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
    ·
    1 year ago

    As these claims have no proof they can immediately be dismissed.

    There are plenty of claims without proof that shouldn’t be dismissed. The majority of scientific inquiry investigates claims we can’t currently prove or disprove.

    There really isn’t any objective proof there isn’t a god either. If we can dismiss claims that a god exists based on lack of proof, then it seems like logically we also can dismiss claims that no god exists based on lack of proof too?

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You have just repeated the fallacy of proving a negative and proven you’re not worth the time to discuss anything with.

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

        Seems a lot more to me like you don’t understand that we can reason rationally as well as empirically.

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

            It’s not my fault you can’t argue your point any further. There’s no need to reply to me to confirm it.