I received yesterday and today, two criticisms of this blog via Twitter, which I answered, needing a 7 tweets. But I want to answer them here as well, with a little more space compared to Twitter, and so that the answers are available on the blog, since it is possible that the criticism in question make sense for other visitors in the future.
The first is this: that the site name is incorrect, because atheism is merely the absence of belief in a god or gods, and what I do here is "anti-religious activism."
For that, yes, it is true that the strict definition of atheism is that, but it is also valid to see something in a more lactate. For me and for many , atheism is associated with skepticism, humanism and rationality, and the site is dedicated to (among other things) to promote these concepts. "Www.ateismo-humanism, skepticism-and-rational-pt.com" would be too long 
, And the idea of the name of a site is not to be descriptive, it's just a title, a "brand", a designation.
The second criticism is that "something is to criticize the acts done in the name of a religion, or through it, but put everything into the same bag is wrong."
I think here the author of the review is to confuse a) my criticism of acts and institutions, where only the authors clearly critical of the acts and / or members of the institutions in question, 2) logical argument against religious beliefs themselves, irrationality, " wishful thinking ", etc.. in that, yes, I am criticizing the beliefs of many people who never hurt anyone about them, but to criticize beliefs - a very" intimate "as they are - is not an attack! It is not even a conviction. It is a simple "you're wrong because ...", as for any other subject would be accepted (by agreeing or disagreeing) with no problems.
When I argue against the "logic" of certain beliefs or religious arguments (eg, "God must exist, otherwise how does the universe exist", or Pascal's Wager, or mention the fact that the belief of 99% believers to be just the product of an accident of geography, or criticize the lack of skepticism and rationality of someone), I am not "attacking" or condemn anyone, I'm just criticizing ideas that I consider wrong, justifying my criticism with facts and logic (which may well be wrong, it is noted). Just as I am happy to tell me I'm wrong in anything.
What is not accepted is that religious beliefs to themselves require a special position, untouchable, beyond reproach, or that these beliefs become inseparable from the believers themselves, so that any criticism of a belief or idea is viewed as a personal attack on all believers. This not only makes no sense, as it is cowardly - is somehow an admission that religious beliefs and ideas are not able to "come out fighting," to demonstrate logically consistent, to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and which therefore need special protection, almost criminalizing (in Muslim theocracies to take the "almost") the mere act of the question or criticize.
And for the believers to be ready to personally offended by a simple criticism of their beliefs and ideas: they're really confident in respect of them, would not react well. Rather, they were ready to "go it" ideas, confident in having the facts and logic on your side, no need to require protection or "respect" special for your beliefs simply because they are religious beliefs. And this should make you think a little ...
