Do atheists read the primary sources?

[ReliStuPhD]

The more time I spend talking/debating with atheists, the more it seems to me that atheists are debating something that they don't entirely understand. With respect to religion, it is my experience that, more often than not, the atheist presents caricatures of this or that religion that an informed believer* in said tradition would find similarly ridiculous. Based on the typical position of an atheist (that they are concerned with arriving at truth through rational inquiry), I would think that the average atheist would find it extremely important to be familiar with the primary sources for whatever tradition they're debating. I also would think that they would also place a high value on stating religious beliefs as the religious believer would state them him/herself. Obviously, this doesn't mean the atheist has to believe the tradition, but surely being able to present it fairly would be the first step in any successful rebuttal of that particular tradition/mindset? So I wonder...

Do (most) atheists take the time to read the (Hebrew) Bible/Qur'an/vedas/suttas/Analects/etc in their entirety (as opposed to cherry-picking)?
Do (most) atheists take the time to read the writings of the "great thinkers" in that tradition? (e.g. Aquinas, Ibn Rushd, Shankara, Nagarjuna, etc)?
Do (most) atheists think it is important to correctly describe the religious beliefs they attack?

As someone who studies religion in an academic setting, I wouldn't last long if I simply ignored primary sources when publishing articles, etc. Of course, when I teach undergrads, they're under no such pressure (professionally. They're certainly under that pressure when it comes to a grade!). As such, they end up debate all sorts of misunderstandings, in much the same way that atheists I debate do. This type of misinformed-ness is something we all want to avoid, no?

*Many religionists who do not understand their own tradition. Of course, the atheist has good grounds to take on these misunderstandings, but that would only be a rebuttal of the incorrect ways in which believers understand their tradition. Surely if the atheist wants to tear down the tradition itself, he/she would go to the strongest arguments, not the weakest?

PS I'm open to critiques of how I may misunderstand what it is that atheists are doing. I may simply not "get" what it is that they're doing.

[duszek]

How many Catholics have read the whole Bible ?

But we know the most important stories, yes.

[ReliStuPhD]

How many Catholics have read the whole Bible ?

Agreed! It's an excellent point (and holds true for other traditions as well). However, if the idea is to show Christianity to be false, you would need to debate the strongest argument, no? That is to say, there's a difference between "folk" Christianity (which the average Joe Christian thinks is Christianity) versus orthodox Christianity (what the Church holds to be proper belief).

But we know the most important stories, yes.

This is what, I mean, though. Knowing "most" of the important stories isn't enough (or so I say). To show Christianity not to hold, you'd need to know all (?) the important ones. More importantly, you'd need to know how those stories have been translated into orthodox belief, how the Church has responded to this or that criticism, and so on. It's not enough to know that God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. One would need to know how the tradition interprets that particular event in light of its moral "fraught-ness."

To be clear, I don't want to saddle the atheist with some sort of impossible burden (e.g. "read everything ever written"), but it seems that the atheist should at least have knowledge of the tradition on the same level as someone who 'teaches' the tradition (e.g. priests, imams, monks) if they want to show the tradition to be false. Now if all the atheist is after to to show how the average believer just doesn't know very much, then so be it, but that wouldn't speak to the truth of the tradition, properly understood.

[duszek]

Atheists could be considered those who cannot believe yet because they have objections.
They propose their objections to the theologians and the task of the theologians is to show that the objections do not hold.

I agree that there is a problem here: some basic knowledge is necessary in order to understand more complicated concepts.

Similarly:
How to explain to someone who has never studied physics that black holes are such and such ?

But look at Jesus: he did not study anything, he couldn´t read and write, and he explained everything to simple people in a simple language.

[henry quirk]

Speaking only for me: my atheism has nuthin' to do with the failings of any one religion, or with religion in general.

My atheism is all about the (to me) apparent absence of a supranatural dimension to the world.

That is: I see no evidence that god (or any supranatural being) exists. I see no evidence the world has a designer/creator/sustainer.

Insofar as I can tell: the world is meaningless, amoral, and without direction (beyond what one expects from an on-going explosion).

I understand some atheists attempt to dismantle 'god' by way of dissecting religion, but this seems ass-backward to me. Why attack the middleman (religion) when it's more productive (and not nearly so time-consuming) to simply ask for conclusive, direct evidence? Since there is no such evidence, one can *shrug* and go about one's business.

I also understand some atheists get their panties in a twist about god (and god belief), but this is, to me, nutty. Seems to me: if the god believer isn't takin' food off your table, money out of your pocket, or shingles from the roof over your head, then it's probably best to just let them be and -- again -- go about one's business.

[henry quirk]

My suggestion to any person when confronted by an aggressive person with an opposing view:

If the opposition can't hobble you in a real way, why waste your time?

Let the opposition assess you as he or she likes and go about your business.

All bets are off, however, when the opposition attempts to hobble you.

"Your opinion of me means nothing; the chains you would wrap 'round my neck, everything."

[thedoc]

But look at Jesus: he did not study anything, he couldn´t read and write, and he explained everything to simple people in a simple language.

Not according to the Bible,

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

[thedoc]

My suggestion to any person when confronted by an aggressive person with an opposing view:

If the opposition can't hobble you in a real way, why waste your time?

Let the opposition assess you as he or she likes and go about your business.

All bets are off, however, when the opposition attempts to hobble you.

"Your opinion of me means nothing; the chains you would wrap 'round my neck, everything."

Hello Henry, I think you know I'm with you on that one, I'm just a little more careful now.

[henry quirk]

Hey, doc...yep.

[thedoc]

How many Catholics have read the whole Bible ?

But we know the most important stories, yes.

Somewhere I made a comparison, Jesus taught is parables, Aesop wrote fables, almost all cultures have Mythology, and we have the old testament, and other sacred writings from various religions, I would suggest that they all be read the same way and in the same light. None of them are science or history, and none of them are intended to be factually true, but they are true in the meaning and the lesson they teach.

[David Handeye]

But look at Jesus: he did not study anything, he couldn´t read and write, and he explained everything to simple people in a simple language.

well, actually Jesus wrote in front of the Magdalen. He wrote the sins of those who wanted to stone her to death.

[duszek]

Ah yes, that´s true.

But he was not a theologian, that´s why the pharisians loathed him so much. Because they thought they knew everything that was to be known about God.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Actually atheists tend to know a lot more about religion than religious nuts do. I don't see why I should have to study fairies in depth to know that I don't believe in them.

[Dalek Prime]

Speaking only for me: my atheism has nuthin' to do with the failings of any one religion, or with religion in general.

My atheism is all about the (to me) apparent absence of a supranatural dimension to the world.

That is: I see no evidence that god (or any supranatural being) exists. I see no evidence the world has a designer/creator/sustainer.

Insofar as I can tell: the world is meaningless, amoral, and without direction (beyond what one expects from an on-going explosion).

I understand some atheists attempt to dismantle 'god' by way of dissecting religion, but this seems ass-backward to me. Why attack the middleman (religion) when it's more productive (and not nearly so time-consuming) to simply ask for conclusive, direct evidence? Since there is no such evidence, one can *shrug* and go about one's business.

I also understand some atheists get their panties in a twist about god (and god belief), but this is, to me, nutty. Seems to me: if the god believer isn't takin' food off your table, money out of your pocket, or shingles from the roof over your head, then it's probably best to just let them be and -- again -- go about one's business.

Couldn't agree more, Henry.

[Wyman]

I'm more of an agnostic, but do believe that organised religions are BS. I have read the Koran in a college course (I can't remember it) and the Gospels, but I've never made it all the way through the Old Testament.

I think in reading the responses so far the answer to your question, at least at this site, is 'No.'