> 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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.