Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Former born-again Christian John Marks journeyed back into the evangelical America he'd left behind and discovered the promise -- and limitations -- of faith.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • 'Its basis is the negation of another system of belief'

    It's not, though, any more than 'being a cat' is a negation of 'being a dog'.

    Atheists don't believe in any of the gods. That's it. That's all it means, and it's a statement one in eight Americans would agree with (one in four if they're between the age of 18 and 29; there are twice as many self-identifying atheists as ten years ago).

    To define atheists as simply people who are 'anti religion' is as ridiculous and offensive as using a term like 'non white'.

  • Understanding Religion

    Bayard wonders whether "faith is hard-wired into the American mind." In the most recent scientific theories of religious thinking, "faith" is hard-wired into the human mind. Both Bayard and Marks would benefit from a critical reading of "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer.

  • Anonymous

    My apologies for offending you since my statement of fact is obviously over your head. I would never take advantage of someone who brings a knife to a gun fight.

  • Marks gives the faith too much credit...

    Certainly some Christian individuals (along with many non-Christians) helped end slavery and sometimes help the poor at a grass roots level; but these kinds of good things happen in spite of Christianity, not solely nor even primarily because of it. Look at history. It was Christians who quoted Scripture (quite accurately) in fervent support of slavery, and it is often fundamentalists who craft political policies anything but friendly to the poor. Nor do its leaders typically exemplify biblical principles re riches. Marks fails to acknowledge the numerous major biblical contradictions which have enabled the church notoriously to drag its feet on just about every movement for social change in history: emancipation; women's equality, the rights of gender/sexual minorities, scientific and medical advances.... Only from a pulpit, for example, can you still hear a wedding admonition for the new wife to obey her husband. It was individuals—Christian and atheist alike—who managed to forge modern social changes, not the Christian faith.

    Marks sees "breaking down the wall" between believers and non-believers as a good thing (even while believing neither side will change), but I fear it means further erosion of the line between church and state—and that's the last thing we need.

  • 'someone who brings a knife to a gun fight'

    It can be lonely talking to theologians armed only with facts, logic and reality, true enough.

    I don't want to 'negate' Christianity. Feel free to waste as much of your time worshipping whatever false giant space pixie your parents and peer pressure inculcated you into believing. Just do it in the privacy of your own home or designated place of worship. Oh, and watch out for the talking snake, I hear he's a real meany.

  • 'I just want religion to go away'

    I thought of founding a group called 'Atheists for the Rapture'. I can't wait for them to vanish. An end to war *and* we get to

    keep all their stuff.

    The sudden supernatural disappearance of X number of people might shake the old atheism, admittedly. It's like when the Pope got struck by lightning a couple of months back. Did that prove atheists right or not? A tricky moral puzzle, there.

  • Point - Voltaire

    Voltaire has a very good point. It is certainly more fact than opinion. Most atheists I know are the most obnoxious evangelists in my circle of acquaintances. They rival Pat Robertson in their fanaticism.

    IMHO Richard Dawkins is a great biologist, but a philosophical also ran. He should stick to what he does best. Christopher Hitchens should just stay in his gin bottle when he's apparently most happy judging from his look and demeanor.

    Anonymous - Denial is not a river in Egypt.

  • 'Most atheists I know are the most obnoxious evangelists'

    No ... most of the atheists you know are just quietly sitting there being your friends, family and co-workers. One in eight of them, if you're American, one in four if they're young, half if you're Canadian, Australian or British.

    Because, say it again, all an atheist is is an ordinary person who doesn't believe in any of the gods.

  • Esprit_de_Voltaire

    However, since the majority of atheists do not stop at simple disbelief, it is a belief system. Its basis is the negation of another system of belief. As such it should be more properly termed Anti-Religion. It proselytizes and has "Evangelists" which include Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins who exhibit all the fervor of Elmer Gantry.

    What 'majority of atheists' are you referring to? The atheists I know would all prefer to talk about anything other than religious fantasies.

    I think you're just annoyed that your religion is so easily discredited.

    I also think your characterization of Hitchens and Dawkins as 'evangelists' is little more than a petty smear - exactly the kind of lying hypocrisy we've come to expect from the religious right.

    Is this the kind of slime something Jesus taught you?

  • Query Man

    Most atheists I know are the most obnoxious evangelists in my circle of acquaintances.

    Really? The atheists I know would all prefer to talk about anything other than religious fantasies. Yours included. I think you're just annoyed that your religion is so easily discredited.

    I also think this is exactly the kind of lying hypocrisy we've come to expect from the religious right. Obviously religion is bad for your morals.

  • Lordy

    Great galloping gobs of goober grease! For a bunch of passive disbelievers there sure is one hell of a lot of noise here about nothing. No wonder other people here are calling you fanatics.

  • 'Query Man'

    And Jesus sayeth unto his followers 'blessed are those who, when they blatantly loseth the argument nay and also the plot, resorteth to personal slurs. Sayeth they haveth an African child or a drinking problem or they're a lesbian or somethingeth. If in doubt, stoppeth the recount'.

    And St, I don't know, Peter or something said 'Why are you ending all your words in -eth you stupid beardy douchebag? Have you been on the gin.'

    And Jesus was pleased. Because that was What Jesus Would Do. Then he was careful to write down exactly what he thought about abortion and gays and stem cell research and the Mexican border fence and so on and got everyone to listen while he came up with loads of great arguments and pieces of evidence for God's existence.

    Then he flew around for a bit doing magic, faking fossils and telling everyone that Mormons are crazy.