Jubbergun wrote:
To make the argument that the good done in the name of religion 'doesn't count' because its true source is human compassion only servers to validate the argument that the evil done in the name of religion 'doesn't count' because its true source is human failing.
Religion is a human institution that serves to unite individuals in the service of an ideology. It is an ideology based on falsehood.
Do individuals do good and evil? Yes, and the capacity of an organization to do either is increased exponentially beyond the sum of its parts. That is the point of organization. And hence there is a moral imperative to encourage the good and undermine the evil.
Unity in the service of an ideology of falsehood is inherently dangerous and evil, and great evil has come of it, evil that would not have come to pass had the organization been defunct.
Jubbergun wrote:
Azelma beat me to it, but he's right, it's not an "absence of belief," it's a belief in the absence of anything one can't prove exists. Take your second sentence and substitute the word "Christian" for the word "atheist," and both sentences work in exactly the same way.
A belief based on knowledge is not comparable to a belief based on ignorance.
My belief that the world is round is not comparable to the beliefs of some people that the world is flat, because I understand the reasons why the world is provably round.
Jubbergun wrote:
So it's an ad hominem fallacy worthy of complaint when USD points to Stalin as an example of the dangers of atheism, but when Mayo points to a schizophrenic that drowns her kids as an example of the dangers of religion, that's not worthy of comment? You can't legitimately complain about USD's argument if you're going to let the people you agree with set that tone in the first place.
The danger of religion is that it establishes a rationale for otherwise crazy behavior, and makes otherwise sane people party to it. Hence the point about religion "poisoning" people's minds.