Why do atheists care about religion?

Here’s a pretty comprehensive video about why atheists care about religion. No, it’s not just because we’re a bunch of crusty fucks (although I fully admit I might sometimes fall into that category). I also kind of dig the techno song playing in the background (in a cheesy electronic music kind of way).

props to GrrlScientist’s for the find

Spread the outrage

Comments (21)

  • avatar

    Isaac

    I’ve seen this video a few times before. It’s definitly worthy of 5 stars.

  • avatar

    Kat

    Excellent video. A bunch of my Facebook friends keep posting Christian videos, and I wish I had the guts to post this for them to view.

  • avatar

    UNRR

    This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 11/19/2009, at The Unreligious Right

  • avatar

    Kevin

    I liked it for a little while, up until the ‘under god’ and ‘in god we trust’ parts. That seems a bit too much into the realm of ‘I get angsty if someone says Merry Christmas or bless you’ to me.

    It doesn’t really bother me at all about having pseudo-religious mottos and statements on things like currency. I also don’t get bothered by the Ten Commandments on a courthouse yard. If I bitch at someone for saying ‘Merry Christmas’ to me, I’m just gonna be seen as a jerk, which is what people think about Atheists anyway.

  • avatar

    Spector567

    The reason the “in God we trust” was brought up is because christian and creationist organizations have held up as proof that the United States was created as a Religious nation. Even though as shown the words were never placed till much much later.

    It’s not because of the phrase. Like you I see it just as a pretty phrase or statement. However, those who would change our society claim that it is proof that they are right and it’s always been that way.

  • avatar

    Scott

    The difference for me is that “Merry Christmas” or “God Bless You” after you sneeze is that they’re just trying to be polite. The Courthouse 10 Commandments or “Under God” or “In God We Trust” are explicit violations of the First Amendment, and that I can’t stand. It’s an endorsement, if not Judeo-Christianity, then at least monotheism, telling everyone who believe in more or less, but not exactly, one god that they are wrong.

  • avatar

    Kevin

    @spector567: THAT makes sense, I mean, to hell with the words themselves. They’re words. The only words on my money I care about are one, five, ten, or twenty, I don’t think I’ve studied money long enough to know what’s on it.

    I never knew those words were added in the 1950s and 60s. I guess I fell into the ‘stupid trap’ that I did when I was blindly following Christianity.

    @Scott: Sort of agreed on the ‘in god we trust’ part, but not so much with ‘under god’ or the 10 Commandments. In god we trust on our money does tread the church and state line. With the others, though, under god is in the Pledge of Allegiance, which I mumbled my way through in grade school. The 10 Commandments are a pseudo-historical example of a code of law. The first few mention god, but the rest are really good to know.

  • avatar

    Spector567

    @Kevin.

    Yes and no about the 10 commandments.
    They are a pseudo-historical example of the code of law. However, there are far far better examples. There are many other societies that had better and more robust examples of law before the 10 commandments. That did not have such a strong religious element.

    The reason they must be kept is the same reason that Iran is such a messed up place. Religious law is what runs fundamentalists countries. It is the same religious law that removes human rights, free speech and supports tyrants.

    Your right the first few are about god but you may as well say that half of them are and the other half. Are just plain common sense that everyone knew before they were even written.

    Every single society on this earth knows the 10 commandments. They just don’t call them by the same name.

    Rhetorically. Why do certain people feel that only the Christian version is correct over all the others that same the same thing?

    The churches get the people who come by choice. The law and government is not a choice in society. It shall remain by the people and for the people not just the loudest people.

  • avatar

    Averre

    While i dislike religon, removing the Ten Commandments and other religous articles from public locations is something i don’t really agree with.

    The reason why is where do we stop? Should we remove Rembrant’s “The storm on the sea of Galilee” or DaVinci’s “Last Supper” because with disagree with the meaning/symbolism? I can’t see the logic in removing one form of art while preserving anothner.

  • avatar

    Kevin

    @Spector567: Well yeah, I know that. Hammurabi’s code is a good example of a code of laws that has as much effect on society as anything else.

    I think the 10 commandments are used because of what you said ‘every society knows the 10 commandments.’ They’re different in different societies, but as a symbol of law, I can’t really think up a much better example in relation to America.

    If you need to put up a symbol of law, the 10 commandments will do you well. If a courthouse is putting them up primarily for the religious connotation, then that is wrong. If they’re put up for the symbol of law (as on the Supreme Court walls) then that’s perfectly fine.

  • avatar

    Kevin

    Also, @Averre: Watch your fallacies.

  • avatar

    Scott

    @Averre: Of course we shouldn’t remove “The Last Supper” or tear down Notre Dame cathedral. But those are works of art, a testament to human creativity and genius, and nobody is forcing anyone to live by them. The 10 Commandments are used as an example of religious law since most people assume that the US was founded as a Christian nation. They are God’s Laws, so we mere mortals should put them in our courts.

  • avatar

    Averre

    @Kevin I suggest you learn the meaning of the word before you tell others what to watch. Also, don’t tell me how to talk or reason, you’re not my dad, my mom or my friend,so piss off.

    People who stand up against the Ten Commandments or a cross or other religous symbols being displayed never think about the long term effect it can have or are quick to say “This is art, that is not so away it goes”

    So once again i ask the question that nobody answered: Where does it end? I’ll make it easy for you…it can’t be answered because we don’t know.

    If you really believe that the common schmuck can tell the difference between what is ‘art’ and what is not then you’re fooling yourselves. I’m already aware that people here love to split hairs on this subject but the bottom line is that you cannot have it both ways.

    A sculptor is contracted to make the Ten Commandments and to have it displayed in front of a courthouse..this is wrong.

    A sculptor is contracted to make Lady Justice and to have it displayed in front of a courthouse…this is fine.

    Bullshit.

    Lady Justice is Justitia, the Roman goddess of justice. So it’s not OK to show the Commandments which is “God’s law” but it’s OK to display a Roman goddess because it’s not a Christian deity?!?

    In other words, it’s not OK to show one form of religous myth but it is OK show show anothner?!?

    What type of ass-backwards logic is that?!?

  • avatar

    Scott

    @Averre Everyone agrees Lady Justice is a symbol, nothing real – a metaphor of speaking representing justice as a broad concept. Most people in the US believe that God Himself etched his specific 10 laws onto two stone tablets, which are hardly the most moral set to found a government on (I’ll take “take care of children” over “no graven images” any day). I suggest we don’t indulge these people in their delusions.

    NB: The fallacy Kevin referenced was Slippery Slope (http://tinyurl.com/bkrmd), which you are, in fact, making.

  • avatar

    Kevin

    Yeah, thanks Scott. That was, indeed, the fallacy I was referencing.

    “If A happens, then that will lead to an even worse B.” – Example: Allow gay marriage and you’ll have to allow polygamy and marriage to animals or relatives!

    It’s a fallacy that has no place in a debate, unless it can be proven to actually happen, in which case it’s not a fallacy.

  • avatar

    Ace.

    @Kevin, although I agree with some of your points (especially the reference to the fallacy – that’s impressive), however I am not sure that your example is correct. Perhaps explain reasoning for it?

    Notice that in both the USA and the UK, a large portion of laws tend to actually reflect the mass opinion of the leading faith (e.g., Christianity). Gay Marriage is often forbidden in our legal systems today, it was also written in the bible that “…a man shall not lay with another man…” or something to that extent – backing up my observation.

    Has anyone else noticed this or can provide other examples?

  • avatar

    Kevin

    @Ace: You’re completely correct in that statement. I do think the majority of the laws created are in some way related to the religious majority (Christianity in America.) I hope that humanity will get their heads out of the ass of their invisible sky daddy long enough to realize that some laws written by people in a book thousands of years ago do not hold sway anymore.

    Besides that, people don’t even listen to every law in the bible. I’m visiting my parents, Christians, and I bet in about a minute, my mother is going to be coming down the stairs dressed in clothing of mixed materials – a law in the bible. Christians will say that ‘those laws don’t count anymore because of Jesus’ sacrifice,’ but then turn around and condemn homosexuals under the laws in Leviticus.

    Perhaps on a bit of a tangent, so I’ll sum up quickly. Not all the laws in the bible are bad – don’t murder, don’t steal – the basic thoughts in my head when I see someone should be to treat them with respect and kindness. So those are okay, but when people are bringing gay marriage into it, I see absolutely no reason that they shouldn’t be allowed to have the same benefits a heterosexual couple has.

    (I may have entirely missed your point – in which case I offer this alternate statement. I do not stand by the example in my previous post, that was just something I’ve heard so many times from Christians who don’t want to allow gay marriage.)

  • avatar

    yesyesyes

    Please, point me to the church, shrine, … of Justitia.

  • avatar

    Justin

    I am proud to be an atheist. Many people judge you on what religion you are or what religion you aren’t. Its wrong, its ok to worship a god but when that worshiping affects others in a negative way its time to stop. Awesome video!

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top