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/

    • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      So it’s disingenuous to say that it should be ok to criticize all religion? Every religion is off limits unless there is a specific “harmful” point to debate which some as yet unnamed party gives us permission to be critical about?

        • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          OP stated that anyone who feels religion in general is a bad thing that hurts society is a “bigot” and I disagreed with them, and then you all started shitting all over me about it. How else am I supposed to interpret that?

          • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.”

            According to this guy I’m apparently worse than Hitler. I’m supposed to be super accepting of someone that starts their argument by calling me a bigot who is on the verge of starting a genocide?

            • QuaffPotions@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re not worse than Hitler. But if there was a national movement to exterminate all theist religions by force, and they seemed to be succeeding, maybe you should reflect on whether or not you’d fall in line as a loyal citizen.

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

                Got it. So you’re saying people should not be allowed to criticize religion in general just in case unless it’s regarding a pre approved “harmful” topic… So who decides which aspects are deemed “harmful” and ok to debate? Is it a government agency? A tribal of elders? Who should I consult about what I’m allowed to be critical of?