where are the differences between Anti-theistic and Atheistic

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with Quintessence on all of this. Passive anti-theists aren't true blue hard core anti-theists.

This sounds a lot like "no true scotsman" to me.

I'm not anti-atheist. Many times I've spoken with high regard to many atheists. To me, it is far more about behavior than belief. If the guy is going to come over here and help an old woman shovel the darn snow, I'm happy. But if he won't ... for whatever selfish reason he has, religion, race, age, politics, eye color, or whatever, well, I can't respect him. Same for food distribution, and much more.

Just so you're aware of my perspective here: I consider myself to be anti-theist. In general, I think that religion is more of a force for bad than good, and I think the world would be a better place if nobody believed in god.

Now... I'm also a freethinker, and I'm very adverse to the idea of coercing anyone into atheism. I only "proselytize" by promoting critical thinking and science literacy, which I do think leads people to atheism when applied fully and completely (which I have a feeling yoh disagree with, but regardless, this is my view).

Now... in my volunteer work, I do quite a bit with school kids, including kids from our taxpayer-funded Catholic school and the private Christian and Muslim schools in the area. I don't treat the kids from religious schools any differently - they're all welcome. I'm certainly not going to deny a child something valuable because of the choices of their parents.

Still, I AM an anti-theist. And while I don't go door-to-door with Richard Dawkins books, I do engage in activities that I expect will help lead more people away from religion in the long term.

I am a "true blue hard core anti-theist." I just happen to be one who thinks respect of other people is important.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm a freethinker as well, and if someone remains atheist or theist, so be it. I don't think religion in and of itself, especially those of the Abrahamic faiths, are particularly great for the planet. I feel anybody who takes on religion (or non-religion) should do so totally on their own volition and experience, without any coercion whatever. My teaching, back in the days, hopefully reflected that.

But yes I am a theist. And I wish you much success in leading people away from religion, of a particular variety, of which mine doesn't really fit that well. I don't get out much to have people telling me how to live, but I have had atheists suggest I not donate to charity, or volunteer my time landscaping at our temple. They'd tell me meditation is a waste of time, and vegetarianism is just plain stupid. But that's all fine. Each individual has what they have based on experiences.

As you may have read, one of the problems we Hindus have is being lumped together with other faiths, without due attention to the matter.

That said, there are some practices I personally have done that many, including Hindus would object to, and try to talk me out of.

 

[Windwalker]

I would highly recommend people read this article which goes into the history of atheism and makes a clear distinction that the "new atheists" are really anti-theists, and all that that entails. It parallels my own observations and thoughts and experiences within atheism, except backed with scholarly research into the history of religion and atheism. I think it will address pretty much every point being raised in this thread. Here's a few snippets from it:

"For a great many atheists, atheism does not merely signify “lack of belief” but is itself a kind of positive worldview, one that “includes numerous beliefs about the world and what is in it,” to quote the atheist philosopher Julian Baggini. Baggini cautions against viewing atheism as a “parasitic rival to theism.” Rather, he agrees with the historian of religions James Thrower, who considers modern atheism to be “a self-contained belief system” – one predicated on a series of propositions about the nature of reality, the source of human morality, the foundation of societal ethics, the question of free will, and so on."
.....

"Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism."
.....

"Disenfranchised by what they viewed as an aggressively religious society, personally threatened by a spike in religious violence throughout the world, and spurred by a sense of moral outrage, a certain faction of atheists among an otherwise rational population of people who doubt or deny the existence of God reverted to an extreme and antagonistic form of anti-theism. This is the movement that came to be called New Atheism.

The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.

Like religious fundamentalism, New Atheism is primarily a reactionary phenomenon, one that responds to religion with the same venomous ire with which religious fundamentalists respond to atheism. What one finds in the writings of anti-theist ideologues like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is the same sense of utter certainty, the same claim to a monopoly on truth, the same close-mindedness that views one’s own position as unequivocally good and one’s opponent’s views as not just wrong but irrational and even stupid, the same intolerance for alternative explanations, the same rabid adherents (as anyone who has dared criticize Dawkins or Harris on social media can attest), and, most shockingly, the same proselytizing fervor that one sees in any fundamentalist community."
​

Link to article Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and “New Atheists” aren’t new, aren’t even atheists - Salon.com

I believe earlier in this discussion a claim was made that atheism was impervious to criticism unlike theism, and previously that there is no such thing as fundamentalist atheism. I think this more that sufficiently dispenses with that myth, and also lays the groundwork for truly understanding the nature of what atheism and anti-theism are, the history of them as well as the underlying impetus and issues, similarities and differences between them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure. It's something that a person or culture has deemed worthy of worship. That could be many, many things and for many, many reasons. There is very little that can be said about theism as a whole because of the heterogeneity of what god(s) are to various peoples.

But if you really do believe that individuals can - and should - "frame god(s) in terms of their own understanding of that term", then why do you think I should defer to all those other cultures and peoples? History informs my views, but it doesn't shackle them. I think some cultural perspectives (e.g. sun-worshippers and cargo cults) are simply wrong - by my understanding - in how they're using the term "god", and I've yet to find a definition of "god" that I find reasonable and that seems to agree with reality.

Not only do I have no problem with people framing god(s) in terms of their own understanding of that term, I would damn well like to require it. It is very tiresome to hear (a)theists barking on about what god(s) "really" are as if their perspective is incontrovertible.

It's not incontrivertable; it's just mine, and if you really believe what you're saying, then you'll recognize that my perspective on what "god" means is just as valid for me as yours is for you.

But what you describe here isn't anti-theism. It's just atheism. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here.

There are a few different definitions of "anti-theism". One uses anti-theism as a subset of atheism:

- atheism: lack of belief in the existence of gods
- anti-theism: belief in the non-existence of gods

... so not all atheists are anti-theists, but all anti-theists are atheists.

For me, this is the main definition of "anti-theism". It seems like most of the people in this thread are using a different definition, but the fact that my mind leaps to just "belief in non-existence" when I hear "anti-theism" made it very strange when I saw people here equating anti-theism with bigotry.

Regardless, my point stands regardless of which definition of "anti-theism" we're using. If you don't object to theists making positive pronouncements about the character of gods ("whoa, whoa - you're ignoring the perspective of this culture over here that believed that gods were fallible and sometimes evil! You can't say that all gods are good!"), then I think you're using a double standard when you object to anti-theists doing the exact same thing in reverse. If gods (in their understanding) are negative characters (again, in their understanding), then isn't this as valid as any theistic perspective? Or are perspectives on gods only valid if they regard gods positively?

Obviously, and I implied as much in what you quoted, though it wasn't stated directly so I'd understand if you missed it. Arrogantly imposing our views on others is a universal human tendency We all do it, without exception. However, I don't think that negates the very clear difference between a pluralistic mindset and an exclusivist mindset. I am not interested in wiping out anti-theism. Anti-theists, however, are interested in wiping out theism. Sorry, but I have a problem with that. It's personally threatening to me, and I don't agree with homogenizing human culture.

Frankly, from your rhetoric, you seem to be more interested in wiping out anti-theism than I - an anti-theist - am interested in wiping out theism.

And you seem to have very strange assumptions about what anti-theists want to do. My perspective is a lot like my perspective on vaccination: I think that it's good for parents to vaccinate their children, and I think it's bad if they don't, but I'm certainly not interested in taking anti-vaxxers kids away from them. Instead, I think that with enough education - both about the facts of vaccination and critical thinking in general - the anti-vax movement will die out.

Unless facts or critical thinking are a threat to your position, you have nothing to fear from my approach.

No. And I said nothing of the sort.

Yes, you did. You gave this as your objection to anti-theism:

Last, and perhaps most importantly, I find it downright disturbing that anyone would be against expressions of value, wonder, and sacredness that bring so much positive influence to human lives and cultures.

This statement assumes that what anti-theists object to are "expressions of value, wonder and sacredness"... i.e. that there's nothing more to god-concepts that a person might object to.

Let me just state something plainly. I think anti-theism is a misnomer. Anti-theists are not anti-theist. They're anti-some-specific-flavor-of-theism or anti-some-specific-theistic-ideas and in some cases, they're really anti-some-particular-thing-of-religion that doesn't have much to do with theism at all. I'm not a fan of certain flavors of theism or certain things that happen in certain religions either! But I do like to be more precise with my terminology instead of making blanket statements about atheism, theism, religion, or irreligion.

I don't think you need to explicitly account for every fringe belief when saying that the world would be a better place without religion or belief in gods. The fewer people who believe in a particular god-concept, the less influence it has on the net effect of religion or god-belief. When the vast majority of theists believe in mainstream god-concepts, it's not like the special characteristics of the quirky beliefs of some small group of people are going to tip the balance to switch the net effect of religion in the world from negative to positive.

When we're talking about the effects of religion, Catholic beliefs are going to be much more important than the unique beliefs of one individual, just because the impact of the Catholic Church is astronomically greater than the impact of any single individual.

Think for a moment about what anti-anything does to people and a culture. First, it implies there's something wrong with that person and what they're doing. It's a condemnation. How does that make people feel? How does that influence interpersonal relationships? It's not good.

Yes, that's part of social pressure, but that doesn't mean that this is bad. For instance, I'm sure that the anti-drunk driving campaigns of the past few decades strained quite a few interpersonal relationships... but they changed society for the better. I think the more relevant question is whether the outcome we're trying to achieve is worth that cost.

Second, these kinds of condemning attitudes translate into real-world intolerance and discrimination When we look down on something, we can justify differential treatment. It shapes cultural norms that are hostile to certain groups of people. In a word, the necessary intolerance of being anti-X can and does produce bigotry that hurts actual people.

Do you think this is true in a general sense?

Do people who oppose bullying "produce bigotry" and engage in "necessary intolerance"? How about those who oppose the anti-vaccination movement? Are these people bigots, too?

I wouldn't classify these people as anti-theists. If they're not actually doing anything, what they think holds no meaning outside of themselves and it has no impact on others. I have no problem with people who keep their intolerance to themselves.

Would you mind spelling out exactly what you mean by "anti-theist"? Because it's not at all clear what you think it means at this point.

I started out thinking that you meant that an anti-theist was something like "a person who feels that gods ought not to be believed in", but now it seems to have morphed into something like "a person who feels that nobody should believe in gods, and who uses objectionable tactics to make this happen."

IOW, at this point, it seems like you're arguing against a caricature of anti-theists.

... and that you're being hypocritically intolerant by characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot.

It should be pretty self-evident. Anti-anything is a form of intolerance, and bigotry is acting upon intolerance. Again, as above, when I criticize anti-theism, I really do not consider passive anti-theists to be anti-theists.

And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

I'm an anti-theist. I'm not going to bang on your door to wake you up and read The God Delusion to you, but I am an anti-theist and I do things that I expect will result in less god-belief in future. When you talk about anti-theists, you're talking about me. When you say that anti-theists are bigoted or intolerant, you're calling me bigoted and intolerant. You can expect me to demand that you back up your accusations or narrow your broad-brush generalizations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...made it very strange when I saw people here equating anti-theism with bigotry.

Yes, it's a strange conclusion.

 

[Quintessence]

But if you really do believe that individuals can - and should - "frame god(s) in terms of their own understanding of that term", then why do you think I should defer to all those other cultures and peoples? History informs my views, but it doesn't shackle them. I think some cultural perspectives (e.g. sun-worshippers and cargo cults) are simply wrong - by my understanding - in how they're using the term "god", and I've yet to find a definition of "god" that I find reasonable and that seems to agree with reality.

I don't mean to suggest that you defer your definition of the god(s) to someone else. What I mean to encourage is that we respect how other people and cultures see the god(s). Basically, if some other person or culture describes their understanding of god(s) to you, you go "okay," you don't go "that's not god(s)." You go "I acknowledge that's your understanding of god(s), but I understand god(s) this way" instead of "that's not what the word god(s) means, and you're just plain wrong to call those god(s), period, the end." That kind of thing drives me a little nuts sometimes. I'm sorry, but outsiders don't get to define what god(s) are for members of that religion. Dismissing other cultural understandings of god(s) as "wrong" is disrespectful, and in the context of academia, dishonest.

It's not incontrivertable; it's just mine, and if you really believe what you're saying, then you'll recognize that my perspective on what "god" means is just as valid for me as yours is for you.

Er... yes? When did I not recognize this? I'm getting the impression that there's been some senseless discussion here born of some severe miscommunication.

Reading through the rest of what you wrote, it's fraught with so many more miscommunications, misperceived assumptions, and the like that I have no idea how to salvage it. I'm not going to spend hours of my day trying to sort it out. What I had to say I already said in the earlier response I made, and it still stands. If you think I'm a hypocrite and a bigot, I don't really care. I think you are neither. I only think that there have been some massive, massive miscommunications and that neither of us are actually speaking to what the other actually represents or thinks, apparently.

 

[LuisDantas]

It should be pretty self-evident. Anti-anything is a form of intolerance, and bigotry is acting upon intolerance. Again, as above, when I criticize anti-theism, I really do not consider passive anti-theists to be anti-theists.

How passive is passive enough? It seems to me that quite a few people are all too primed to jump the gun and call anti-theists bigots out of no discernible justification whatsoever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't mean to suggest that you defer your definition of the god(s) to someone else. What I mean to encourage is that we respect how other people and cultures see the god(s). Basically, if some other person or culture describes their understanding of god(s) to you, you go "okay," you don't go "that's not god(s)." You go "I acknowledge that's your understanding of god(s), but I understand god(s) this way" instead of "that's not what the word god(s) means, and you're just plain wrong to call those god(s), period, the end." That kind of thing drives me a little nuts sometimes. I'm sorry, but outsiders don't get to define what god(s) are for members of that religion. Dismissing other cultural understandings of god(s) as "wrong" is disrespectful, and in the context of academia, dishonest.

How so?

It seems like you're approaching gods as nothing more than aesthetic preferences, which assumes quite a bit about the nature of gods.

If we're talking about gods as (hypothesized) literally existent entities, then a person's perspective may very well be wrong.

On factual matters, people can be wrong: if someone says to me "elephants can fly", I'll disagree. If they point to a hummingbird and say "look - that elephant is flying right now!" I'll tell him that it's not an elephant; I won't say "I respect that this is an elephant in your understanding, but in my understanding, it's a hummingbird." Your approach excludes the possibility that gods can be a matter of fact. It disregards the vast majority of theistic perspectives.

Er... yes? When did I not recognize this? I'm getting the impression that there's been some senseless discussion here born of some severe miscommunication.

Reading through the rest of what you wrote, it's fraught with so many more miscommunications, misperceived assumptions, and the like that I have no idea how to salvage it. I'm not going to spend hours of my day trying to sort it out. What I had to say I already said in the earlier response I made, and it still stands. If you think I'm a hypocrite and a bigot, I don't really care. I think you are neither. I only think that there have been some massive, massive miscommunications and that neither of us are actually speaking to what the other actually represents or thinks, apparently.

I thought that your posts have been pretty clear. I don't think that it was an accident when you called my views bigoted, and if you say that your previous responses still stand, then I'm not sure what sort of cognitive dissonance you're engaging in to say that I'm not bigoted now.

I don't know whether you think your "I don't consider 'passive' anti-theists to be anti-theists" nonsense is supposed to make things better; it's not. Denying what someone is usually doesn't make things better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How passive is passive enough? It seems to me that quite a few people are all too primed to jump the gun and call anti-theists bigots out of no discernible justification whatsoever.

Frankly, that quote reminded me of the rhetoric often heard from racists:

A: [ethnic group] are nasty, awful people.
B: I'm [ethnic group].
A: Oh... of course when I said that, I wasn't talking about you - you're one of the nice ones.

 

[Windwalker]

It seems to me that quite a few people are all too primed to jump the gun and call anti-theists bigots out of no discernible justification whatsoever.

I think this is discernable to anyone to see:

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." ~Sam Harris.

"[Religion is] one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus." ~Richard Dawkins.

“. . . the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew.” ~Adolph Hitler​

I find it hard to ignore the similarity in rhetoric being expressed in these anti-theism quotes with that as expressed by Hitler in the above quote? Seriously, how can this be ignored?? This is not just a rational atheism. It's something much deeper in ones mental makeup. Bigotry does seem a good word. I respect atheism. I do not respect mindless bigotry.

 

[LuisDantas]

You realize religion is belief, while Jewish people are a group of people, right?

Is it just me, or am I the only one who can see a quite blaring bigotry being expressed along nearly identical lines as expressed by Hitler?

It is not just you, unfortunately.

All the same, it is a grossly unfair comparision, to say nothing of an insulting and disrespectful one.

Seriously, how can this be ignored?? How can this not be addressed by rational minds? This is not just atheism. It's something much deeper in ones mental makeup.

Rational minds usually realize that it is ok to criticize belief. Apparently there are many exceptions when the word "religion" is invoked, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think this is discernable to anyone to see:

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." ~Sam Harris.

"[Religion is] one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus." ~Richard Dawkins.

“. . . the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew.” ~Adolph Hitler​

I find it hard to ignore the similarity in rhetoric being expressed in these anti-theism quotes with that as expressed by Hitler in the above quote? Seriously, how can this be ignored?? This is not just a rational atheism. It's something much deeper in ones mental makeup. Bigotry does seem a good word. I respect atheism. I do not respect mindless bigotry.

Regarding the Hitler quote: exactly how is it "anti-theistic" to want to eradicate Judaism in favour of Christianity?

 

[Windwalker]

You realize religion is belief, while Jewish people are a group of people, right?

The people of any faith become "a people", even if it doesn't have ethnic bloodlines like the Jews. Let's examine in the past how regimes have sought to get rid of religion on their lands. Don't they do it by getting rid of all the priests, monks, nuns, etc, and imprisoning or exiling followers. That's targeting a people, isn't it? How really do you "get rid of religion", quickly and efficiently if you wish to do so? You get rid of the people who believe it. That division is not as wide as you may imagine. Given the attitudes expressed, change the political climate and that same prejudicial irrationality will fall in line again as it has historically done so. Bias turns into a policy rather easily given power. I'm arguing at its core, regardless of the extremes in action taken, lays the same core problem.

I say get rid of ignorance and the resulting bias expressed by those like Dawkins, who maybe not-so-ironically happen to use the same language of "disease" to speak of points of view, or a people, that differ from his small notions of the ideal reality. I say raise the bar of discussion away from this sort of "anti" speak that I quoted from Dawkins and Harris. I say the comparison I made has merit in this light. I do not mean to offend, but to provoke some examination into assumptions of the innocuous nature of these "anti" religion, anti-theism positions.

It is not just you, unfortunately.

And considering how rational and educated I am, maybe it's worth paying attention to it.

Did you ever read the article I shared with you? I saw no response to it and am wondering why? It's very well informed and knowledgeable by a scholar in comparative religions. It's totally relevant to the discussion at hand. I think it merits reasoning discussion. Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and “New Atheists” aren’t new, aren’t even atheists - Salon.com

All the same, it is a grossly unfair comparision, to say nothing of an insulting and disrespectful one.

Are you talking about Dawkins quote being insulting and disrespectful? I would agree. That's part of his thing. But I don't think the comparisons I made are unfair or unreasonable. As I said, it's a subtle difference and one of degrees. Religious thought and values are what can deeply define a group as a people. The systematic elimination of ethnic and religious groups is in fact quite related. Anti-theism expressly wishes to see the elimination of all religious belief and identification. It's a matter of degrees just how far it goes. I am NOT comparing anti-theists with Nazis! Clearly not. But I do believe a prejudice against religion is an earmark of anti-theism (as opposed to atheism, which I respect), and that that mentality can place one in a precarious position for exploitation. These sorts of 'cleansing' campaigns aren't born in a vacuum. They arises out of these sorts of ignorances, such as Dawkins expresses.

Rational minds usually realize that it is ok to criticize belief. Apparently there are many exceptions when the word "religion" is invoked, though.

Well sure, I'm all with you in agreement about criticizing a belief. No problem. That's healthy. But then there is saying "Religion has to go". That's very different. That's unhealthy, such as the quote that compares religion as a whole which defines the speech of those like Dawkins and Harris.

Opposing beliefs like Young Earth Creationism, is valid because it flies in the face of well-established scientific facts. It's not an alternative way of understanding the nature of reality, ones humanity, or living ones life. It's a falsification of facts. This is not comparable to opposing religion as a whole. That opposition against all that religion is itself a religious imposition on another group, imposing its life values and philosophies and belief structures on another group! It is ideological in nature. It is not merely having a disagreement over beliefs. It seeks the elimination of the other. Do you not see the validity of the comparisons here?

Again, I mean no offense. I am making what I see to be comparisons worthy of consideration for careful minds. I don't find the rhetoric of Dawkins use of the "disease" of religion, to be something trivial.

 

[LuisDantas]

But then there is saying "Religion has to go". That's very different. That's unhealthy, such as the quote that compares religion as a whole which defines the speech of those like Dawkins and Harris..

We will have to agree to disagree. Dawkins and Harris may have a point or they may not have. That is really unclear to me right now.

But you know what? It matters not. They have a right to be wrong if need be. That in no way justifies your attitude towards them.

Sure, they are anti-theists and seem to think of themselves as anti-religion as well.

So what?


As for the article, it is simply misguided. It paints anti-theism as wrong. Such is not the case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The people of any faith become "a people", even if it doesn't have ethnic bloodlines like the Jews.

The idea that a religion is inextricably linked with "a people" implies that we somehow owe it to our society to believe as they think we should believe and not as our conscience dictates. This is part of the problem with religion... not just specific beliefs, but religion.

It's insidious to set up a system where someone's society is ready to exclude them if they don't toe the line on religious belief and practice.

 

[Windwalker]

The idea that a religion is inextricably linked with "a people" implies that we somehow owe it to our society to believe as they think we should believe and not as our conscience dictates. This is part of the problem with religion... not just specific beliefs, but religion.

This is limited in understanding. Religion is part of a cultural identity. Just like being the people of this land or this district is. You need to think in sociological terms. I think you think religion is nothing more than beliefs in silly things. People who are part of any system do the same things as religion.

It's insidious to set up a system where someone's society is ready to exclude them if they don't toe the line on religious belief and practice.

You think this is limited to religion? I think you need to think a little further back than that. Conforming to social groups is what is brought into religion. Religion doesn't create it!

 

[Windwalker]

As for the article, it is simply misguided. It paints anti-theism as wrong. Such is not the case.

So he is misguided? Let's be specific. Give me your take on history where it shows this scholar is in error.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is limited in understanding. Religion is part of a cultural identity. Just like being the people of this land or this district is. You need to think in sociological terms. I think you think religion is nothing more than beliefs in silly things. People who are part of any system do the same things as religion.

Religion may or may not be part of a cultural identity. But leaving that aside, I still fail to see what is so wrong is challenging such a cultural identity or any of its elements. People may disagree if they feel so inclined, after all.

You think this is limited to religion? I think you need to think a little further back than that. Conforming to social groups is what is brought into religion. Religion doesn't create it!

It does not earn the privilege of being above questioning, either.

 

[LuisDantas]

So he is misguided? Let's be specific. Give me your take on history where it shows this scholar is in error.

Sure. In order:

1. He takes for granted that Dawkins and Harris are both wrong and unfair in criticizing the existence of religion itself.

2. He states outright that there is such a thing as "New Atheism" and that it is significantly different from (traditional?) atheism and not representative of the later.

3. He conflates theism with religion itself (ironically, the one thing he has in common with Dawkins and perhaps Harris).

4. He decrees, out of nowhere, that anti-theism will use force "if necessary".

5. He also decrees, incredibly, that anti-theism is "relatively new".

6. He overstates the case for diversity of forms of atheism.

7. Oddly, he presents atheism as a "positive worldview" and a "self-contained belief system" in some of its supposed forms. That despite earlier conflating religion with Theism, no less.

8. He then implicitly claims that religion is necessary for society to exist in harmony.

9. Immediately after that, he decides that the Enlightenment had no interest in religious reform, only in political change.

10. He seems to be confusing state atheism with anti-theism.

11. He claims, surprisingly, that the World Wars of the 20th century "punctured the promises of secular nationalism in the West", despite the one secular regime of those conflicts having actually won WW 2 and become that much stronger for that.

12. He misrepresents (again) anti-theism as both being irrational and extremist and as being the same thing as "New Atheism".

13. He has a weird description of this supposed "New Atheism" then, to which I will pay no attention. He is delusional at this point.

All in all, not a very commendable little text from Reza Aslan. I must wonder what his agenda is now.

 

[Willamena]

You mean what I said, or what motivates proselytizing? Of course it's operating at the egoic level. It's a stage of ego development.

My comment was about the topic.