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/
Are you claiming that this is what I'm saying? It's definitely not what I'm saying.
I don't think there's any necessity to distinguish between religious and scientific beliefs in this specific way. To me this comes across as you choosing to define scientific beliefs in the usual way, and then to explicitly exclude scientific beliefs from your definition to further your own point. Do you think religions can't be willing to accept evidence about certain facts or to consider the possible falsifiability of certain propositions? If so then you are wrong. There's no shortage of backpedaling, twisting and turning in the history of apologetics.
This is absolutely a mischaracterization of the position/intent of religious people/religions. If you want to have good arguments against them you should argue against what they actually say and not things you make up in your head.
It seems like that's what you're saying when you state that religious and scientific beliefs are interchangeable, and that Atheism is more or less a religion because of this. Belief system != religion.
Yes I do. There is willful suspension of disbelief, and belief in absurdities is inherent to religion. Catholics believe the sacrament literally becomes flesh and blood, for example. This is easily disproven yet remains a cornerstone of the religion. Believing absurdities is the price of admission, a litmus test showing that one will uncritically obey those who claim to speak for god(s) without compelling objective evidence. Many religions consider this willful ignorance a virtue, which they call faith.
Were these belief systems evidence-based they wouldn't be in the domain of religion, they would be incorporated into science.
I can't speak for their intent, but it absolutely is the position of most religions. If I showed up to services and started arguing with the preacher I would likely not be invited back. At very least one must show reverence for their absurd claims to be accepted into the fold, (with a few exceptions like unitarianism, various reform denominations, omnism, atheistic satanism, etc.,) Many/most claim that the supernatural rewards like access to the afterlife are dependent upon belief and behavior.
Having attended many religious services by many religions I feel quite confident asserting that they are all bullshit. They make contradicting and overlapping claims, most claim to have a monopoly on the afterlife, they all rely on manipulative psychology, and they all propagate and persist through indoctrination of children.
I'm not claiming religion and scientific beliefs are wholly interchangeable and I'm not claiming all belief systems are effectively religious belief systems.
Here is the original comment I'm replying to: "Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s the lack of a religion."
Here is my second point: "If you’re an atheist in the sense of effectively replacing religious ideology/beliefs with scientific ones, then this is also more or less false."
What I do think is that there are inherently religious questions that both theists and (at least some) atheists answer via religious means. In the case of atheists I think they often refuse to admit to themselves that they do it. For example, a theist believes some mysterious god being created the universe, an atheist believes some mysterious force of nature created the universe (though maybe this force is something different from a god). I would call these kinds of beliefs religious whether it's an atheist doing it or a theist.
I'm not saying all atheists do this. I'm not saying it's bad to answer these kinds of questions in this way either. If nobody is hurt and the question is just answerable, then who even cares? But the idea that atheism is just totally a lack of religion seems untrue in some cases. Rejection of theistic deities does not mean rejection of all religion, all religious beliefs and all religious thought whatsoever.
Claims about the Catholic religion in particular aren't claims that are applicable to all religions. There are many other religions besides western Christianity that have been practiced throughout human history. Christianity does not represent all religious beliefs and one should be careful not to take the shitty things many do in the name of their flavor of Christianity as a rule that ought to apply to all religions or all religious belief systems.
The original point they made was: "Science seeks to accurately describe our world and beliefs that don’t are discarded. Religion seeks to make people believe absurdities and people who don’t are discarded."
This part here: "Religion seeks to make people believe absurdities and people who don’t are discarded." is not a correct interpretation of the intent of religious people. You can believe their views are absurd, but they don't believe that, and arguing that their views are absurd just because you think so just begs the question.