Note: this one is big (note the “Continue reading…” link, if you’re on the blog’s front page), and is kind of a rant. It will also, probably, make some of you leave this blog for good, though that’s not my goal.
Since August 2006, this blog has been mostly about atheism and what’s wrong with religion. I’ve been criticized for that, and lost some of my previous regular readers, though I also gained some new ones. But it’s what I’ve wanted to write about… I’m still allowed to do that, right? 
And, yet, every time a post of mine, criticizing religious belief, is more popular than usual, I get the same kinds of criticism - sometimes, “trolling” would even be a better word. Many commenters don’t even read what I write; they simply think “atheist… enemy!”. You can see, for instance, that most of the replies on my 16 Common Myths about Atheists post weren’t about the myths themselves, or about whether they existed or not, or about whether atheists were like that or not. No, most were about whether God existed or not (and almost everyone said he did, of course). And a lot of replies called me - and atheists in general - “arrogant” - again, not because of what I wrote, but simply because I, like other atheists, have the nerve to say that there is almost certainly no god, and that millions of believers are, therefore, wrong. Because, again, it’s not arrogant to believe without evidence, but it is arrogant to disbelieve due to that lack of evidence, apparently…
It is not in my nature to deliberately offend. It is, however, in my nature to be as honest as I can, and to say what I believe to be true. And, yet, with so many accusations such as the ones I’ve read in several months of comments, I have found that I have been more “careful not to offend” than, I, perhaps, should have been. Because people who get offended when I say that they have no real evidence for the existence of God, and, therefore, are guilty of wishful thinking, are usually the same ones who say that atheists are pure monsters living on earth, putting their “faith” in science, being too “arrogant” to believe in God, and disbelieve (or say they do) simply because they don’t want any rules of morality above them.
That, dear readers, is a much greater insult than saying “you are wrong”. Even than saying “you are deluded”, or “you are refusing to think”. And yet, it is I who have been, perhaps, saying less than I should, who have been censoring myself.
Oddly enough, other bloggers don’t seem to have this problem. Take God is for Suckers!, or The Martian Anthropologist. Both are blogs I read every day, and both say much worse (but true) things about religion and believers than I do. Any believers who go there know that they will be required to present evidence, or be treated as delusional, and that witnessing, threatening eternal damnation, or stating Pascal’s Wager again simply will not work - in fact, it will be treated as trolling.
Maybe I should start being more honest with myself, and stop all self-censorship. Maybe my current readership will change, and for the worse - at least in terms of quantity. Who knows. But it has to happen.
You know what brought this realization, today? Reading this article at The Huffington Post. It’s called If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong, and the author says things like this:
Osama bin Laden is insane. He believes God whispered in the ear of Mohammed 1,400 years ago about how he should conquer Arabia. Mohammed was a pure charlatan — and a good one at that. He makes present religious frauds like Pat Robertson look like amateurs.
He said God told him to have sex with as many of the women he met as possible. I’m sorry, I meant to say “take them as wives.” God told him to kill all other tribes that stood in his way or that would not placate him with assurances of loyalty or bribes. God told him, conveniently, that everyone should follow him and never question a word he said.
And:
George W. Bush is the most powerful man alive. He is a class A imbecile. He is far less intelligent than the average Christian. But like most of the others, he believes Jesus died for his sins. That idea is so perverse and devoid of logic it should shock the conscience. Instead, it gets him elected, and earns him the reverence of a great percentage of America. America! The most advanced country in the world — run by a bunch of villagers who still believe Santa Claus is going to save them.
There is no damn Easter Bunny. There is no Jesus waiting to return. Moses never even existed. These were all convenient lies from the men of those times to gain power. Their actions were rational — they wanted to deceive their brethren so that they could amass power. I get their motivations. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand our motivations, thousands of years later, still following the conmen of yesteryear into our gory, bloody, violent end.
Jesus is said to have said on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Because Jesus was insane and the God he thought would rescue him did not exist. And he died on that cross like a fool. He fancied himself the son of God and he could barely convince twelve men to follow him at a time when the world was full of superstition.
Excellent marketing by some of his followers would later rescue his botched effort. How many people saw his miracles? One? Twelve? Eighty? Why didn’t he show the whole world? Not because this is some giant pop quiz by God to test us — but because he did not perform any miracles!
And even:
If a man today killed his only son to show how much he loved other people, he would be considered a madman, locked in jail and earn society’s contempt. Yet we think this is some sort of noble act by our Father in Heaven.
In Heaven? What, with the harps and the winged angels and the 72 virgins? My God, how stupid do you have to be to believe that?
Oh, and:
Did I mention Judaism? The chosen people? Come on, get off it. People walk around in clothes from 18th century Russia, thinking they have been chosen by God when they look like a bunch of jackasses. I’m tired of all the deaths because we did not want to give offense. Orthodox Jews are wrong and ridiculous.
As are the orthodox and fundamentalists of all of the religions. It says in the Bible that it is an abomination to wear clothes made of two different cloths or to eat shellfish. If you think God will hate you because you mixed wool and linen or because you ate some shrimp, you are insane.
How long are we going to dance around the 800-pound gorilla in the room? The world is run by madmen. It’s not just Bush and bin Laden. It is the leader of all of the countries in the Middle East, almost all of the Americas and most of the rest of the world.
Have I offended you? That’s too bad. Stop killing each other in the name of false and ridiculous Gods and I will stop ridiculing you. Trust me, your offense is much worse than mine.
Now, how would the readers of WotM react if I wrote something like that?
I guess we’ll see in the future. 
Because, while this blog isn’t just about atheism, it is an atheist’s blog. And religion has done - and still does - terrible things to the world. It’s time to stop being afraid of offending believers. Why should believers be “above offense”, when nobody else is? Why should religion be a shield against criticism? Why should a religious claim be simply “respected”, while any other kind of claim (say, about physics or mathematics) is tested, and dismissed if it fails the test? Why should rational people be afraid of offending religionists?
One other thing: in the future, please try to remain on topic. If I write a post about, say, atrocities in the Bible, or discrimination against atheists, don’t ignore it and write about how sure you are that God exists, and how I’m “arrogant” for not believing so. That’s off-topic, and will be treated as such.
(sound of most readers deleting their WotM bookmarks… :))
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Hey Pedro,
Interesting post. You’ve mentioned that religion is dangerous. No one is disputing the atrocities committed in the name of God. But what specifically are the dangers of religious belief that you are thinking about?
Don’t think me arrogant, but I would like to see how many of them apply to me. I think there are a lot of misguided religious beliefs, but I would question whether religious belief itself is problematic. Looking forward to it,
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
Ao contrario, é o som de alguém digitando para te dar os parabéns!
(Portuguese translation from above: On the contrary! It is the sound of someone using the keyboard to congratulate you!)
Absolutely loved the post. I think you are correct in your analysis and your frustration with “political/religious correctness” is quite well placed.
If I may, Micah, the dangers of religious belief IMHO include:
- not thinking critically for yourself, thereby being easily manipulated
- a tendency to highlight what divides us (religious beliefs) instead of what unites us (too many to list…). This leads to antagonizing the others (see how Islam mentions the house of Islam and the house of the infidels, or something like that, or the Christian crusades, …)
- wasted effort. People spend significant resources (time, money) in pursuits that are ultimately meaningless - why donate to the Church (any Church) instead of a charity that does meaningful work without imposing its morals?
Hope this helps. I rarely comment on blog posts, but this one was CERTAINLY worth it. Keep going Pedro!
Abracos,
Fernando
micah: http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/14/religion-not-really-harmful/
I have recently been through the same dilemna as you, realizing that I am sensoring myself to make sure I don’t offend anyone. One of my “heart” issues is religion and all the evil it causes in the world. I don’t believe in any higher Gods and I think it is extremely wrong that people get away with discriminating and doing evil deeds in the name of religion without us being allowed to critisize it. My New Year’s resolution was to stop self-censoring myself.
I have only recently found your blog and find it very interesting! I haven’t been able to read that many of your entries but I am planning on it. A quick search in your archive showed me that you have already read End of Faith by Sam Harris. I recommend that you read the Pacifist chapter again. I read it right after I decided that I would stop censoring myself and it was an eye opener. After reading it I finally truly realized how important it is to not be silent. If you don’t make it clear that you are against something you are really just agreeing with it.
That being said, everything we said should be well thought out and we should be critical towards our own views. Every belief can quickly turn into a religion:).
http://www.mediumgeek.com
I say do it.
There’s nothing wrong with telling a murderer he’s a murderer.
Good post, Pedro, and I agree with your sentiments.
Playing the ‘You’re being intolerant to my faith position’ card is just another ploy used by religionists to attempt to silence voices of reason, and to stop anyone questioning their irrational faith and psychopathic delusions.
And as for religionists demands that we respect their particular faith, or even more risible, all faiths, I am still awaiting anyone to give me a valid reason why I should. Delusional beliefs are not worthy of respect, and that’s an end to it. And their so-called ‘beliefs’ are delusional, since no-one has ever been able to provide any credible empiric evidence that (a)their particular god(s) exist, or (b) that their god(s) are deserving of higher regard than anyone else’s anthropomorphic monsters.
Thanks for the words of support, guys.
And, Einsteinmonkey, thanks for posting the link I was going to post in reply to Micah.
Pedro, what you hear now is the sound of a new reader adding a bookmark to WotM.
[quote comment="6351"]If I may, Micah, the dangers of religious belief IMHO include:
- not thinking critically for yourself, thereby being easily manipulated
- a tendency to highlight what divides us (religious beliefs) instead of what unites us (too many to list…). This leads to antagonizing the others (see how Islam mentions the house of Islam and the house of the infidels, or something like that, or the Christian crusades, …)
- wasted effort. People spend significant resources (time, money) in pursuits that are ultimately meaningless - why donate to the Church (any Church) instead of a charity that does meaningful work without imposing its morals?[/quote]
Thanks for the comment, Fernando. If I may,
1) I set out to decide what was true, and did not stop at analyzing Buddhism, atheism of different strains, and Christianity of all types. I found the best and most logical from each of these, and held to that. I honestly can’t claim to follow any religious leader or religious group or religious upbringing. I may be wrong on various points, but I certainly think critically and for myself.
2) I don’t highlight the division between different strains of religious or non-religious belief; I hold that the most important thing is love, or altruistic enlightened self-interest, if you prefer.
3) I quite deliberately donate to no churches.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
I looked at the link provided. Most of the points don’t apply to me (after all, although many people who are American may be war-mongerers, and being American may correlate to violence, that doesn’t mean that I am violent or believe in war). But this point particularly is the opposite of my religious views:
[quote post="194"]many Christians tend to believe that this world is Satan’s, that there’s no point to this life except as a “test” to see whether you go to heaven or hell, that there’s no reason to try, in any way, to make either the world, or your life, any better, since it’s not “the real thing” anyway. It’s certainly not all of them, but there are far too many Christians of the “take me, lord Jesus!” variety for it to be a coincidence.[/quote]
Satan simply means “enemy”, and the Satan the bible talks about is long gone. The bible says so, too.
“Hell” is an English word, not a Jewish or Greek one.
Jesus is not coming back to take us away. God is already here, and the whole point of Jesus’ life was to teach people how to live and make the world a better place.
Jesus stood up against religion, the concept of a priesthood or clergy, the use of religious buildings, the payment of religious taxes (tithes), listening to religious leaders for your beliefs, the concept that worshipping or obeying God had anything to do with religious ceremonies, etc.
Jesus was trying to tear down any religious trappings, and leave only the individual’s status as a being in the image of God.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
Pedro, you have the motivation to do good work, but I’d encourage you to avoid reducing the quality of your writing by succumbing to the temptation to write like some of your blogger heroes. Perhaps more time can be devoted instead to showing just how theism is supposedly “stupid”. What is appalling is not so much the hubris with which some atheologian writers make their claims (as unnecessary such remarks are). But for all such confidence, it is surprising just how empty much of it is of any substantive support — things are simply stated, relying on assumption and subcultural prejudice to carry their conclusions for them. For such atheistic writers, argument is apparently not necessary.
Take your first excerpt as an example. There is absolutely nothing contained therein which compels the reader to adopt the same assumptions the writer employs to make his point. Theists of other traditions than Islam as well as atheists must do more to show just how such beliefs are formally irrational, whether they be internally inconsistent, or perhaps based on factual error… Otherwise, it seems there is no real substantive objection to engage. The piece amounts to an opinion article, which hardly compels anyone not already convinced of what is said to change their minds.
Or take the second excerpt. George W. Bush is said to be unintelligent — less intelligent, in fact, than the average Christian. Now I’m eager to read just how the writer came to determine that. Unfortunately, he doesn’t take the time to indulge our curiosity. Even if he had, it’s not clear what implications might such an autobiographical detail have for Theism. How does one man’s intellectual capacities prove or disprove the belief system in question? In fact, nothing else in that excerpt serves to support any of his points. Much of what is said seems unrelated or just thrown in there with some exaggerated editorializing (”..villagers who still believe Santa Claus is going to save them”?). This is grandstanding, and the only people I know could possibly appreciate that kind of writing are the atheists.
Other selected excerpts fall prey to similar critique. It’s not just that arguments in favor of some intended conclusion fail to succeed… it’s that there hardly seems to be anything approximating any real argument at all. Now you could respond by trying to shore up support for any one of their disjointed claims yourself, but then this would be exceeding the topic of your post and missing my point: The quality of one’s writing in favor of some view is going to depend on the substance of its support — not on how flamboyantly one can paint their opponents as intellectually inferior. My own suspicions are that the more one relies on that kind of critique, the less likely it is that they really have a case to stand on anyway.
Daniel,
I cannot help but wonder if you would offer similar advice to a religious writer. I wonder since what you suggest about offering substantive points and evidence applies in spades to religious writers (and all defenders of religion) since as of yet neither can be found in any such writing in defense of religon (whetheer xnty or another). With that in mind, how do we account for the double standard?
Also I wonder whom you have been reading with regard to refuting the claims of the defenders of illusions. Certainly you can find a great deal of well written sound arguments offered on this site, from not only Pedro, but from others commenting as well.
Pedro,
While in direct personal discussion and interaction there is a degree of courtesy extended as a general rule, there is no cause to allow that to silence you in your own space, such as this blog. There is nothing discourteous about speaking your mind on your own property where no one is forced to listen. As another noted, the religious have managed to get the PC codes of conduct to dictate that it is “rude” to refute their preaching, or even to suggest that you might not want to be subjected to their tirades and preaching. That you might object to being insulted and assaulted is not considered objectionable and aggressive. Fortunately there are still some of us who can differentiate between illusion and reality and can recognize that responding to such tirades and assaults is not itself aggressive or rude, rather it is the tirade or assault which is the act of aggression, and which necessarily disrespects all others.
Speak your mind, continue to do so intelligently and in the manner you find most effective.
In the US there is an illusion of free speech, but it is coming to mean that only popular speech is protected. Since the religous rule this nation, unpopular speech such as reasoned positions, honest discussion, and respect for knowledge and wisdome, is being attacked on all fronts. This is not uncommon worldwide, so we need all honest, reasonable intelligent individuals to speak up so as to perhaps remind a few who can hear us over the drowning droning of the religous.