Support NeoGAF

[Air]

"I like/prefer this story more than others" seems to be the essence of Air's position. Which is probably why there doesn't seem to be a straightforward answer to why "I believe religious claim A (with no evidence) to be true, but religious claim B (also with no evidence) to be false".

That said, that's basically the same as saying "I like Star Wars more, but I respect some of the themes presented in Star Trek as well". Which is fine and all, but that would technically make "Trekkies" religious followers now

Of course, if the majority of religious believers actually treated religious claims that way, then atheists wouldn't have any issues (hell, atheists would no longer exist), just like how "Atrekkiests" don't exist. And no one would make a big deal of someone saying "those claims don't have any evidence for them, therefore they are incorrect".

In reality, atheists are often be accused of being "close-minded" or "not knowing the true meaning of religion" when they simply point out that a religious belief isn't true. Of course, the utility or "niceness" of a belief is a completely separate discussion (and could even be seen as a distraction) from whether that belief is actually true. I often find these two discussions get muddled together when religious claims are defended. It might even be considered an implicit admission that the belief in question isn't actually true.

While I talked about why I believe what I do, I never shied away from the fact that I could be wrong. But I think your post is fine for the most part. I also posted in other threads and even earlier why I believe (if I remember correctly).

im curious, has anyone found god or religion through this thread? or has it been only the other way around, some people giving up their faith..?

Most people who post back here talk about how they lost their faith.

 

[onipex]

That's a nice cookie-cutter answer but ultimately an intellectually dismissive one.

Also most Christians never met Jesus.

They're merely taking Paul's word for it which is funny when his letters reek with bias.

So when you were a Christian you didn't believe Paul's letters in the first place? I'm asking because you said you struggled with what Paul said as a Christian. My cookie-cutter answer is how a Christian learns of Paul.

 

[astroturfing]

Most people who post back here talk about how they lost their faith.

are there more than one or two? really awesome if there are.. proves that trying to reach out to the religious and deconvert them isnt a futile effort! i will personally try to make more of an effort whenever i get the chance, for sure.

 

[Air]

are there more than one or two? really awesome if there are.. proves that trying to reach out to the religious and deconvert them isnt a futile effort! i will personally try to make more of an effort whenever i get the chance, for sure.

I don't know the numbers.

 

[Erigu]

i understand how it can be annoying though, i absolutely hate it (as an atheist). never used the analogy myself.

Why? Seems like a perfectly valid analogy to me.

 

[Subprime]

Fixating on things like whether or not jesus was resurrected misses the entire point of the new testament. Its a story about someone bringing a philosopohy to a stagnant and corrupt (at the time) religion and having it be rejected. who cares if he was resurrected or not, he had good ideas.

 

[Erigu]

who cares if he was resurrected or not, he had good ideas.

All those who consider Christianity a religion rather than a mere philosophy? I think that's a bunch of people.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Anyone know good books or sources on Igtheism?

Small summary my friend linked:

This is the first time I've heard of it, but one can definitely sympathize with that view. Even making a simple claim that god is perfectly good requires a definition of good that varies between individuals or groups. I don't think that it is impossible to agree upon a definition of god, but people won't ever agree because they smuggle in their own personal biases in constructing a conception of god (even if that conception is based on already agreed upon doctrine, such as Catholicism or Islam). However, doesn't this argument merely lead to agnosticism or atheism? Why do we need a new word for it?

That's a nice cookie-cutter answer but ultimately an intellectually dismissive one.

Also most Christians never met Jesus.

They're merely taking Paul's word for it which is funny when his letters reek with bias.

Paul also never met Jesus apart from what he thought he saw in a dream. (How much we do really know about Paul anyway, apart from what was written in Acts, which might not even be a true representation of his ministry? I think that would be an interesting question to pose to a Bible scholar. The only reference I know of to his conversion in the Pauline letters is a brief suggestion in 1 Corinthians 15 that Jesus appeared to him.)

 

[Count Dookkake]

Fixating on things like whether or not jesus was resurrected misses the entire point of the new testament. Its a story about someone bringing a philosopohy to a stagnant and corrupt (at the time) religion and having it be rejected. who cares if he was resurrected or not, he had good ideas.

And some awful ones.

Also, others have had good ideas.

 

[Subprime]

And some awful ones.

Also, others have had good ideas.

Pretty much. He is in a line of good thinkers/ social activists. His circumstance elevated him to godhood. If he was perfect his achievement would mean less to me. Him being human makes the social change he instigated that much more meaningful.

 

[Erigu]

If he was perfect his achievement would mean less to me. Him being human makes the social change he instigated that much more meaningful.

"He also said some terrible things? That makes him even better!"

 

[Count Dookkake]

Nothing makes a great meal better than a few scattered bites of shit.

 

[Subprime]

What? My point was that if someone is human and manages to effect great social change that means more than if a god effects social change. I dont hold him up higher than Freud or Darwin, but neither of them were perfect so why use a different standard of judgement just because he is fetishized by a popular religion.

 

[Atramental]

Freud and Darwin never told people that they were going to burn in hell for all eternity if they didn't believe they were sons of god.

Spoiler

Yes JGS, I know you don't believe in a fiery hell. Jeeze.

 

[slidewinder]

There's a special un-fiery hell for JGS where he has to listen to a bunch of annoying atheists forever.

 

[Dude Abides]

What? My point was that if someone is human and manages to effect great social change that means more than if a god effects social change. I dont hold him up higher than Freud or Darwin, but neither of them were perfect so why use a different standard of judgement just because he is fetishized by a popular religion.

He didn't really effect social change. He was largely ignored in the decades after him and when the church got going in subsequent centuries its not as if it was a force for good.

 

[Erigu]

My point was that if someone is human and manages to effect great social change that means more than if a god effects social change.

I think it's cool how he did that without pretending to be the son of god and able to perform miracles like coming back from the dead. 'Cause that would have been cheating and thus a lot less meaningful, right?

 

[Mgoblue201]

He didn't really effect social change. He was largely ignored in the decades after him and when the church got going in subsequent centuries its not as if it was a force for good.

Yes, I wasn't sure what kind of social change he was talking about either. Most of the great social change has only occurred in the last 300 years. The existence of Christianity for 1,700 years without any significant change in humanity's fundamental condition would appear to argue that Christianity was not the vital element that brought it about. Furthermore, there other critiques of the "great moralist" view of Jesus.

1) There is no proof that Jesus really said anything that was written in the Bible; we are essentially dealing with a character from a book (which obviously doesn't affect the content of the message, but then it is the authors and not Jesus to whom we should attribute the words).

2) You cannot separate the morality from the religion. If Jesus was not god or not speaking for god, then the moral basis for his admonitions are suspect, and most of what he says becomes irrelevant.

3) Jesus was not that great of an ethical philosopher anyway (I agree with Nietzsche that Christianity invites self-repression and a slave mentality). It is a failure of his that he did not preach a message of human rights. Helping the poor is great, but it's not the same thing.

 

[Lothar]

Freud and Darwin never told people that they were going to burn in hell for all eternity if they didn't believe they were sons of god.

Spoiler

Yes JGS, I know you don't believe in a fiery hell. Jeeze.

Of course it doesn't matter if hell is fiery or not either. It's still a bad place where you get eternally punished for finite thought crimes. Air, why would you have respect for other beliefs when Jesus has none? Subprime, why would you follow the philosophy of an intolerant bigot?

 

[Buckethead]

I came upon this today. Made me laugh:

“My young son asked me what happens after we die. I told him we get buried under a bunch of dirt and worms eat our bodies. I guess I should have told him the truth - that most of us go to Hell and burn eternally - but I didn't want to upset him.” -Jack Handey

 

[makingmusic476]

From what I've read of his posts, Air comes off like an agnostic atheist that hopes or faintly feels that there's some higher power out there, and thus ascribes to Christianity because it offers the most comfortable/familiar definition of what that may be.

He just can't let go.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Yes, I wasn't sure what kind of social change he was talking about either. Most of the great social change has only occurred in the last 300 years. The existence of Christianity for 1,700 years without any significant change in humanity's fundamental condition would appear to argue that Christianity was not the vital element that brought it about. Furthermore, there other critiques of the "great moralist" view of Jesus.

I believe it was the "Thor's Angels" episode of the Hardcore History podcast that discussed at length the problems facing the Christianized Roman Empire. Like how it was possible to justify in any way that a Christian nation could have a military. It certainly didn't do anything to stop Roman Imperialism though, and historically any nation that laid its arms down and whose policy vis a vis invasion was to turn the other cheek would be annexed in short order.

 

[Subprime]

Freud and Darwin never told people that they were going to burn in hell for all eternity if they didn't believe they were sons of god.

Spoiler

Yes JGS, I know you don't believe in a fiery hell. Jeeze.

Part of the issue here comes from the sheer amount of mis translations in the bible and the metaphor in it. When I read bits about im talking about the kingdom of heaven and hear about the various mistranslations of gehenna/hades/tartarus/abyss, I tend to come to the conclusion that he actually held a view of the afterlife closer to the traditional jewish version (see: there is none).

 

[Lothar]

Part of the issue here comes from the sheer amount of mis translations in the bible and the metaphor in it. When I read bits about im talking about the kingdom of heaven and hear about the various mistranslations of gehenna/hades/tartarus/abyss, I tend to come to the conclusion that he actually held a view of the afterlife closer to the traditional jewish version (see: there is none).

That's not true because hell is described over and over as a place of torment and where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. But I'll say again: there's little difference whether hell is a fiery hell or whether people just die. It doesn't change the atheist argument in the slightest. Jesus explicitly says people who don't believe in him are condemned. It's still awful of him to kill/allow people to be permanently killed. And not for doing anything terrible like killing hundreds of people, but just for having different beliefs. The fact that he condemns people for their thoughts makes any philosophy you get from him worthless.

 

[JGS]

That's not true because hell is described over and over as a place of torment and where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. But I'll say again: there's little difference whether hell is a fiery hell or whether people just die. It doesn't change the atheist argument in the slightest. Jesus explicitly says people who don't believe in him are condemned. It's still awful of him to kill/allow people to be permanently killed. And not for doing anything terrible like killing hundreds of people, but just for having different beliefs. The fact that he condemns people for their thoughts makes any philosophy you get from him worthless.

You still sound upset about what you think your lot in life is. Why can't you just accept that you don't accept the teaching? It almost sounds like you are pulling an Abraham- pleading with God to do the right thing although he actually already is.

Oh, & eternal torment for sinners is not a Biblical teaching. I know you said it didn't matter, but it does. There is a huge difference between eternal torture and death. You will die whether God exists or not. No one has ever been punished eternally so it's silly to make the two of them equivalent.

 

[Lothar]

The first part makes no sense. Why would me saying it's awful to condemn someone for their beliefs be implying anything about my lot in life?

The second part is just the words of an illogical thinker. If God exists, we die because that's the way he set it up. That's the way he wanted it. We are given an eternal death sentence unless we believe in him.

 

[Jackpot]

You still sound upset about what you think your lot in life is. Why can't you just accept that you don't accept the teaching? It almost sounds like you are pulling an Abraham- pleading with God to do the right thing although he actually already is.

Oh, & eternal torment for sinners is not a Biblical teaching. I know you said it didn't matter, but it does. There is a huge difference between eternal torture and death. You will die whether God exists or not. No one has ever been punished eternally so it's silly to make the two of them equivalent.

"Why do you consider other religions a load of hooey but not your own?"

Got an answer yet?

 

[Lothar]

No one has ever been punished eternally

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Who wins here? JGS or Jesus?

 

[coldfoot]

“My young son asked me what happens after we die. I told him we get buried under a bunch of dirt and worms eat our bodies. I guess I should have told him the truth - that most of us go to Hell and burn eternally - but I didn't want to upset him.” -Jack Handey

If you swap hell and worms, it would have actually been funny. I'd choose hell over not existing.

 

[HolyCheck]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

Dawkins and Cardinal Pell from Aus debating on live tv

 

[Mario]

Not entirely sure this is the right thread, but a friend of mine is putting together funding for a documentary looking at various religious beliefs through the eyes of an atheist. Might be an interesting watch regardless of where your belief falls.

Project website
http://godisincredible.com

Funding opportunity for interested atheists and theists to get behind this
http://www.indiegogo.com/godisincredible

Note that each bottom tier $6 donation will be matched by another funding partner, so a $6 donation actually provides $12 worth of funding.

 

[imtehman]

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Who wins here? JGS or Jesus?

BEFORE anyone perpetuates the belief that people will burn in hell forever and ever, they should actually study the bible.

 

[Mario]

BEFORE anyone perpetuates the belief that people will burn in hell forever and ever, they should actually study the bible.

You ask too much from evangelicals.

 

[Lothar]

Before anyone participates in a thread, they should learn to read to avoid embarrassing themselves.

Hint: Nothing in that post was referring to burning in hell. It was about whether or not death is an eternal punishment. Of course it is.. if there is a God.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Not entirely sure this is the right thread, but a friend of mine is putting together funding for a documentary looking at various religious beliefs through the eyes of an atheist. Might be an interesting watch regardless of where your belief falls.

Project website
http://godisincredible.com

Funding opportunity for interested atheists and theists to get behind this
http://www.indiegogo.com/godisincredible

Please baby Jesus somebody proof-read his bio section.

 

[pgtl_10]

I hear a lot of people blaming religion for the ills of the world. I found this article interesting:

www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/09/the-weaponization-of-atheism/

Religions don't kill people. People kill people which is why I believe that even without religion people will still kill one another for whatever reason deemed justified.

 

[Mario]

I hear a lot of people blaming religion for the ills of the world.

That isn't a claim or argument often put forward by atheists here, if at all.

Religions don't kill people. People kill people which is why I believe that even without religion people will still kill one another for whatever reason deemed justified.

I don't think any atheist here would disagree with you that violence and strife would continue if religion disappeared.

However, secular humanists might argue that religion is an enabler of discrimination and hate, a provider of misinformation, and a negative influence on rationality amongst other things. There are tangible negative outcomes arising out of religion that may not necessarily be replaced by something "equal" should religion disappear just because of human nature.

A world without organised religion might not be a utopia, but in my opinion at least it would be a better place on balance.

 

[Dice]

BEFORE anyone perpetuates the belief that people will burn in hell forever and ever, they should actually study the bible.

You think new views on hell go around unchallenged?

Start here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0875523722/?tag=neogaf0e-20

It's ridiculous to assume any theological matter is so easily solved.

 

[pgtl_10]

That isn't a claim or argument often put forward by atheists here, if at all.




I don't think any atheist here would disagree with you that violence and strife would continue if religion disappeared.

However, secular humanists might argue that religion is an enabler of discrimination and hate, a provider of misinformation, and a negative influence on rationality amongst other things. There are tangible negative outcomes arising out of religion that may not necessarily be replaced by something "equal" should religion disappear just because of human nature.

A world without organised religion might not be a utopia, but in my opinion at least it would be a better place on balance.

Not really I think humans are inclined to be selfish and will continue to find justifications for killing. Evolution can often be used for suppression such as when early evolutionist viewed women as inferior.

Also the article I pointed is a good example of atheism in many ways has people who are intolerant and start organizing like a religion.

 

[Mario]

Not really I think humans are inclined to be selfish and will continue to find justifications for killing.

I don't think you read what I said. But are you suggesting that all current religiously motivated violence will be replaced totally by people just coming up with "other reasons" because "it is in their nature"?

Evolution can often be used for suppression such as when early evolutionist viewed women as inferior.

Such discrimination is not an example of "science can be used to discriminate" because that isn't "evolution" nor a modern citation, nor is it an argument that organised religion should remain.

Also the article I pointed is a good example of atheism in many ways has people who are intolerant and start organizing like a religion.

Worth noting that atheism, in and of itself, carries no beliefs or doctrine. The article is hardly a damning paper on an atheistic viewpoint and no indication that organised religion is free from intolerance itself.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I believe it was the "Thor's Angels" episode of the Hardcore History podcast that discussed at length the problems facing the Christianized Roman Empire. Like how it was possible to justify in any way that a Christian nation could have a military. It certainly didn't do anything to stop Roman Imperialism though, and historically any nation that laid its arms down and whose policy vis a vis invasion was to turn the other cheek would be annexed in short order.

I wonder how far we can carry the peaceful aspects of Jesus. When he says do not resist your enemy, it seems to me that he is talking about personal or legal squabbles. I don't think that it necessarily means do not field a military (which would contradict much of what god condoned in the OT anyway). There are of course ways around these things. The Bible may say do not judge, but god obviously can judge anyone he pleases, and any Christian could easily say that I'm not judging you, god is judging you, and I am merely the messenger here. It is an easy way to judge without defying that particular passage in the Bible about not judging (and I think that it's the logical conclusion of any theistic moral system). Thus, people who take such a verse as literal truth that you should never judge no matter what are probably disregarding the context of the rest of the Bible. Likewise, I don't think that we can ever interpret Jesus to mean do not literally ever harm anyone.

Anyway, I'm not ashamed to say that I listened to all four hours of that podcast.

 

[JGS]

I wonder how far we can carry the peaceful aspects of Jesus. When he says do not resist your enemy, it seems to me that he is talking about personal or legal squabbles. I don't think that it necessarily means do not field a military (which would contradict much of what god condoned in the OT anyway). There are of course ways around these things. The Bible may say do not judge, but god obviously can judge anyone he pleases, and any Christian could easily say that I'm not judging you, god is judging you, and I am merely the messenger here. It is an easy way to judge without defying that particular passage in the Bible about not judging (and I think that it's the logical conclusion of any theistic moral system). Thus, people who take such a verse as literal truth that you should never judge no matter what are probably disregarding the context of the rest of the Bible. Likewise, I don't think that we can ever interpret Jesus to mean do not literally ever harm anyone.

Anyway, I'm not ashamed to say that I listened to all four hours of that podcast.

I'm not sure how one could misunderstand Jesus' intent on that one. There would have to be a record of Christians taking up arms in Scripture to believe that it would be a part of the canon. Christians were never a physical nation like the Jews in OT so they never needed a military (It would be impossible to implement since Christianity is in every nation). There is nothing Scriptural to suggest that one chooses their nations' defense at the risk of harming another Christian.

Roman Empire accepting Christianity was simply a ploy to unite the people. There were so few rules in Christian Doctrine that they were pretty easy to manipulate across several religions. Politics have always used religion to appease the masses and they go with the one that fits their needs best. That has nothing to do with whether the doctrine itself endorses humans to fight each other.

 

[jdogmoney]

Before anyone participates in a thread, they should learn to read to avoid embarrassing themselves.

Hint: Nothing in that post was referring to burning in hell. It was about whether or not death is an eternal punishment. Of course it is.. if there is a God.

Why would death be a punishment? It's not wrong to die. It is wrong to kill, though.*

*SOURCE:

 

[coldfoot]

Politics have always used religion to appease the masses and they go with the one that fits their needs best.

That's a good reason to ban/reduce religion, just like we are doing with our nuclear arsenal.

 

[Dude Abides]

Politics have always used religion to appease the masses and they go with the one that fits their needs best.

And vice versa.

 

[phisheep]

I'm reading Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age"

It is a big chunky book (and very expensive), and one to be read with a dictionary or three at hand (Greek, German and Italian so far), but it is proving a welcome antidote to the continual battering that naive theists and naive atheists try to dish out to each other. Here's a quick excerpt from the introduction:

How did we move from a condition where, in Chistendom, people lived naively within a theistic construal, to one in which we all shunt between two stances, in which everyone's construal shows up as such; and in which moreover, unbelief has become for many the default option? This is the transformation that I want to describe, and perhaps also (very partially) to explain ...

This will not be easy to do, but only by identifying the change as one of lived experience, can we even begin to put the right questions properly; either that unbelief is just the falling away of any sense of fullness, or the betrayal of it (what theists sometimes are tempted to think of atheists); or that belief is just a set of theories attempting to make sense of experiences which we all have, and whose real nature can be understood purely immanently (what atheists are sometimes tempted to think about theists).

It is a task that Taylor takes seriously, and from a sensible historical and philosophical position - which makes a pleasant change from some of the vituperative mudslinging we see going on. I doubt I'll agree with all (or maybe any) of his conclusions when I get that far, but it promises to be an interesting read and quite an even-handed one.

By contrast, I have just finished AC Grayling's short collection of polemics "Against all Gods",

which - for all that Grayling claims to be a nice chap really - is chock full of mockery, selective history, vituperative bile, internally inconsistent arguments and self-congratulation. It is unpleasant and uncompassionate stuff.

I rather like to think that the early Dawkins (see for example the preface to Blind Watchmaker) would understand and appreciate Taylor's approach, but I suspect the later Dawkins (God Delusion) sides more with Grayling.

If anyone's interested, I'll report back when I'm done with Taylor, see if it ends up being a worthwhile journey.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I am actually going to go out of my way to defend theists by arguing that the charge of naivety against what I assume to be the fundamentalist religious types is incredibly dismissive of a very common brand of religion that has been practiced for hundreds of years. It is typically a term used by non-religious philosophers and writers in an effort to tell people how to practice their own religion, which is strange by itself. But this redefining of religion will inevitably fail to capture the whole reason of why people are ultimately religious in the first place.

 

[phisheep]

I am actually going to go out of my way to defend theists by arguing that the charge of naivety against what I assume to be the fundamentalist religious types is incredibly dismissive of a very common brand of religion that has been practiced for hundreds of years. It is typically a term used by non-religious philosophers and writers in an effort to tell people how to practice their own religion, which is strange by itself. But this redefining of religion will inevitably fail to capture the whole reason of why people are ultimately religious in the first place.

With you all the way on that, at least insofar as it is a generalised accusation of naivety as appears to be levied against all theists by the louder sort of atheist.

But that's not the sense in which I meant it (or in which Taylor means it). What I am getting at is the relative naivety that theists and atheists - at least those that get into arguments about it - tend to display about each others' belief systems, to the extent that their arguments are pretty much mutually incomprehensible. What Taylor means is not that theistic beliefs are themselves naive, but that in around the 15th century (that's how far we got up to now) they were so embedded in society and the perception of the world that they could (and perhaps often were) held naively in the same sort of way that electricity is embedded in our culture as being something that is just there and not (usually) open to question. I'm only 53 pages into Taylor so far, be he's doing a pretty good job of digging into the respective mindsets/cultural assumptions and their origins and meanings.

Indeed, Taylor is so even-handed that I haven't so far managed to work out which (if any) side he is on, which is the way it ought to be.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I wasn't responding to Taylor's use of the word naive; I looked up his arguments and generally understood what he meant. I was responding to your use of the word.

Of course, if you meant relative naivety, then that's different. But even by those standards it's not a very revealing statement. The vast majority of all arguments feature mischaracterizations of the other side. Actually, I think that the general discourse about religion is a good one. As someone who was once religious and studied theology, I think I can say that the notable atheists (Dawkins, Harris, etc.) have a firm handle of the issues, at least as they pertain to Christianity. Even the theists such as Plantinga and William Lane Craig at least argue against the kind of atheism that people actually believe in. Of course, one shouldn't mistake a difference of opinion for naivety. Just because atheists say "Your god is a horrible being" and theists disagree (or that theists say atheism leads to the annihilation of morality) doesn't mean one side has failed to understand the other; just that they're drawing different conclusions about the opposing worldview.

I would also argue against the idea that an even-handed approach is always the best kind. That might work for an historical/philosophical book, but polemical works also have a place because they clarify what people actually believe. One shouldn't be discouraged from airing a viewpoint just because he or she has taken a side.

 

[phisheep]

I imagine it depends a bit what the arguments are for.

I don't really mind a bit of polemic as such, what I think I really object to is the downright rudeness and ignorance of some of it particularly when people get carried away with their own positions (for rudeness, see that Grayling book - for ignorance, then for example there's Dawkins' citing of Sam Harris' 'Letter to a Christian Nation' in chapter 6 of the God Delusion - which is a really rotten argument from every angle, and one which Dawkins had he had his analytic head screwed on right should have spotted a mile off given the relevance of Axelrod's and Hamilton's work to it). Of course, there is ignorance and rudeness the other side as well, not least from a few Bishops who should know better.

I prefer the even-handed approach at least to start with in order to get a grasp of what the underlying issues are. And I think I'd disagree that the notable atheists have a firm grasp (or at least express a firm grasp) of the issues. For example, there is a recurrent theme of characterising any sort of Theism as sort of just ordinary secular life with a personal irrational belief tacked onto it, which is to say the least an extreme caricature of something that is at heart (now and historically) a communal rather then individual thing. Similarly there's a tendency for Atheism to be characterised as a simple and apparently irrational lack of belief in some fundamental and obvious facts about the universe while ignoring all the things that make that lack of belief tenable.

It's that sort of thing that drove me towards Taylor's book, which does seem to be tackling the right sort of background issues.

If we were to rely only on polemic though - as we so often do in politics for example - there's a tendency to sharply polarise the debate, miss out all the thoroughly sensible people who fall in the middle and miss the real opportunities (if in this case there are any) for the sort of sensible tolerant compromise that you'd expect in a sensible tolerant society. Otherwise all we get is an entertaining bout of fisticuffs behind the pub and nobody ends up any better off.