Canada or any country outside of the Middle East becoming a theocracy. So what’s the problem? Abortion, gay rights, prayer in school. Ultimately they will all pan out.

    Every day that passes, religious flocks gets smaller. With the advent of modern communication, the process is accelerated. Societies open up as newer generations see what the rest of the world is doing. It’s getting harder and harder to maintain homogeneous closed secretive societies with strict social control. Some religions like the Mormons take advantage of modern communication methods to hide from public view and they do a fair job of it. Scientologists also do this for many of the same reasons; the main one being that the underlying mythology makes creationism look almost attractive.

    Skeptics waste much time and energy countering misinformation and bad science output by various groups. It’s like using logic and arguments to prove Wrestling’s fake. I would suggest it’s counter productive. It gives credence to absurd ideas because they don’t deserve a rational reply. Most believe what they want and need to believe so why bother. Humor is a much better weapon against the irrational. Samuel Clemens has developed all the effective techniques necessary. Ask the Great spaghetti monster to help you.

  2. Written by Johnrap
    on November 24, 2010 at 12:00 pm
    Reply · Permalink

    At this point the only thing keeping evolution afloat is the popularity it gains from appearing to be anti-religious.

    Survival of the species. Species adapting to environments. Species evolving and leaving behind. Those are all valid parts of evolution. They also have nothing to do with religion.

    Now, the idea that some lightening bolt hit a pool of amino acids and created the first self-replicating, energy catalysed, micro-organism, which managed to in turn chaotically terraform earth, that is as fanciful as any religious creation myth. I’m certain it will one day be replaced by something more believable, perhaps panspermia.

  3. Written by Anonymous
    on December 16, 2010 at 5:54 pm
    Reply · Permalink

    Intentionally waiting for Christmas to spread an atheist message is just trolling, not free speech. As a Christian I couldn’t imagine doing something similar to another during their religious festival. What is the motivation in doing this for atheists other than hate?

  4. Written by Anonymous
    on June 11, 2011 at 10:54 pm
    Reply · Permalink

    I find the problem of homchirality to be very hard in convincing me in hopping the o to popular abiogenisis theory convinced of the evidence that life couldn’t happen on its own and something.had.to of caused it. I also am convinced by the fact that decay of space and useable energy happens leads mee to believe that the universe is dying.

  5. Written by rwsgate
    on February 27, 2013 at 4:15 pm
    Reply · Permalink

    Anonymous- Christmas might be your religious holiday now, but it is also the holiday for many other religions at the same time. It’s derived from celebrations of the winter solstice, which occurred on the shortest day of the year. This symbolized rebirth to the ancients who celebrated the day. It wasn’t even so much religious as it had to do with planting, harvest, etc.

    Johnrap- Evolution is backed by vast numbers of scientific studies. If you think it only exists because it is anti-religious, you don’t know much about evolution. The part about life evolving from heat, amino acids, chemicals, a methane atmosphere has been replicated in the lab. The only thing different is the vast time in which the amino acids had to combine into some replicable form. You’re also dealing with abiogenesis, not with evolution. Evolution is what happened after the first “cells” became replicable.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply