[saraid216]

> Ah, I understand what you are saying.

No, I don't think you do.

> The problem is that, I truly don't believe in gods or spirits anymore.

Neither do I. I don't see how that's relevant to learning the subject matter that you're claiming to learn. You don't read a book about Java and say that you now understand Haskell. You don't read a book about real-time embedded systems and come away with an understanding of CSS. You don't read a book by Dawkins and claim to have increased your understanding of Sikhism.

> What do I stand to gain from studying other religions closely?

I don't know. What do you want to gain? Why are you studying religion at all, if you have no intention of studying religion?

If you want to study atheism, that's fine. Study atheism. But unless you think that atheism is a kind of religion (which, last I checked, it is not), then you are not studying religion.

[gobots]

God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and the God Delusion are books about religion. I mentioned a few authors that I have read whose books cover either science, religion or a mixture of the two. I will grant you that I am not making a hard study into comparative religion and certainly did not mean to imply otherwise.

[dllthomas]

Incidentally, despite being somewhat sympathetic to the viewpoint, I felt The God Delusion paled in comparison to Dawkins' other works. He's far more compelling in the mode of "Isn't all this stuff amazing?" than the mode of "Isn't that stuff awful?"

[gobots]

Currently reading The Greatest Show on Earth and I have to agree, but I do agree with many of the points that were made in The God Delusion. I will say he should have spent less time on his memeology ideas.

[dllthomas]

Yeah, I should say that I don't mean to imply that this has any bearing on whether he is correct or incorrect, in either case!

[mreiland]

You're missing Saraid's point.

[gobots]

Indeed – or more to the point: I wasn't clear in my original statement. I am learning about certain aspects of religion – not learning comparative religion.

I am not however "learning atheism" as others have decided to claim in this thread. I stopped believing in god years ago, at that point by definition I was an atheist.

I am interested in the origins of religion, the scientific reasons that it exists, and the negative impact it has on people.

[mreiland]

By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it.

You are misunderstanding his point because it infringes upon how you self-identify. Perspective is weird like that sometimes.

[gobots]

"By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it."

That is a very weak argument. One cannot learn about religion because all you have to do is believe.. and since I don't believe, I can't learn it?

Edit: so there is no proof or evidence needed for religion – you just have to believe. Would you like to buy this rock i have? it keeps tigers away...

[mreiland]

I'm glad you agree that it's a weak argument. It also just happens to be the argument you made in reverse. That was actually the point.

[saraid216]

No, he's deliberately misreading me in order to feel that his self-identification is infringed upon.

According to him, if a Christian believes in God, and then reads about Christianity to learn about Christianity, said Christian is not a Christian because they're "learning about Christianity". The sheer quantity of stupid required to believe this has disinterested me in continuing any conversation.

[mreiland]

I agree with you, the point of my post was to try and get him to see the ridiculousness of it by simply reversing it.