Why I Hope Religious People Read This Site

The video below, part of The Atheist Voice series, discusses why I hope religious people read this site (and follow me on Twitter):

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the project — more videos will be posted soon — and we’d also appreciate your suggestions as to which questions we ought to tackle next!

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Rationalist1

    I too would like believers to post here. The few times they do, they do tend to get pounced on, but it’s mostly civil and that’s good. One of the best responses I ever got from a post I made on a religious site was a compliment, albeit backhanded, when the religious person concluded a discussion saying that (s)he was surprised that for an atheist I was reasonable and civil. It’s a start.

  • Jo Child

    I identify as an atheist but do acknowledge I have some spiritual leanings. One thing I have noticed with US atheists is they seem to be (how do I say this….) almost theistic in grouping together. Which seems odd to me. I understand I do not live in a country where theism is overly apparent (at least, not to me). Though, I do recognise the ‘evil’ done by a few in Australia, ie marriage equality. I also can appreciate that theists (particularly Christians) have a very vocal voice in the US, creationist museum???! That’s ludicrous.
    I also haven’t had any theist doorknockers for a long time and the ones I have had knock on my door are not pushy, so polite that I’m polite in return and they don’t stop for longer than a few minutes.
    All-in-all, theists don’t bother me and I don’t bother them but I also won’t be silent if a controversial subject arises. “Yes, you believe and have faith but that’s your choice and don’t be pushing your belief on others.”

  • $324578

    Jo, I sometimes think American atheists and agnostics behave in the manner you call theistic as a defense mechanism. I think we do it because we need people to know that we’re here. We also want other non-believers to know that there are more people like them and that it’s okay to be skeptical. It may also be a response to incessant attacks from right-wing pundits like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Fox News.

    I’m not sure if this is the best response, but like everyone, non-believers are learning. In my own experience, I’ve had to remind myself that not all Christians accept the same fundamentalism that I was taught in church. We’re getting there, but I do think it’s a blanket stereotype, inaccurate, and a touch lazy to say all atheists are religiously anti-religion.

    (I hope you will forgive me: I say “lazy,” but the word carries a connotation of rudeness that I truly don’t intend. My meaning is that I hope by accepting the widely used argument that atheism has become a religion of its own, you won’t absolve yourself from continuing to examine the topic.)

  • The Starship Maxima

    On another website, I pointed out the irony that as a Christian who opposes homosexuality, supports traditional male-female roles, believes in sex over gender, and holds a host of other conservative views….I find more comraderie with gay activists, leftists, and atheists than I find when I’m in a Church.

    Perhaps this is a new era in which we realize the boxes we tick on a simplistic ideological checklist don’t make us allies. The common goals we pursue and the shared desire for justice make us allies.

  • juanalaboca

    Many theists don’t bother me either, in fact some of my best friends are theists! But in the US we have a long history of religious fundamentalism and revivalism, and along with that go attempts to create a Biblical theocracy. That’s why we’re the birthplace of Intelligent Design; religious science. We are in the middle of one of those periods now, and that tends to push atheists and humanists together, for mutual protection.

  • Rain

    I identify as an atheist but do acknowledge I have some spiritual leanings. One thing I have noticed with US atheists is they seem to be (how do I say this….) almost theistic in grouping together.

    I don’t know why it would be almost theistic. If theists group together then they get to claim “grouping” as their own word for some reason. They can have “religion” because, well, it’s theirs anyway, but they can’t have every word in the dictionary. Theists, we want our dictionary back.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    I think a site like this probably attracts two kinds of religious people: the zealots who will never accept reason, but have a missionary complex to defend their views (especially as they are on the decline), and the seekers- religious people who already have doubts, and are just looking for the motivation to give it up.

  • Malcolm McLean

    I post occasionally. But the standard of discussion tends to be quite low. Hemant’s posts themselves are often promising. But atheists need to get beyond recycling the same little factoids, which often turn out to be false, or attacking weak targets like creationists. Here I have some sympathy, because creationism is not a “strawman”, it’s genuinely held by some Christians. But it’s very US-centric, in the UK it’s almost an irrelevance.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Just one more box to uncheck Starship :-)

    (j/k, leave it checked, the world would be boring if we all had the same set of checks)

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    I don’t mean to get all empirical on your ass, but the theists who so far have commented on this here thread–all of them–don’t fit into either of those two categories, unless one also assumes that they are either stunningly unaware or lying about their own motivations and orientations in being here.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    this thread, yes. And I’d hesitate with the “looking for motivation to give it up” label. But the zealots? Josephus Polanconium?

  • The Starship Maxima

    Dayum! Lol.

  • The Starship Maxima

    With a name like Josephus Polanconium who could be surprised?

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    All data samples have limitations. I was reacting specifically against the characterization of the religious readers here belonging only to those two categories when there are ample counterexamples that don’t fit in either category. That is certainly not to say there aren’t zealots or doubters in abundance–there certainly are–but they do not represent anything even remotely like a complete typology of the set, since “sites like this” clearly attract at least a third type, if not more.

  • http://lady-die.deviantart.com/ LizzyJessie

    I imagine the reason you see the same bits said over and over again is because those are the usual rebuttals to the common points that are brought up by those who believe in a certain dogma. After a while it becomes a rehearsed format between groups, even if the individuals at play aren’t the same people in the discussion.

    Most of what I see from atheists are counters to apologetics and creationist dogma. However when it comes to Christianity and now increasingly Muslim religions, we’re seeing people use the same tricks and tips that have been used by theologians, priests, Imams, and so on for centuries – find the contradiction within the text and use it against your opponent. When it comes to the atheist added to the mix, you get to the classic Greek stance when it comes to religious views. Either prove your point within the realm of reality or admit to being incorrect. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then that claim can be disregarded out of hand.

  • xmnr

    Do you know what I’d like to do? Read this site.

    I’m guessing these videos are popular, and I’m in the minority, but I skip them. Why? A couple of reasons. First, I look at blogs at work, and I don’t want to disturb others or take-up resources streaming videos; but mostly because I want to be able to dissect arguments, and that’s much more difficult with videos compared to the written word.

    Again, I realize I may be in the minority, but I’d like to see at least some of the original content of this blog in written form.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

    which often turn out to be false

    “Often?” you can back that up with links, and examples- specific to the comments on this blog. just to be clear: “often” suggests regularity, or even a majority, of something. i defy you to back up your claim.

    or you can be yet another believer who makes a blanket statement without any proof, and continue to contribute to the atheist understanding of what believers really are- intellectually lazy cherry pickers who barely skim the factual information atheists and nonbelievers contribute to these discussions because they have no real intention of considering what we have to say, but instead only want to reinforce their own narrow worldview with opinion masquerading as fact.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

    i enjoy civil, rational discourse from any person who wants to make a claim, point out a fact, propose a theory… diversity keeps the intellect sharp and nimble.

    what i can’t stand are the truly trolly sort. i don’t spend time at very many blogs anymore, and one thing i hate about internet culture these days is people’s tolerance for the most juvenile, hateful, racist/sexist/homophobic garbage that gets spewed on so many sites.

    i used to be a Serious Blogger and at my old place we had a NO tolerance policy for that kind of stuff. make any argument you want, but the minute it becomes a personal or hateful attack that has no relevance to the conversation, we’d ban you. ymmv, but i’d like to see a lot more of that, today.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I skip most of them as well. When Hemant first started, I was transcribing them to fix the Youtube captions, but I don’t have the energy to keep up that endeavor. Youtube doesn’t do it for me as a way to disseminate information that doesn’t have a necessary video component.

  • Rationalist1

    I agree that debating with creationists is hardly worth the bother. There position is so far from reality that there no real hope (IMO) in any sort of even partial agreement. In theother hand I found the discussion Prof Dawkins had with Fr. George Coyne,S.J. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkS1B0huWX4) to be the goal of intelligent, respectful, civil and most importantly productive discussion.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X