No one is free from criticism. Harmful ideas should be condemned, when they are demonstrably harmful. But theist beliefs are such a vast range and diversity of ideas, some harmful, some useful, some healing, some vivifying, and still others having served as potent drivers of movements for justice; that to lump all theist religious belief into one category and attack the whole of it, only demonstrates your ignorance of theology, and is in fact bigotry.

By saying that religious and superstitious beliefs should be disrespected, or otherwise belittling, or stigmatizing religion and supernatural beliefs as a whole, you have already established the first level on the “Pyramid of Hate”, as well as the first of the “10 Stages of Genocide.”

If your religion is atheism, that’s perfectly valid. If someone is doing something harmful with a religious belief as justification, that specific belief should be challenged. But if you’re crossing the line into bigotry, you’re as bad as the very people you’re condemning.

Antitheism is a form of supremacy in and of itself.

"In other words, it is quite clear from the writings of the “four horsemen” that “new atheism” has little to do with atheism or any serious intellectual examination of the belief in God and everything to do with hatred and power.

Indeed, “new atheism” is the ideological foregrounding of liberal imperialism whose fanatical secularism extends the racist logic of white supremacy. It purports to be areligious, but it is not. It is, in fact, the twin brother of the rabid Christian conservatism which currently feeds the Trump administration’s destructive policies at home and abroad – minus all the biblical references."

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/5/4/the-resurrection-of-new-atheism/

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/2/21/can-atheists-make-their-case-without-devolving-into-bigotry/

  • myslsl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There is nothing inherently “good” about religion at all. Honestly, I believe it cheapens the human race. It says that humans aren’t strong enough on their own. They NEED the guidance and help of invisible beings to do the things they do

    It’s arguable whether anything is inherently good at all.

    The idea that belief in a god cheapens the human race, or that belief in a god makes people weak isn’t any different from saying belief in natural forces that we analyze scientifically cheapens the human race or makes people weaker in some sense.

    God had no part in it. God doesn’t deserve the credit. I put in the work.

    Scientific arguments can be made for why your success isn’t truly your own either. I.e. socioeconomic class, geographical proximity to resources, nature vs nurture arguments etc.

    On top of that, not all theists would say you don’t deserve credit for your hard work.

    But the main problem with religion is that it is an override switch for critical thinking. Things that are obviously, and proven to be helpful and right. They can become muddy at best and downright wrong when viewed through the lens of religion.

    Failing to think critically is not an issue solely held by theists. Atheists can and regularly do fail at this. Normal people of all types fail at this often. The assumption that theism implies a failure to think critically is just wrong. Most theistic beliefs can easily be made consistent with scientific thinking for what it’s worth.

    In the end the small positives aren’t worth the negatives, and for those “good religious people” you still support machines that are into child marriage, child molestation, keeping women down, and hurting other humans just because your god said it’s cool.

    I don’t think religious institutions are the only institutions that do these things. Perhaps I am wrong? But to claim these crimes are solely a theistic thing seems incorrect to me.

    But even if they are, the institutions themselves and the religious beliefs are distinct. All religions really try to do is to explain things we don’t really have answers for. This is not inherently bad, atheists do this about as much as theists as far as I can tell.

    • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing is inherently good. Life is a crapshoot. But religion likes to say that it is good.

      Your second point. I’m guessing you’re equating science and religion? Which is a terrible argument. We can see and do science using our own brains and so, I’m just going to leave this one alone.

      This one is true. I was homeless and ran into a girl that had a crush on me. She said that she would pay for my treatment if I was serious about getting clean. Another opportunity wasn’t going to come like that, and everyone I grew up with was already dead from overdoses. So, she paid for it and I did the suffering. After all no man is an island.

      The theists that would say I don’t deserve credit for my accomplishments are the self hating humans I was referring to. They think we are too weak to do anything for ourselves. It also gives them plausible deniability when they do something fucked up. The good and the bad. It was all me baby.

      Failing to think critically is something that happens to all of us from time to time. The difference is that religion is used to cause a mass directed lapse in critical thinking. As an example “god doesn’t like gay people because it says so in the bible. so all gay people bad”. When someone thinking critically would just judge individuals based on their own merit. Regardless of who they decide makes them happy.

      Last point. Whew. Man. Just to be clear. I enjoyed reading your counter points. I thought all of them but one were pretty good, and that one may just be me misreading it.

      So, you aren’t wrong. Boy Scouts comes to mind. But I feel like there is something especially egregious about someone telling you they’re going to save your soul, but the whole time they’re fucking your kid. Ya know what I mean? Not very holy of them.

      • myslsl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Your second point. I’m guessing you’re equating science and religion? Which is a terrible argument. We can see and do science using our own brains and so, I’m just going to leave this one alone.

        I’m not so much trying to equate science and religion but to argue against the claim that religion specifically is the issue, as far as your comment about certain religions taking credit for your own work. All sorts of institutions besides religion and science can and will attempt to do this.

        The theists that would say I don’t deserve credit for my accomplishments are the self hating humans I was referring to. They think we are too weak to do anything for ourselves. It also gives them plausible deniability when they do something fucked up. The good and the bad. It was all me baby.

        I still think this is an overgeneralization of theistic positions. I get that some theists would do this. They are shitty for that. But plenty of non-theists would do the same. There have been millions of theists throughout all of human history. It just doesn’t make sense to me to chalk this kind of thing up to being uniquely a theist thing.

        Failing to think critically is something that happens to all of us from time to time. The difference is that religion is used to cause a mass directed lapse in critical thinking. As an example “god doesn’t like gay people because it says so in the bible. so all gay people bad”. When someone thinking critically would just judge individuals based on their own merit. Regardless of who they decide makes them happy.

        I understand your point here, but this seems more like a point against abuses by religious institutions specifically. There’s a difference between some extremist christian cult telling people they ought to murder gay people and some random innocent person believing the earth was created by a small women on mars who dispenses cotton candy from her hair. Condemnation of religion by many people often includes the latter case I mentioned despite it being pretty harmless.

        So, you aren’t wrong. Boy Scouts comes to mind. But I feel like there is something especially egregious about someone telling you they’re going to save your soul, but the whole time they’re fucking your kid. Ya know what I mean? Not very holy of them.

        I totally agree with you on this.

        • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, I see what you’re saying, and I agree. But, the difference is a chain of tangible things coming together to exert force one way or the other in my life.

          VS.

          An invisible force with no other proof than “because they work in mysterious ways?”

          For instance. I am a white male, and I have a genetically? high tolerance to opiates (I only say genetically high tolerance because most of my friends are dead). I also won the genetic lottery. Not like the billion dollar genetic lottery, but like a really good scratch off genetic lottery. I am fairly charismatic. I live in a major city center in the US. All these things and more came together to for instance get someone to like me enough to pay for treatment. Keep my criminal record minimal.

          I agree with all those things. But, at the end of the day. I still had to make the decision and have the constitution to stick with it.

          But I definitely see what you were saying now, and I agree with you. Except I can follow the science one. The religious one is still just kinda silly.

          So, on to the next thing, and I agree with what you’re saying. I’ll give you that one. I don’t really see any flaw in your thinking on that one. People just kind of suck. Heh

          Yeah, I really was just talking about abuses. Because, truthfully if religions were happy to stay out of politics, and mind their own business. I wouldn’t care one bit. The only reason I am as outspoken against religion as I am is because their choices affect mine and countless other lives across the world daily, and not in a good way, or even a way that the majority wants. But here we are.

          • myslsl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No worries, I see the logic in your point of view too. Thanks for hearing me out. I appreciated getting to see your view point too.

            • MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was just telling my partner that I had a super cool discussion with someone online today. That doesn’t happen very often. I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most theistic beliefs can easily be made consistent with scientific thinking for what it’s worth.

      Literally all theism starts with a claim that has no proof “there is a god”.

      As these claims have no proof they can immediately be dismissed.

      • myslsl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As these claims have no proof they can immediately be dismissed.

        There are plenty of claims without proof that shouldn’t be dismissed. The majority of scientific inquiry investigates claims we can’t currently prove or disprove.

        There really isn’t any objective proof there isn’t a god either. If we can dismiss claims that a god exists based on lack of proof, then it seems like logically we also can dismiss claims that no god exists based on lack of proof too?

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You have just repeated the fallacy of proving a negative and proven you’re not worth the time to discuss anything with.

          • myslsl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Seems a lot more to me like you don’t understand that we can reason rationally as well as empirically.

              • myslsl@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not my fault you can’t argue your point any further. There’s no need to reply to me to confirm it.