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
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I see reading comprehension is hard for you. Let me help you. Please note the part I put in bold for you: “Like, things are just so objectively true to them…”

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        wow you even bolded the problem part yourself. What do you think subjective means? “to them” means it’s subjective. Objective isnt “to” anybody, you dont exist as far as objective truths go. You could say you think it’s hot standing in a room with a thermometer, and suddenly disappear. That thermometer’s gonna be showing the same temp without you there, but the room’s not gonna be anything to you if you’re not there. It’s objectively whatever temperature the thermometer shows, and subjectively hot to you.

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

          What do you think “to them” means? You realize people can have beliefs about the objectivity of different claims right? For example: I believe that it is objectively true that me and you are having this discussion. Just because I believe this says nothing about whether or not it is or isn’t objectively true. Please continue working on your reading comprehension.

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

              Gosh golly! It’s almost like somebody can believe something is objectively true whether it is or not.

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

                  The actual content of a persons beliefs and whether they chose those beliefs aren’t the same thing champ.

                  • blazera@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Well i thought you were trying to argue that theyre believing objective things as to why they dont have a choice. But now youre saying it doesnt matter if its objectively true or not. So why else do you think they dont have a choice?