Anyhow, I think the argument you sketch out boils down to “religion creates a kind of currency” much like developed economies create currency. And the existence of that currency facilitates new kinds of activity, including violent, abusive, criminal activity (on money’s role in corrupting man, see pastoral tradition, passim).

It is fairly easy to see why currency as in money might be useful in facilitating transactions, question is what does the sacredness currency do for us?

excellent post, simon.

TGD didn’t convert me, I have been an atheist for several years. I enjoyed the book, and partly because I am not all wrapped up in the fine points of invisible clothing.

Regarding Oran Kelly’s final comment, I think you should take a look at Avalos’ Fighting Words as he makes the case the religion is inherently harmful because it creates scarce resources over that which is ultimately and inherently unverifiable.

And Cyde Weys, Pithecanthropus erectus sez – “Congrats for Graduating.”

You mean they aren’t realistic?

Anyhow, what I’m saying is that, yes, there is something . . . what? Wasteful? Masturbatory? Self-congratulatory? Conductive of offensive self-righteousness? Something a bit wrong in making regular visits to a site merely to see “the enemy” castigated/scorned/dehumanized.

Haven’t you ever seen an old propaganda film and wondered what the hell could have possessed people to watch and enjoy them?

And reading both sides’ propaganda doesn’t sound like a very good reading program to me! Wouldn’t it be better to say, take a more “reality-based” approach and to start looking at religion as it exists out there. Stop reading Internet screeds and start reading some sociological scholarship. That is, if you’re interested.

If not . . . well, then, quit jawing about it. I don’t know about you but I’ve had quite enough know-nothingism from the current administration. From Dawkins, I expected something a bit better.

Or are you saying that you disapprove of people wasting time discussing these issues? In that case I’m afraid I have to strongly disagree. By ignoring philosophical issues of this sort, we may be able to spend more time on practical stuff – but how will we know which stuff to do if we haven’t thought about what goal to shoot for?

If we’re talking about PZ Myers’s site, then the person avoiding it will miss very little in the way of “philosophical” discussion. But I am not advocating that people not discuss these issues. I am saying finding new reasons on a daily basis to make fun of or attack Christians or atheists of insufficient pugnacity does not represent discussion.

It’d actually be pretty nice if people DID in fact take a bit of true interest in the subject of religion, because I think it’s pretty interesting. But work like Dawkins’s and Myers is the very opposite of interesting–it’s propaganda, produced to froth up the (un)faithful.

Yes, it is like that. I’m not at all afraid of extending the observation to politics.

I’m afraid I’m slightly confused. Are you saying that people shouldn’t read material written by people who agree with them? If that’s your concern, then I’m afraid it’s probably not grounded in reality. I have four Christian blogs on my regular reading list (as opposed to 3 atheist and 6 miscellaneous skeptical), and I imagine that’s true of a lot of my fellow atheists.

Or are you saying that you disapprove of people wasting time discussing these issues? In that case I’m afraid I have to strongly disagree. By ignoring philosophical issues of this sort, we may be able to spend more time on practical stuff – but how will we know which stuff to do if we haven’t thought about what goal to shoot for?

As an atheist, I think the Christians are absolutely right when they say that God’s existence is one of the most important questions we’re likely to come across. It’s just the arguments they use to support their conclusion that I disagree with.