I'm actually somewhat disappointed as just when this thread had popped up, I was in the middle of working on a more well put together thread about the anti-theist position. It seems as though everybody's favorite card to play against us is that we're "militant" What nonsense. We don't believe in burning peoples precious bibles or punishing the faithful for what they believe in. I myself used to be a devout Christian and I remember what it was like to go to church every Wednesday and Sunday and be "on fire for Jesus" So, don't for one moment make the mistake that those who believe that religious faith is harmful for the world are just somehow out of touch with what religion offers. Do you believe the world would be a better off place without racism? Without sexism? Tribalism? War? All the easy answers to these questions if you're a decent person who cares about morality and ethics is "yes" If it can be argued that religion is the primary catalyst for all of these things today and throughout history, it should follow that religion should be left behind. I don't believe in forcing a racist to love all his fellow men equally, he's more than welcome to keep his views to himself. I just envision a day where people like him are on the fringe of society and they aren't taken seriously anymore, and we have largely accomplished that to an extent. I view religion in the same way. Keep your holy books if you must. Play with these toys if you think it gives you comfort from the cold, black, permanence of death. Fine. Those of us that care about truth at all costs are going to leave you behind though. If you think I'm saying all religious people are rabbid, sexist, racist, genocidal maniacs you'd not only be wrong but would be completely missing the point. All these things would exist without religion, the point is religion is the tried and true incubator for them.
Another thing I wanted to touch on, is the nonsense justification for religion that it creates culture. Yes, it does, but this justification seems to be resting on the assumption that religion is somehow unique in the social binding and culture that it's able to produce. It assumes that if there was no religion, that a culture of secular humanism could not exist. We would have beautiful buildings, beautiful artwork, beautiful songs,
with or without religion. Saying otherwise is to say that religion offers an intrinsically unique benefit and if you're going to say that, prove it. Further still, I would argue that religion seems like a catalyst for culture only because in a lot of places, religion was the ultimate and supreme arbiter of what culture was and should be. I know none of you like it when we "militant" atheists pick on the Abrahamic religions (I admit I do like my low hanging fruit.) In Europe for example the Catholic church heavily regulated culture and anything that could be construed as blasphemous or challenging the supremacy of the Catholic church was viciously suppressed. In this vein, religion destroys culture or insists that there can only be one, uniform culture. You can find thousands of other examples in history independent of the big three Abrahamic religions where invading nations weren't just content with conquering their new territory, but saw it fit to eradicate the religion of the nations they were conquering by burning down their temples, shrines, etc.
Ask yourself a question. When has religion ever just been happy making it's grandiose supernatural claims and leaving everyone else alone? It's a cutesy enough idea that we can all just coexist. The world is big enough for the both of us, no? This does not play out in reality. While I may grant an individual person of a certain religious practice to practice his religion freely, he in turn is very unlikely to grant me that same courtesy. While individual adherents of religion can respect others and their differences in belief, religion itself cannot. It simply isn't structured that way. Religious belief focuses on the fact that there is an infallible God(s) who is the divine source of truth and morality. This is dangerous because the fundamental problem is that it already starts out knowing all the answers. If you claim to already know the answers, your view can't be changed by new coming, useful information. If you accept that God is the supreme source of morality for example, the idea that we can progress further as a species and learn more about morality is, right then and there, crushed. Maybe you argue for a broader definition of religion though. (Even though that's what religion is. "Belief in dieties." but I'll humor you.) So you don't think religion has to be centered around an infallible God. Take for example, Native American spiritual practices. The same problem is bound to exist. Assuming that overtime the Native Americans were to progress as a civilization (Which they would have. Scientific inquiry is inherent in all humans) they would be forced to reconcile their discoveries with their spiritual teachings. They would, eventually, come to a bump in the road. They would either be A) Forced to accept their sincerely held beliefs were false or B) Re-interpret their teaching to match what they've observed and come to know about the world, or C) Reject what they've independently observed or come to know through reason in favor of aforementioned sincerely held belief.
The tendency to choose C is endemic in all religions. Any religion, whether belief in all powerful deities or some rag tag neo pagan cult is still fundamentally incompatible with science, rational thinking, and skeptical inquiry
by its very definition. They aren't "Non overlapping magisteria" they are irreconcilable. That incompatibility is harmful to growth, progress, discovery, truth, and everything else that has gotten humanity to where it is today.
We, as humans, are not a purely rational species. We think, this is certain, but largely, we are a social, hungry, horny, emotion animal. We love our inconsistencies. A million different things aren't necessarily rational, but they have huge followings and are largely benign. Most of fiction isn't rational, we should all rationally know, for example, that Harry Potter is a fabrication, or that Pokemon aren't real, but we still immerse ourselves in these worlds where irrational things are commonplace. This is a Pokemon site, so y'all probably know at least a thing or three about Pokemon, even though immersing yourself in such a world is completely irrational. And we don't have a problem with this, why? It's because playing Pokemon is largely not harmful to oneself or others. Why can't we accept religion the same way? You may mock me, but I do believe in magick, and things unseen. Is that irrational? To you, I am certain it is, but it's not to me.
Don't be ridiculous! Yes we love works of fiction like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, or Lord of The Rings. Yet, any person knows that while reading them, they are indeed fiction. Not true. Fabrications. Falsehoods. If someone sat next to you on a bus and was reading Harry Potter and turned around and looked at you with a cold dead stare and said "I believe with all my heart that I'm Harry Potter. I believe I can cast spells, speak to snakes, and it's my destiny to destroy the evil lord Voldemort." would you move closer or further way to this person? Every honest person here knows the answer to that question. Most people would sooner think that this person is a danger to themselves and others before they would think something a long the lines of "Wow, I bet that takes a lot of faith. Good for him!" If people don't learn that the protection against falsehoods is just as important as the discovery of truth, we're going to be in a lot of trouble. When religion isn't steeped in bloodshed it's keeping people ignorant and in the dark (Which funny enough, is a huge cause for bloodshed. Fantastic cycle.) Show me a one religion, just one, that isn't at odds with science and is compatible with the known world. Preferably a religion that actually deserves to be called a religion, for example Bhuddism and Confucianism are arguably just moral philosophies. Rise to that challenge and then we'll talk. Until then, I more or less see the inability of fellow secularists to critisize religion for what it is and what it does as severely disappointing and borderline cowardly. The stakes are too important to give a damn about making waves.
I also wanted to quote this from rationalwiki in a hope to end this insipid "militant atheist" mantra.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antitheism
The term "militant" atheism is often used as a pejorative to antitheists and strong atheists alike. It finds its origin in the spur of atheism during the late 19th century and has been applied as a slippery slope term for antireligious persecutions. Many modern writers with a strong atheistic or anti-religious stance are accused of militant behavior because of their direct criticism of religion. The term itself is a form of political framing and demagoguery by use of the word "militant". In reality, there is nothing threatening or hostile about it. Modern atheism is certainly more outspoken. Some might even say that it's evangelical. But it's important to understand that a majority of atheists and antitheists do not want to forcefully abolish religion or peoples' right to exercise their freedom of religion. Religion, theism, and their encroachment into government and public affairs are well within the rights of atheists and theists alike to debate, criticize, and discuss. That more and more atheists are choosing to do so, and that modern atheists are very vocal and often proselytizing, does not make it militant. In short, you will never see 10,000 atheists throwing pipe bombs into cars and buildings, rioting because a Danish cartoonist furnished a blank piece of paper, though you may find them mass rounding up religious individuals and punishing them and/or attempting to "rehabilitate" their beliefs for which there is no apparent evidence.[6]
Can we all consider this bug squashed and move on?
