But unless you have an alternative that meets the same criteria as your passionate
argument against religion I can not understand the logic in believing in nothing.
And you can not
argue against religion by citing war without also citing the incredible humanitarian efforts that also come from religion.
You are right, though... religion brought down the twin towers, and as a result, brought many together to
stand against religion (at least that one).
But as far as the atheist I would also need to know they did not have some sort of
agenda against religion like some do.
It springs from various causes, among which must be included a critical
reaction against religions and, in some places, against the Christian religion in particular.
I'm going to give up reading books by loud second - rate evolutionary biologists who must supplement their incomes by writing shallow
books against religion.
The number of comments I
make against religion is tiny, almost insignificant, compared to the number of times I must be tolerant of the stupidity of religion.
For instance, a transgender teen in our community tried for months to win the approval of her father, who repeatedly stated that her sexuality
went against his religion.
He, like Marx, opposed the attempts of Bakunin and his anarchist disciples to put the
struggle against religion in the centre of the class struggle.
It's their way or the highway and to compromise is to show a lack of faith which means you have one side willing to make exceptions for all peoples religions as long as they don't force it on others, and the religious side that says making exceptions or compromising is
against their religion so if they are not a majority in the democracy they instead decide to play obstructionist.
= > correct which is why Jesus warned
against religion of men and giving oneself over to Christ (God) completely.
People like Richard Dawkings can, instead of doing science, can produce thin
diatribes against religion and make a fortune on book sales.