What does it matter that if it's in the name of religion or not? The implication that is made by grouping the religious of today in with holy warriors and such from the brutal past is that they are stained by the sins of those in the past. It is used to criticize good and decent people's beliefs by smearing them with the crimes of others. Atheists wouldn't be bringing those things up all of the time if they weren't using it as an insult. Thus, what's good for the atheists is fair game for the religious. Hitler was Catholic, Stalin was Orthodox, and Mao was Buddhist, until they weren't anymore and directed the mass murder of innocents. So, if the religious are smeared with the past, so should atheists. After all, it's equally unfair, and I'm all for equality.
I would agree with you, under normal circumstances, but in this particular instance, you mentioned that the religious used to be patronising in the past and I brought up the fact that they were way more than that. I did not imply anything about the religious of today. Though now that you mention it...
I don't know how you can say that it doesn't matter what motivated the killings. Anyone who didn't agree with a particular ideology was nipped in the bud. Stalin didn't kill people because he wanted to spread "atheism" (that's non-sensical) he killed anyone who opposed him. As did most religions in the past. It's a historical fact. It's like saying that Mao mass-murdered because he was a vegetarian. I am not extrapolating anything about the current religious. Like I said, you actually brought up the comparison between now
...But I agree with your sentiment: we should be tolerant of course of all kinds of crap, especially in the today world.
As for atheism being the absence of a belief, some atheists sure do proselytize as much as a fire and brimstone minister. So, as far as I'm concerned they might as well be an Atheist Minister. As for atheists who simply let threads like this go, allowing the religious to discuss their faith and feelings with each other, what harm are they to anyone? Live and let live is a fine attitude. On the other hand, atheists who feel the desire to step into a religious thread to mock the religious might as well be holy warriors of atheism, as emotion-driven as the most zealous adherent of any religion.
Come on, don't ruin it for me
Light-hearted humour has never killed anyone. Nobody claims this 'thread' is "harmful".
Schools providing mis-information to children, on the other hand, can be argued to equal child abuse: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-harm-children * Christianity teaches children that they are intrinsically evil; they did nothing wrong, but just by being born and being alive, they are evil. This is a terrible thing to teach children, not only because it is false, but because it is the exact wrong message children should be taught, which is that they are intrinsically wonderful, noble, and lovable, and that they have boundless goodness inside them.
* Christianity teaches children that there exists a powerful, evil Devil. A most dangerous demon. Beware! This horrible falsity infuses their childhood with needless fear and dread, and teaches them that the world is a dangerous place, with a malevolent demon lurking in the wait. In my own research, I’ve interviewed many adults who describe the whole Satan thing as a decidedly traumatic element of their children, and in some egregious cases, unambiguously abusive.
* Christianity teaches children that God killed his own child to make up for our wickedness. In other words, we are evil, and by killing his own child, our evil is somehow wiped away and forgiven. Our guilt is cleansed. But how does that work? If I abuse my wife, and then a cop comes over and kills my son, does that atone for the wickedness I committed against my wife? How so? Only I can atone for my own wrongdoings and harmful actions. If I abuse my wife, I need to make amends in order to earn her forgiveness. I can’t kill our cat instead. And besides, why couldn’t God forgive us without killing his son? Does he require a blood sacrifice, like some pagan ogre? The entire story of Jesus “dying for our sins” makes no moral or ethical sense, and it is an extremely confusing/disturbing tale to tell our children.
* Christianity teaches children that those who accept Jesus as their personal savior are good/saved/going to heaven and those that do not accept Jesus as their personal savior are sinful and destined for hell. This can cause children to feel smug, superior, self-righteous, judgmental, and to look down upon and condemn others – be they kids on the schoolyard, neighbors, or even relatives.
It's up to you of course to decide whether it's "harmful". I do personally think that the kind of peace that some believers talk about, seems like a very beneficial and valuable thing and I do not mock that. In fact, I am positively jealous that i can't seem to convince myself to believe to have some of that.
I think you still are mis-understanding what "atheism" is. You are confusing militant atheism or anti-theism with 'regular' atheism, if there is such a thing...
As one who deals with humans and their brains all day long, I've found that there is a "faith center" in most people's brains, and most atheists are no different. They simply fill theirs with something else, and sometimes, it's anti-religion.
How did you arrive at this "scientific" conclusion? (I would be genuinely interested to read more about it as it is a topic of interest for me). I do instinctively think you might be right though. I "fill up my brain" with all kinds of stuff & theories (holographic universe, multi-verses etc). those are all fascinating things to think about. But it's very different from being 100% convinced
about something invisible constantly surveying you...