The real gist of it is that we can’t just agree to disagree anymore. One side of the argument is right and the other side of the argument is dangerously fucking nuts.

I don’t agree with this way of thinking, although I also don’t believe Richard Dawkins, who popularized – if not invented this approach, could have said it better himself.

Unfortunately, not every person who practices a religion is going to stop, and not every atheist is going to start having faith. Since we share the same planet, we are going to have to put up with each other with neither side having their total will imposed.

It’s kind of like when I want to watch a horror movie and the wife wants to watch a romantic comedy, we compromise by renting a suspense thriller.

I don’t think that laws should be passed based on any religious doctrine unless everyone, including people who don’t subscribe to any religion are in agreement with it. For example, I’ve never heard an atheist have a problem with “Thou shalt not kill” also being a law. I think most people agree that flat out murder is bad. But when we start talking about abortion, that’s when things start to get jiggy with it.

I don’t agree with abortion, but I also can’t make one decision that will be right for every situation. If I voted, I would vote for freedom of choice, so people could either have abortions if they think it’s right, or not have them if they think it’s wrong.

If atheists and the religious focused as much energy on real world issues like hunger, AIDS, and homelessness as they do worrying about what the other side believes in their heart, the world would be a better place for everyone.

In either case, I think tolerance and understanding of other people’s beliefs (or lack thereof) is the only answer. From both sides.

Then again I’m a high school drop out with a GED. And I’m originally from Florida. Take with a grain of salt.

Nice post, it really seems to evoke emotions from both sides of the argument. Well done.

Wonderfully written. Somehow i keep ending up on your site when i see your post titles. It’s been a long time and the design is different, but I’m always blown away.

My mostly unadvertised thoughts of religion have been color-coated by Sagan. I’ve used his quotes when speaking with many people, paraphrased them, etc. But he’s said it so bluntly and inoffensively that it’s hard not to listen:

“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”

Thanks for your comment.

I also read another one of those pro-atheist/agnostic books over the summer, written by a bestselling mathematician (Irreligion by John Allen Paulos). Have you read it?

Afraid not, but I have promptly added it to my “to-read” list.

Basically, the author presents twelve classic/popular arguments for God that have been made by pro-religious groups, then destroys each and every one with simple math and logic. And the great thing is, those counterarguments are essentially impossible to refute.

That seems to be a popular concept, mostly because it’s quite often not that difficult.

For instance, I saw the most delightful documentary on National Geographic Channel called “Was Darwin Wrong?”. Although it stepped on eggshells in its attempt to very gently sway — well in this case believers — it’s arguments were superbly compelling. For instance, the oft-used argument that the human eye is way too complex to have evolved naturally was obliterated in beautifully simple physical models showing how it could have evolved from being simply lightsensitive material to a full, round eye.

The physical models were built by a norwegian scientist and were so compelling in demonstrating the usefulness of each iterative evolutionary step that even a kid could see that this was clearly how things happened.

Jim,

Thanks for your comment as well.

I completely agree that being open-minded about this documentary is the only sane way to approach it.

I am not religious but I think religion will never truly be a thing of the past. There will be religious people and non-religious people. I just hope that religion will be regarded more as guidelines to morality instead of indisputable protocols that MUST be adhered to and defended to the death – that’s just plain wrong. Nothing should be taken that seriously.

Thanks for your comment.

I do have issues when people paint all religions the same. The problem with your post is that you take what certain people do and ascribe it as a trait for all.

That was certainly not my intention. I bluntly acknowledge that there are many harmless believers.

This post, however, is not about the believers. This post is about the inherent danger that permeates religion. Because I don’t want to single out any one religion, I talk of religion in general. I believe that is the only sensible way to criticise it. Let me explain with an example.

Some 200 days ago, a group that called themselves “anonymous” populated digg with anti-Scientology videos and calls to action. The responses were almost unanimously against Scientology and people widely cheered “anonymous” for taking a stance against this specific religion.

Scientologists happen to believe that a galactic emperor Xenu, millions of years ago, dropped space aliens in to the volcanoes of Hawaii, caught their souls and released them as ghosts to haunt humans as “body-thetans”.

It sounds like an episode of South Park, but it’s actually at the core of what Tom Cruise believes in. Because it’s so blatantly ridiculous, It’s very easy to label as batshit insane. Digg.com agreed.

Yes, that’s nuts, but it’s only modern nuts. Sitting under a tree for 20 years, parting the waters or filling a single ship with two of every kind is also nuts. It’s just a sanctioned, traditional kind of nuts.

The problem is that all those belief systems allow for extremely dangerous interpretations. If we aren’t allowed to criticize them — and some countries punish this quite severely — crazy things will keep happening in the name of “god”.

The bottomline is this:

The problem is not the harmless believers, and the problem is not one single religion. The problem is religion itself, and what it can do to people.

So please understand that, I have meant no offense. Oh, and until this film, I didn’t particularly like Bill Maher :)

I come from a very religious background (although I am no longer practicing). Yet no one in my family wants the government to mandate their beliefs as law. As a matter of fact, it was people of the same background that have fought the US government for years to prevent such unconstitutional practices.

My personal feeling is that people will use whatever they want as an excuse for their behavior and in some cases that excuse is religion.

I would also be wary of praising Bill too much. He know that he has to be make more and more controversial statements if he wants to stay relevant.

The onus is on the religious to prove that God exists. And there should be no discussion of this subject until such proof emerges; and certainly no influence upon society by the religious until such proof emerges.

God and religion is not merely ridiculous – it is not really even a topic for discussion.

However, the flip-side is that many are still too afraid of reality. They need the idea that an after-life gives their short lives some kind of meaning. They need to believe it’s “god’s will” that someone is ill, or dead. Because the reality is just too much to bare.

Religion will always exist. My only wish is that it was balanced in respect of science and an open mind. Far too often science is placed on hold, our very ability to learn more about ourselves and our universe halted, out of fear that it will expose religion (and those powerful within it) as not being the answer after all.