Today I came to hear (well read) this, a tweet from someone whose opinions I generally respect to (after all, follow him on Twitter) ... and despite being incredibly common, I can not help but be surprised that someone is able to say - or think - that.
What atheists who criticize religion are generally divided into two aspects: 1) the critical acts by religious institutions or in the name of religion (eg spread of AIDS in Africa because of opposition to condoms, masking institutionalized pedophilia 1 , oppression of women in Muslim countries, religious terrorism, anti-intellectualism and opposition to science, etc..), and 2) criticism of religious beliefs and religious thought proper, in the promotion of rationality and scientific thought, in making the world better, as opposed to a humanity trapped in that supernatural beliefs are never going to "wishful thinking". All these acts are reduced to critical - critical of acts, critical of people, ideas and criticism. This is what is "fanatical miltante"?
The idea of people making these statements seems to be this: the critic is a reprehensible act "as bad" as the author of that act, merely because the act of criticism.
Those who criticize a corrupt politician as he is as reprehensible. Who requires justice for a rapist or pedophile is as criminal as if he had raped or abused children. Who to call the police to report a theft is as guilty as the thief. Who rebels with racism is as reprehensible as the greatest racist.
Does that make sense? Of course not. It is completely absurd for the examples above, and it is for any other example I can think of.
Except religion.
Has long since we see it, and many have said in the past: it is historically unusual criticism that somehow religion - and in the case of countries like Portugal, the Catholic Church - and even until very recently time was so unusual that someone did, that the slightest whisper sounds like a scream. And it sounds that way even to those who is not himself a believer.
Nothing else explains why, regardless of the abuses and atrocities made up by religious organizations, or made in the name of religion, the very criticism in opposition to them is absurdly equated to these abuses and atrocities.
Who says things like the post title, my suggestion is: think a bit on this issue. Why is religion - Christian or not you be - must be on a special pedestal, above criticism? And if you think it should be, why act like it should?
- notice that I do not blame the pedophilia itself: there is only the fault of the individual concerned, and not have to be religious to be a pedophile. But the crime of concealment and breach of other children in the future thanks to this cover-up - in the name of "reputation of the universal church" - is 100% guilty to the Catholic Church hierarchy and the same. [ ↩ ]
Possibly related posts:
- FAQ: "You atheists are as fanatical and dogmatic as any believer. 'Believe' in atheism, and nothing you would change your mind. "
- Vatican: "women priests are as great a crime as the rape of children"
- Delicate ears
- Atheists, Christians, agnostics, gnostics and "apateus"
- Why is America so religious?
Labels: "Atheists fanatics" , "militant atheists" , Critique of Religion
Completely distorted the meaning of the statement, "inventing" an illogical logic to justify their position.
It has nothing to do one thing with another, about what you compared.
Atheists are just as fanatical as believers, because they deny the existence of something without the slightest evidence for this. The opposite occurs on the part of believers, affirm the existence of something without possessing minimal evidence for the claim is at least something close to a relative truth.
Atheists in general are "believers rather," simply because they have the very same kind of action, differing in relation to the poles defended. Each one is an extreme.
And more.
If you are "atheists who criticize religion," the name "atheist" is incorrectly applied to your group. Listen to the prefix and suffix of the word which, possibly incorrectly, called them.
Atheist is one who opposes the existence of a Theo, not who criticizes "certain acts of religious instutuição."
With all due respect, your statement is somewhat contradictory.
And for the record, I support the view that atheists and religious fanatics have the same kind of behavior, but in different and extremely opposite poles.
Regards,
Sorry, but I guess not read the post, you are simply responding to the title. The answers to virtually everything in affirming this post.
Beyond that you're making a straw man : you are creating your own definition of an atheist ("denying the existence of something without the slightest evidence," "believing instead", "very same kind of action," "extreme," etc..) quite different from the real, but easier to challenge, and then, as the contest with apparent success, you take that challenge the "real".
If you want to define "atheist" as someone with a dogmatic certainty, immune to evidence and logic, that there are no gods, you are free to do so ... but what is an atheist. That's not what I am, or so are atheists more than 200 bloggers whose blogs I read daily.
Regarding the definition of the word, "a" does not necessarily mean the polar opposite, it can mean merely "no."
But hey, it was still the best attempt to challenge I've ever seen in this blog (as insults, threats of hell, "do not understand any of this" enormous digressions full of capitalized words and offtopic comments will be deleted). Thank you.