Atheists attack religion* because they are ignorant

[Kapalika]

*religion in this case is religion as a monolithic thing, not specifically one religion or another but just the idea of it at all.

My sister topic to: theists attack atheism because they are insecure

So before I ragged on the theist tendencies about atheism, but oh no I'm not done yet! Now you see atheists are no saints either. They often do things just as bad in terms of intellectual honesty. Making strawmen and the like. I wasn't able to really think of a lot to say about what atheists say about theism, so I thought I would focus on what I am, since I previously said I'm neither an atheist or theist; but a religious person.

The biggest thing for me, many atheists like to act as if all religions are fundamentalist Christianity. And when they see that none of those arguments work against my beliefs, eventually just refuse to listen to any suggestion that maybe we have common ground and just insult religion as if it was some kind of monolithic thing.

What really gets me too, is even when we do find the common ground, they try to claim me as an atheist and say things like I have a "bull**** mythology to comfort" myself. Which isn't true. They miss the nuance, the philosophy, the ethics, ritual and tradition and so much more. Religion isn't just about belief, and what beliefs I do have, are not theistic but that doesn't make them atheistic. There's this nebulous zone called pantheism, although it seems I have some transtheism as well. In either case I view such things as a duality onto itself, atheism and theism.

Despite that it seems a lot of atheists unfairly act as if all religions are equal. I get it though, some religions have done a lot of bad. Two of them make the majority of the world population. But that has more to do with how they spread and their doctrine rather than an inherent quality in religion itself. I think it's important to remember that not all beliefs are equal, and just having a religion doesn't make you irrational, unscientific or illogical. It doesn't make you superstitious. Heck, you don't even need to believe in Supernaturalism to be religious, and I'm just one example.

In short, atheists will often times attack religion just for their personal connotations of it, knowing little or nothing about the beliefs or if they do go and try to learn about it, it will be with the starting point of wanting to disprove it from the get-go and ignore any possibly valid points along the way, something inherently against an intellectually honest thought-process. Could you imagine if scientists just ignored anything that didn't already agree with their hypothesis? We wouldn't of gotten that far if that were the case!

So let me bring this back to the point that many again assume any religious thing is bull****. It's funny though when I bring up say someone like Sam Harris, who's actually seen a lot of good in Jainism and Buddhism. When I've brought this up before I'm told I'm lying or making it up... but then:|

Killing the Buddha (killing the Buddha refers to an actual Buddhist teaching where Buddhists are advised to do that if they ever see the Buddha on the roadside)

Sam Harris Talks Spirituality : Secular Buddhist Association

And yet I've been told things before like Sam Harris would "never support irrational, superstitious bull****". Funny how these kinds of people seem to not be familiar with some of Sam Harris's work neither know anything about more eastern types of religions.

However Sam Harris I would say is very critical of religion but not of all things religious. He's well educated, and looked at many different religions with an objective eye. I will disagree with him on some ways he sees these religions but he at least recognizes the valid underpinnings of the traditions. I do agree with him that many are cloaked in too much supernaturalism and superstition, but religion doesn't have to be that way, I'd argue. But at least then from those 2 viewpoints there is a debate to be had that's not making caricatures of eachother.

But only Sam Harris is Sam Harris. Many people who just want to blast at religion I feel are (often rightfully) mad at some very specific religious traditions causing harm in the world. However combine their anger/fear with ignorance of most of religions, and you get a recipe for unfounded disdain or hate.

It's okay for us to disagree, and argue for or against various aspects of religion, so long as we are representing eachother's positions honestly. Trying to characterize one's religion as a more easily defeated one is a strawman, And I'm not okay with that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Fundamental and many other Theists attack atheism more because they are insecure in their faith. Polls demonstrate that a large percentage of Theist, hate and distrust atheists.

From: In Atheists We Distrust

"Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust.

Gervais and his colleagues presented participants with a story about a person who accidentally hits a parked car and then fails to leave behind valid insurance information for the other driver. Participants were asked to choose the probability that the person in question was a Christian, a Muslim, a rapist, or an atheist. They thought it equally probable the culprit was an atheist or a rapist, and unlikely the person was a Muslim or Christian. In a different study, Gervais looked at how atheism influences people’s hiring decisions. People were asked to choose between an atheist or a religious candidate for a job requiring either a high or low degree of trust. For the high-trust job of daycare worker, people were more likely to prefer the religious candidate. For the job of waitress, which requires less trust, the atheists fared much better.

It wasn’t just the highly religious participants who expressed a distrust of atheists. People identifying themselves as having no religious affiliation held similar opinions. Gervais and his colleagues discovered that people distrust atheists because of the belief that people behave better when they think that God is watching over them. This belief may have some truth to it. Gervais and his colleague Ara Norenzayan have found that reminding people about God’s presence has the same effect as telling people they are being watched by others: it increases their feelings of self-consciousness and leads them to behave in more socially acceptable ways."

The actual polls do not reflect your claim.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The actual polls do not reflect your claim.

But the claim isn't around how theists treat or think about atheists at all.
There was a separate thread on that, where @Mandi defended atheists.

Basically this thread is about presenting the matching view from the other side. Online, at least, I think it's fair to say many atheists have a limited conception of religion, or are poor at identifying which religious aspects they are attacking, making simpler statements about 'religion', which actually aren't universally applicable.

I can see this has some parallel in some theists assuming all atheists are anti-theists.

@Mandi , I might quibble on the some/many to a degree, but I thought the OP was well done, and the dual threads thing is interesting.

 

[Grumpuss]

Not all atheists. I can respect the ones who want nothing to do with religion, don't subscribe to it, believe in whatever morals & code they've cobbled together. They simply don't believe. Fine.

Where there's an issue is in the ultra-militant ones, the people who define themselves by their atheism. When a Christian or Muslim or Scientologist defines himself/herself primarily by the religion, that's possible- because there's an actual set of beliefs and doctrinal rules for such a person. The zealous atheist can't define himself/herself, except by blithely attacking any and all religion encountered.

These are the people who attack Christmas displays, or think it's funny to disrupt prayer services. They go out looking for things to be offended by, and unsurprisingly are offended at what they find in others. It does indeed bespeak great insecurity. Like the teenager who gets compulsively large numbers of piercings or tattoos, or who cuts himself/herself: they are massively frustrated and depressed.

 

[Kapalika]

But the claim isn't around how theists treat or think about atheists at all.
There was a separate thread on that, where @Mandi defended atheists.

Basically this thread is about presenting the matching view from the other side. Online, at least, I think it's fair to say many atheists have a limited conception of religion, or are poor at identifying which religious aspects they are attacking, making simpler statements about 'religion', which actually aren't universally applicable.

I can see this has some parallel in some theists assuming all atheists are anti-theists.

@Mandi , I might quibble on the some/many to a degree, but I thought the OP was well done, and the dual threads thing is interesting.

Thank you, good to know my intent wasn't lost I'd say a lot of my observation is from online.. youtube, IRC, forums like this... but I've seen it in real life situations and debates too.

 

[osgart]

the definition of religion I would say needs an overhaul. there are things outside of science, that science can neither confirm or deny rationally. Science has nothing to say about an immaterial soul.
The popular trend of today makes science the authority on all matters of belief, faith, and knowledge. that is a corruption of the times of today.
Religion can be informed by science and prosper in light of it. Religion is a form of reason and experience that edifies the soul; with reason and experience we can come to know things that add health and happiness to our lives.

there's a reason why religious people live longer and more joyful lives. it is because they don't ignore human experience and the matters of the soul. faith and belief founded in fact is the healthiest thing when those faiths and beliefs ring true.

science gives us cause to be religious, not the contrary.

 

[shunyadragon]

I consider it another meaningless stereo typing attack on atheism. I actually consider many atheists well educated and very knowledgeable about religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*religion in this case is religion as a monolithic thing, not specifically one religion or another but just the idea of it at all.

My sister topic to: theists attack atheism because they are insecure

So before I ragged on the theist tendencies about atheism, but oh no I'm not done yet! Now you see atheists are no saints either. They often do things just as bad in terms of intellectual honesty. Making strawmen and the like. I wasn't able to really think of a lot to say about what atheists say about theism, so I thought I would focus on what I am, since I previously said I'm neither an atheist or theist; but a religious person.

The biggest thing for me, many atheists like to act as if all religions are fundamentalist Christianity. And when they see that none of those arguments work against my beliefs, eventually just refuse to listen to any suggestion that maybe we have common ground and just insult religion as if it was some kind of monolithic thing.

What really gets me too, is even when we do find the common ground, they try to claim me as an atheist and say things like I have a "bull**** mythology to comfort" myself. Which isn't true. They miss the nuance, the philosophy, the ethics, ritual and tradition and so much more. Religion isn't just about belief, and what beliefs I do have, are not theistic but that doesn't make them atheistic. There's this nebulous zone called pantheism, although it seems I have some transtheism as well. In either case I view such things as a duality onto itself, atheism and theism.

Despite that it seems a lot of atheists unfairly act as if all religions are equal. I get it though, some religions have done a lot of bad. Two of them make the majority of the world population. But that has more to do with how they spread and their doctrine rather than an inherent quality in religion itself. I think it's important to remember that not all beliefs are equal, and just having a religion doesn't make you irrational, unscientific or illogical. It doesn't make you superstitious. Heck, you don't even need to believe in Supernaturalism to be religious, and I'm just one example.

In short, atheists will often times attack religion just for their personal connotations of it, knowing little or nothing about the beliefs or if they do go and try to learn about it, it will be with the starting point of wanting to disprove it from the get-go and ignore any possibly valid points along the way, something inherently against an intellectually honest thought-process. Could you imagine if scientists just ignored anything that didn't already agree with their hypothesis? We wouldn't of gotten that far if that were the case!

So let me bring this back to the point that many again assume any religious thing is bull****. It's funny though when I bring up say someone like Sam Harris, who's actually seen a lot of good in Jainism and Buddhism. When I've brought this up before I'm told I'm lying or making it up... but then:|

Killing the Buddha (killing the Buddha refers to an actual Buddhist teaching where Buddhists are advised to do that if they ever see the Buddha on the roadside)

Sam Harris Talks Spirituality : Secular Buddhist Association

And yet I've been told things before like Sam Harris would "never support irrational, superstitious bull****". Funny how these kinds of people seem to not be familiar with some of Sam Harris's work neither know anything about more eastern types of religions.

However Sam Harris I would say is very critical of religion but not of all things religious. He's well educated, and looked at many different religions with an objective eye. I will disagree with him on some ways he sees these religions but he at least recognizes the valid underpinnings of the traditions. I do agree with him that many are cloaked in too much supernaturalism and superstition, but religion doesn't have to be that way, I'd argue. But at least then from those 2 viewpoints there is a debate to be had that's not making caricatures of eachother.

But only Sam Harris is Sam Harris. Many people who just want to blast at religion I feel are (often rightfully) mad at some very specific religious traditions causing harm in the world. However combine their anger/fear with ignorance of most of religions, and you get a recipe for unfounded disdain or hate.

It's okay for us to disagree, and argue for or against various aspects of religion, so long as we are representing eachother's positions honestly. Trying to characterize one's religion as a more easily defeated one is a strawman, And I'm not okay with that.

When we're talking about religion as a whole - and I understand from your OP that we are - your religion is negligible. I'm sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth.

When we're talking about religion in the general sense, its positive and negative attributes are going to be a function of people's religious beliefs and behaviour (and their positive and negative implications) along with how many people hold a particular belief or practice a particular behaviour. This means that the implications of "religion as a whole" are dominated by the big four: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. All the other religions of the world combined don't have as much impact as these four do. The contribution of your "Tantric Satanism" to "religion as a whole" is orders of magnitude less than the rounding error for any of the big four. Heck - it's probably less than the rounding error for Satanism.

We can talk about religion in general the same way that we can talk about, say, the car in general. As just as we can make general conclusions about the car (e.g. "car-centric urban planning is financially and environmentally unsustainable") we can make general conclusions about religion.

... and just as we don't need to take someone's one-off homemade car into account for our conclusions about the car to be valid ("it's solar powered, only gets driven in parades, and captures CO2 from the air as it runs!"), we don't need to take your one-off homemade religion into account for our conclusions about religion to be valid.

 

[icehorse]

I might well be one of those atheists in the cross-hairs of the OP...

When I debate theists there are standard apologist maneuvers, and the OP demonstrated some of them:

- you can't attack religion if you're not an expert
- you can't attack religion because it has many definitions
- you can't attach religion because not all religious people are extremists
- you can't attack religion because it has some good points

These arguments all feel like dodges to me, they are attempts to deflect and avoid looking at some of the very real problems that religions create.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Atheists attack religion because they have been left out. God only calls certain people to Himself and atheists are the rejects.

 

[DavidFirth]

Fundamental and many other Theists attack atheism more because they are insecure in their faith. Polls demonstrate that a large percentage of Theist, hate and distrust atheists.

From: In Atheists We Distrust

"Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust.

Gervais and his colleagues presented participants with a story about a person who accidentally hits a parked car and then fails to leave behind valid insurance information for the other driver. Participants were asked to choose the probability that the person in question was a Christian, a Muslim, a rapist, or an atheist. They thought it equally probable the culprit was an atheist or a rapist, and unlikely the person was a Muslim or Christian. In a different study, Gervais looked at how atheism influences people’s hiring decisions. People were asked to choose between an atheist or a religious candidate for a job requiring either a high or low degree of trust. For the high-trust job of daycare worker, people were more likely to prefer the religious candidate. For the job of waitress, which requires less trust, the atheists fared much better.

It wasn’t just the highly religious participants who expressed a distrust of atheists. People identifying themselves as having no religious affiliation held similar opinions. Gervais and his colleagues discovered that people distrust atheists because of the belief that people behave better when they think that God is watching over them. This belief may have some truth to it. Gervais and his colleague Ara Norenzayan have found that reminding people about God’s presence has the same effect as telling people they are being watched by others: it increases their feelings of self-consciousness and leads them to behave in more socially acceptable ways."

The actual polls do not reflect your claim.

Polls overwhelmingly predicted Clinton would defeat Trump. You shouldn't depend on polls. Polls do not always reveal the truth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'll just say it, I dislike religion. Cultural traditions that bring people together in celebration and prescriptions for morality and altruism are some of the only worthwhile parts in my opinion - and those things could easily exist without all the rest of the make-believe that is very often involved.

I see religion as a completely unnecessary set of labels, adherences to fantasy and reasons to get upset and insulted over pretty much NOTHING. As if humanity didn't have enough things to feel divided on, poke fun at, or judge one another crazy over.

 

[Revoltingest]

What's wrong with ignorance?
Coming to terms with what I don't know is pretty useful.

 

[George-ananda]

*

And yet I've been told things before like Sam Harris would "never support irrational, superstitious bull****".

It still seems to be the case that he doesn't support those things. Secular Buddhism is just an non-theistic self-help psychology; not a religion.

Harris' approach is exactly to take religion out of Buddhism and create a 'Secular Buddhism'.

 

[Milton Platt]

*religion in this case is religion as a monolithic thing, not specifically one religion or another but just the idea of it at all.

My sister topic to: theists attack atheism because they are insecure

So before I ragged on the theist tendencies about atheism, but oh no I'm not done yet! Now you see atheists are no saints either. They often do things just as bad in terms of intellectual honesty. Making strawmen and the like. I wasn't able to really think of a lot to say about what atheists say about theism, so I thought I would focus on what I am, since I previously said I'm neither an atheist or theist; but a religious person.

The biggest thing for me, many atheists like to act as if all religions are fundamentalist Christianity. And when they see that none of those arguments work against my beliefs, eventually just refuse to listen to any suggestion that maybe we have common ground and just insult religion as if it was some kind of monolithic thing.

What really gets me too, is even when we do find the common ground, they try to claim me as an atheist and say things like I have a "bull**** mythology to comfort" myself. Which isn't true. They miss the nuance, the philosophy, the ethics, ritual and tradition and so much more. Religion isn't just about belief, and what beliefs I do have, are not theistic but that doesn't make them atheistic. There's this nebulous zone called pantheism, although it seems I have some transtheism as well. In either case I view such things as a duality onto itself, atheism and theism.

Despite that it seems a lot of atheists unfairly act as if all religions are equal. I get it though, some religions have done a lot of bad. Two of them make the majority of the world population. But that has more to do with how they spread and their doctrine rather than an inherent quality in religion itself. I think it's important to remember that not all beliefs are equal, and just having a religion doesn't make you irrational, unscientific or illogical. It doesn't make you superstitious. Heck, you don't even need to believe in Supernaturalism to be religious, and I'm just one example.

In short, atheists will often times attack religion just for their personal connotations of it, knowing little or nothing about the beliefs or if they do go and try to learn about it, it will be with the starting point of wanting to disprove it from the get-go and ignore any possibly valid points along the way, something inherently against an intellectually honest thought-process. Could you imagine if scientists just ignored anything that didn't already agree with their hypothesis? We wouldn't of gotten that far if that were the case!

So let me bring this back to the point that many again assume any religious thing is bull****. It's funny though when I bring up say someone like Sam Harris, who's actually seen a lot of good in Jainism and Buddhism. When I've brought this up before I'm told I'm lying or making it up... but then:|

Killing the Buddha (killing the Buddha refers to an actual Buddhist teaching where Buddhists are advised to do that if they ever see the Buddha on the roadside)

Sam Harris Talks Spirituality : Secular Buddhist Association

And yet I've been told things before like Sam Harris would "never support irrational, superstitious bull****". Funny how these kinds of people seem to not be familiar with some of Sam Harris's work neither know anything about more eastern types of religions.

However Sam Harris I would say is very critical of religion but not of all things religious. He's well educated, and looked at many different religions with an objective eye. I will disagree with him on some ways he sees these religions but he at least recognizes the valid underpinnings of the traditions. I do agree with him that many are cloaked in too much supernaturalism and superstition, but religion doesn't have to be that way, I'd argue. But at least then from those 2 viewpoints there is a debate to be had that's not making caricatures of eachother.

But only Sam Harris is Sam Harris. Many people who just want to blast at religion I feel are (often rightfully) mad at some very specific religious traditions causing harm in the world. However combine their anger/fear with ignorance of most of religions, and you get a recipe for unfounded disdain or hate.

It's okay for us to disagree, and argue for or against various aspects of religion, so long as we are representing eachother's positions honestly. Trying to characterize one's religion as a more easily defeated one is a strawman, And I'm not okay with that.

Well, I will agree with you that all beliefs are not equal. Some have evidence to back them up and some do not.

 

[shawn001]

Atheists attack religion because they have been left out. God only calls certain people to Himself and atheists are the rejects.

Are you saying you know the mind of God and that God call's atheists rejects? Did God tell you that?

 

[shawn001]

*religion in this case is religion as a monolithic thing, not specifically one religion or another but just the idea of it at all.

My sister topic to: theists attack atheism because they are insecure

So before I ragged on the theist tendencies about atheism, but oh no I'm not done yet! Now you see atheists are no saints either. They often do things just as bad in terms of intellectual honesty. Making strawmen and the like. I wasn't able to really think of a lot to say about what atheists say about theism, so I thought I would focus on what I am, since I previously said I'm neither an atheist or theist; but a religious person.

The biggest thing for me, many atheists like to act as if all religions are fundamentalist Christianity. And when they see that none of those arguments work against my beliefs, eventually just refuse to listen to any suggestion that maybe we have common ground and just insult religion as if it was some kind of monolithic thing.

What really gets me too, is even when we do find the common ground, they try to claim me as an atheist and say things like I have a "bull**** mythology to comfort" myself. Which isn't true. They miss the nuance, the philosophy, the ethics, ritual and tradition and so much more. Religion isn't just about belief, and what beliefs I do have, are not theistic but that doesn't make them atheistic. There's this nebulous zone called pantheism, although it seems I have some transtheism as well. In either case I view such things as a duality onto itself, atheism and theism.

Despite that it seems a lot of atheists unfairly act as if all religions are equal. I get it though, some religions have done a lot of bad. Two of them make the majority of the world population. But that has more to do with how they spread and their doctrine rather than an inherent quality in religion itself. I think it's important to remember that not all beliefs are equal, and just having a religion doesn't make you irrational, unscientific or illogical. It doesn't make you superstitious. Heck, you don't even need to believe in Supernaturalism to be religious, and I'm just one example.

In short, atheists will often times attack religion just for their personal connotations of it, knowing little or nothing about the beliefs or if they do go and try to learn about it, it will be with the starting point of wanting to disprove it from the get-go and ignore any possibly valid points along the way, something inherently against an intellectually honest thought-process. Could you imagine if scientists just ignored anything that didn't already agree with their hypothesis? We wouldn't of gotten that far if that were the case!

So let me bring this back to the point that many again assume any religious thing is bull****. It's funny though when I bring up say someone like Sam Harris, who's actually seen a lot of good in Jainism and Buddhism. When I've brought this up before I'm told I'm lying or making it up... but then:|

Killing the Buddha (killing the Buddha refers to an actual Buddhist teaching where Buddhists are advised to do that if they ever see the Buddha on the roadside)

Sam Harris Talks Spirituality : Secular Buddhist Association

And yet I've been told things before like Sam Harris would "never support irrational, superstitious bull****". Funny how these kinds of people seem to not be familiar with some of Sam Harris's work neither know anything about more eastern types of religions.

However Sam Harris I would say is very critical of religion but not of all things religious. He's well educated, and looked at many different religions with an objective eye. I will disagree with him on some ways he sees these religions but he at least recognizes the valid underpinnings of the traditions. I do agree with him that many are cloaked in too much supernaturalism and superstition, but religion doesn't have to be that way, I'd argue. But at least then from those 2 viewpoints there is a debate to be had that's not making caricatures of eachother.

But only Sam Harris is Sam Harris. Many people who just want to blast at religion I feel are (often rightfully) mad at some very specific religious traditions causing harm in the world. However combine their anger/fear with ignorance of most of religions, and you get a recipe for unfounded disdain or hate.

It's okay for us to disagree, and argue for or against various aspects of religion, so long as we are representing eachother's positions honestly. Trying to characterize one's religion as a more easily defeated one is a strawman, And I'm not okay with that.

First, so you know I am not an atheist. I also agree some atheists believe they have an answer to the question which is not answerable with science or any religion.

"Despite that it seems a lot of atheists unfairly act as if all religions are equal."

When it boils down to it, how are they not equal? I am not talking about what they have done in history, but the basic premise of them all?

I think your next post like this as your going over both theists and atheists, could be religious intolerance perhaps.

 

[shawn001]

the definition of religion I would say needs an overhaul. there are things outside of science, that science can neither confirm or deny rationally. Science has nothing to say about an immaterial soul.
The popular trend of today makes science the authority on all matters of belief, faith, and knowledge. that is a corruption of the times of today.
Religion can be informed by science and prosper in light of it. Religion is a form of reason and experience that edifies the soul; with reason and experience we can come to know things that add health and happiness to our lives.

there's a reason why religious people live longer and more joyful lives. it is because they don't ignore human experience and the matters of the soul. faith and belief founded in fact is the healthiest thing when those faiths and beliefs ring true.

science gives us cause to be religious, not the contrary.

"Science has nothing to say about an immaterial soul."

Yes, actually science does have something to say about it, in depth.

Souls do not Exist
Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism

"The idea of souls, a mystical and spiritual life-force that animates biological matter, has been almost ubiquitous in human cultures since prehistorical times, and talk of souls became part of popular belief in nearly all world religions. Despite this, actual souls are not found in the scriptures of Judaism nor in formal Buddhist doctrine (anatta specifically means "no souls")46,47 - there are, at best, only indirect references to what we now call souls. Some argue that it wasn't until the Greek pagan idea of soul came to influence Christianity that world religion really embraced the topic48. Catholic doctrine still teaches only of a physical resurrection of the body, come judgement day49. Biblical versus supporting this include John 5:28-29, John 6:40, Romans 2:5-7, Romans 6:23, 1 Corinthians 15:51-55and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Some strange points in history have indicated all kinds of conflicts as to what is meant by "soul" in popular conception - a 6th Century church council meeting met to vote on whether or not women had souls at all. It was agreed by a margin of just one vote that they do50. After all the philosophical-religious debates, it has turned out that the idea of souls merely embodied a lack of knowledge of neurology and cognitive psychology51. Since the 19th century the tide turned, and science has trumped religion on the matter of souls52,53,54. Lengthy and detailed neurological and biochemical investigations have shown comprehensively that the soul, the self, our emotions and consciousness, are all biological and Earthly in nature55,56, and just as manipulatable (and damageable) as any other physical system."

Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism

 

[shawn001]

"I do benefits for all religions - I'd hate to blow the hereafter on a technicality."
Bob Hope

 

[shunyadragon]

But the claim isn't around how theists treat or think about atheists at all.
There was a separate thread on that, where @Mandi defended atheists.

Basically this thread is about presenting the matching view from the other side. Online, at least, I think it's fair to say many atheists have a limited conception of religion, or are poor at identifying which religious aspects they are attacking, making simpler statements about 'religion', which actually aren't universally applicable.

I can see this has some parallel in some theists assuming all atheists are anti-theists.

@Mandi , I might quibble on the some/many to a degree, but I thought the OP was well done, and the dual threads thing is interesting.

The claim that some 'have a limited conception of religion' is common canard used by many belief systems that say, 'If really knew my true religion you would believe as I do,'

The fallacy of an 'appeal to ignorance' plan and simple.