(Thanks EJ, BT and DA).
“Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.”
Anti-theists are quick to point out the “logic” of their position by citing absurd examples and referring to debates between theists and Christopher Hitchens, Dick Dawk, and other CA/A’s.
This is intellectual cowardice (thanks DD).
It is intellectual cowardice because the question that must be answered to determine if anti-theism is valid or not is not “Does God exist?”, it is “Is the forbiddance of organized religion a morally good and acceptable goal?”.
My answer is no. I *understand* the anti-theist position (Thanks C and S). I simply do not agree with it.
It is a question of free will. Free will should only be limited if it causes harm, or intrudes on the free will of another being (thanks WR).
Anti-theists argue that religion causes harm. Logically, since they do NOT specify any particular religion, but rather religion as a whole, they argue that all religion is harmful.
This is an illogical conclusion, because it is simply a fact that there are religions that are inherently (thanks AGFTHFRO) peaceful and benevolent; and that many religious people are good, decent people.
Therefore, religion and good – peace, harmony, AND free will – are not incompatible.
Correlation does not equal Causality(thanks IDGAFIMW).
To oppose the causing of harm in the name of religion is humane and sensible.
To oppose the freedom of choice of all individuals regarding religious/spiritual beliefs is contrary to free will – on a subject that is not INHERENTLY harmful in any way – and is therefore improper and harmful to humanity as a whole.
Now, to take pleasure in the gaining of free will, in the shackled sense observed by Einstein, is understandable.
To use that free will to attempt to take free will from others is simply vindictive (thanks CD).
Do you seek to eliminate all religion because you believe the end result is good, or simply out of anger at the repression of your free will (thanks MAWA) and the free will of people in general for so long, before recent general acceptance of atheism?
I’m not nearly as intelligent as some of the other people that have objected to anti-theism on a moral – not religious – basis in the past. This is my admittedly crude but authentic (big thanks JJ) attempt to recreate parts of their arguments in my own words and with my own feelings.
Because, as we all know, human beings are thinking AND feeling creatures (thanks PG and MST3K). Not everything we do is logical. We are not perfect. If we were, we would not be human beings. We would be biological robots (thanks MAWA), and we would be incredibly boring.
I agree that there was a time (thanks JTK and G) when fervent atheism was necessary, in order to achieve general acceptance of the choice of atheism as completely valid. But that time has passed. It is acceptable; at least, as acceptable to those who would intensely dislike it as any other belief that was not in line with theirs.
And for a lot (not all, of course) of you, it’s rather obvious that the reason you feel so reluctant to let go of your anti-theist anger is because it took so long for you to be able to express your atheism. It is a form of venting, of retro-active defiance. In some cases it may be justified…but your motivation is not intellectual (as you strive so hard to make people believe). It is emotional; an attempt to gain revenge (thanks MBTDNAATEFORFA).
In any area where atheism would still get you persecuted and/or harmed, ANY belief not of the theism accepted in that area would get you persecuted and/or harmed. You’ve achieved equality in theory and in practice with all the rest of us humane humans (thanks DM).
Anti-theism is dead (thanks FN).