"I came into this thread expecting to see something resembling a discussion about respecting belief, and instead walked into a series of horrific posts about how ridicule and outright hostility is the best way to treat people who don't believe as you do. "
You came in this thread expecting to hear what you wanted to hear, and then you found someone that disagreed. That's...kinda how the world works, my friend. And if you want to hear how I think religious people should be treated regarding their beliefs, instead of equating how I said we should beliefs instead of people, you can look upward.
"however the religious must offer respect approaching reverence to "science" because science."
I never mentioned them offering "respect approaching reverence to science because science".
"Trying to explain that religion itself is evil and thus must be expunged from our civilised society requires an enormous amount of faith - ironic, really"
" We have to believe that all religious people are evil (they're not), all effects of religion are evil (they're not), religion prevents good (it doesn't), only non-religious people are good (not true), and thus only non-religious people have the right to be a member of our civilised society."
Why do we have to believe that all religious PEOPLE are evil to think that religion is bad? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. There are many people who are a part of harmful groups and ideologies who aren't evil.
Why do we have to assume something is totally evil if we want to get rid of it?
Why do we have to assume only non-religious people are good?
You're advancing a position I've not only distanced myself from, but never really implied that I was a part of.
"Religion is evil because I don't believe in it, it leads people to points of view I disagree with, and because wars have been fought in the name of it. We should all get rid of religion to make us more morally grounded according to my morals, smarter according to my metrics, more advanced - which is important because I said so - and ultimately better because it falls in line with what I believe in. You can trust me, I know all of this, because I'm not religious".
You do not understand my position, or that is a horrible strawman. A more accurate representation would go a little something like this:
"Religion is evil because (all of the things I've previously mentioned about religion being evil blah blah blah). Religion should die because according to morals that we as a collective can reason are correct, many religious tenants are ALSO immoral, as I have previously stated. This is the same type of reasoning that we use in every aspect of our lives, that goes beyond myself and my preferences, and it will not be as easy as looking at some book and stopping there, but it will ultimately be better because it will be a morality that will be based on logic and empathy, and it will be one that we can back up to anyone. You can trust this, because that's part of what we do already, and although some don't realize it, it WORKS."
"If the religious are not allowed to have their beliefs because they disagree with yours, then you're not allowed to have your beliefs because yours disagree with theirs. That's the logic being employed here."
I never said they're not allowed to have their beliefs, and I'm not saying that religion should die because it's not a belief system that I subscribe to. Go back and read what I said again.
"Religion didn't cause any issue pointed to."
...? Yes, it did. That was my whole, "For a good person to do an evil thing, that takes religion". bit of the argument.
"So, if you want to remove religion, then bigotry, hated, outright hostility and denigration are quite possibly the worst possible ways to achieve your goal. It makes you feel better, but ultimately makes society toxic and hateful. This type of oppression has never worked, and in fact only makes the targeted group more indoctrinated and radicalised, leading to open armed conflict, resulting in war. History teaches us this, and provides numerous examples.
You simply need to educate people."
As much as I would dispute my methods being bigotry, I would say that a more antagonist approach, or a more hostile one, deserves scorn some of the time, because it's not what's needed all of the time. YES. Educate. Be nice. Show empathy. Help people learn. All of these things are good. But you also need people willing to step up and debate religion, willing to say, "This is a bad thing," willing to actually combat religion.
" If you think you have the right to tell people what to believe and not believe, then you must logically provide that same right to everyone else in your society, otherwise you're basically the very thing you're arguing against. If you have the right to be openly hostile to someone of a different belief, they inherent the same right. They can legislate against you, oppress you, insult you, and lie about you as much as they chose."
I don't believe I have the right to tell people what to believe and not believe. I've never advocated conversion by force. I do agree that anyone has the right to be openly hostile to me, and I welcome it and hope that I may better myself from hearing the reason they're so hostile, because I probably have done something to earn that hostility. I don't believe you can legislate or oppress them, although you can insult them and lie about them (the latter I wouldn't recommend myself, but you can do it), and I'm glad people are free to make their own choices on what to say.
You need people to be nice and you need people to play hardball. I'd like to think I'm good at doing both, although I like hardball just a mite bit better, and I'm here to fill that role.
Thank you, you said it better than I ever could.
Trying to explain that religion itself is evil and thus must be expunged from our civilised society requires an enormous amount of faith - ironic, really. We have to believe that all religious people are evil (they're not), all effects of religion are evil (they're not), religion prevents good (it doesn't), only non-religious people are good (not true), and thus only non-religious people have the right to be a member of our civilised society.
Nah. You don't really need to believe all those things just to think that religion is a net negative for society. In fact, I'd call that quite a strawman. I'm not exactly an Antitheist, so I dunno about "expunging" religion, but do I think more secularization is a good thing? You bet. Do I think force needs to or should be involved? No. Both because I'd find that unethical but also because I don't think it'd be effective. Education, exposure to different belief systems etc., that does the work quite splendidly. It's why some religious groups prefer isolation (of various forms) so as to avoid that risk of exposure to other worldviews. My main point, anyway, is that hating religion =/= hating religious people.
If you read the bottom of his post, he brings up exactly what you suggested.
Do you not understand my argument? I mean, you applaud a post that just cannot have gotten it more wrong. What is your impression of my argument?