7 Responses for "Why Atheists Shouldn’t Make Fun of Religious Believers"

1. tony October 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm 1

   I don’t necessarily believe Religulous’s theme is to make fun of those who are religious, and you’re “politically incorrect” (pun intended, LOL!) if you call Bill Maher an atheist. Unless of course, you saw the film and he admitted to that.

   Um, what is the theme?
   I believe, the theme is much less controversial than what people make it out to be. He’s not making fun of religion, so keep that out of mind. Is he making fun of people who have a religion? Yes. What he is generating laughs from is not the doubt of a higher being, but the trust and vast amount of confusion in religions and those who do and don’t believe. You must agree that if you were a young child, and were “forced” to go to partake in your parents religious beliefs and/or rituals, you’re technically being brainwash and controlled to believe in it. Bill is merely saying, why is it true because you say it is, what’s wrong with not being sure, or being in the middle. So let’s all kick back and laugh about not bashing religion, but the goofy things that go on with people who got mixed and confused about religion along the way… (ex: believing you’re the second coming of jesus christ and wanting to tell EVERYONE / wanting to physically fight another because they disbelieve in your beliefs / telling church goers that birth control is wrong, so stop having sex or have lots of kids / people believing in something but being almost 100% clueless on who,what,when,where,why)

2. Anon October 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm 2

   Some thoughts after reading:

   * atheism isn’t an organization or a group. It’s a category of people who only refuse to believe in the [mainstream] concept of a deity. There’s nothing about “atheism” that prescribes a person’s personality. Yes, there are “secular humanists” and “moral atheists”, but these people are a subset of atheists.
   * I hope you are as critical of the religious as you are of atheists.
   * I wouldn’t say at all that “irrational belief” is the default belief for humans. We are susceptible to synthesize ideas and form frameworks of our worldview, and from there we *often* come up with conclusions that are later proven false or true or become more and more unlikely (animism, polytheism, monotheism…). I think that the humor atheists see in religion from the outside comes from the spectacular conclusions at which theists arrive.
   * I agree with you that we should be more civil to each other and try to avoid elite attitudes (on both sides), although sometimes it takes a lot of work to make people open their minds.

3. Andre October 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm 3

   I suggest seeing the film. I imagine you find it uncomfortable in terms of the feelings coming up when someone attacks religion per se. I saw an interview with Bill on the Daily Show (www.thedailyshow.com) and he didn’t seem like he had anything against religion.

   He was very clear, however, in his reaction to people who choose to (or are conditioned into) act as if the religious books are literal.

   I see his challenging what I call the mind-only relationship to religion, as a positive wake up call for both religious and non-religious people who are interested in a true, personal relationship with God/Spirituality.

   Also, he’s clear on the fact that he’s not an atheist. Again, I will watch the movie, and I highly suggest the interview.

   Best regards,

   Andre

4. mike October 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am 4

   There’s one point you made I’d like to touch on, which I discussed with an associate of mine recently. He is a Buddhist but he admits that he doesn’t actually believe in Buddha. He takes the mysticism of the universe as a catalyst. Basically the idea of organized religion gives people a focal point, or a goal, or a good mindset. He, for example, feels more clear headed because of ritual meditation, and does them because of the benefits they provide for his everyday tasks. If you can do that I’m all for religion, but for people like him I have to ask. Once you realize what you’re doing, how can you continue to participate? If you know there is no mysticism, and that you have been capable all along, shouldn’t that be good enough for you to stop being active in your religion? Likewise, if one realizes that religion was created by people to give a foundation to morals for example, how can one then continue to believe in it? We don’t need religion to uphold morals anymore, we have laws. You kill someone, you go to jail. An analogy would be that all religious people are staring at a movie screen from the front view, and to them what’s on the screen has depth and is real, but a skeptic stands up and walks to the side of the screen to see that it’s just a 2D projection. He walks out of the theater and moves on with life. Some people though, check out the side view, realize it’s an illusion but continue back to their seats anyway simply because they like it. I’ll never understand those people.

   Mike

5. EricM November 1st, 2008 at 12:21 pm 5

   Thanks for bringing up a valuable discussion point. I haven’t seen the film yet and so can’t speak to that specifically, but as to your points…

   * Some of the recent atheists’ writings (e.g. Hitchens) do come across as religion-bashing polemics and might do more harm than good, but a lot of it (and I’d include Dawkins in this group, despite the harsh sound of his book’s title “The God Delusion”) is simply making a strong logical case for one side in this argument. I don’t see this so much as atheists going on the offensive as I see them finally putting up their hands to fend off the bashing they’ve been (mostly) silently taking for hundreds of years. In those “Would you vote for a…?” polls atheists typically rank somewhere between terrorists and dead people in the USA. Look at Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s “Godless American” political ads in NC as an example of the “atheist=devil” attitude that’s so common in this country, and note that the response isn’t “there’s nothing wrong with atheists” but rather “Kay Hagan (her opponent) teaches Sunday school”. I believe Dawkins and his ilk are doing a great service by educating people about what atheism is and isn’t and yes, they should certainly take the moral high road and not belittle religious people, but neither should they retreat into silent acceptance.

   * re your point “Irrational belief is the ‘default setting’ for human beings”, I’m really curious where this idea comes from. I can’t cite any research either way, but I’d be surprised if that were a true statement. On the surface I’d assume the opposite was true, that from the moment we’re born we’re testing the environment to see what’s true and what’s not (rational investigation, aka science). If we didn’t have a strong cultural religious indoctrination I don’t think we’d naturally make up most of the stuff they preach. I grew up going to church and still go occasionally with family, and since becoming an atheist I’ve noticed that almost the entirety of church services consists of repeating the mantra “we believe in God” over and over in different forms (creeds, prayers, hymns, etc), as though worshipers’ dedication to the cause was held by a tiny thread that had to be reinforced over and over.

   I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of not mocking anyone for their beliefs, and maybe Religulous does this (the title certainly implies it), but it’s important to not be silent, either.

   Eric

6. Duane Johnson November 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pm 6

   @EricM: Some great points, thanks for engaging. I agree with your first point: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with defending one’s point of view, and it does indeed seem timely and appropriate for atheists do do so.

   Regarding the second point, I have no research to point to, only my observations. The reason I say irrational belief is the “default setting” is because the world is too complex an entity to understand given the meager tools of the mind available at birth and into adolescence. Inevitably, without some kind of guiding influence, children seem to grow up believing in things that are irrational. The “scientist inside” is a good point, however, and so I think there are at least some natural components of the mind working against what I call this “default setting”.

   I look at history as a source for my hypothesis: whenever humanist books are destroyed (i.e. the cumulative store of human knowledge that counters irrational thinking), there is a long road to recovery before a rational inquiry of the world can once again overtake, for example, supernaturalist explanations of things.

7. bill November 6th, 2008 at 4:49 am 7

   bill maher is not an atheist noob he’s an agnostic