Thanks, QT, I totally agree with your critics. Also, I will add some more.
You say "Atheism on the contrary is not organized into churches (excluding maybe some parties, which are always a minority anyway and spread out their forces into different ideas because atheism is of course less united than belief)," and I argue that there are atheism churches. I happen to have a friend who goes. They discuss morality and ethics about how one should live their lives in the modern era. Much like how churches discuss morality and the ethics one should live by. So, they do exist, and just because they are small now and are persecuted by religion in some regions, doesn't mean they won't someday persecute religious people (ref:Jesus was a heretic). Even if you don't agree with the church, here you are, with many others, arguing why religious people shouldn't believe in god. You are attempting to spread your faith in atheism. That, sounds like a religion in the making.
First, there is no such thing as an atheist church by definition of atheism. If you find any association which actively and positively tries to make other people believe in what they say through force, mistification, or faith, you should point out that they are in fact a religion. The main and only difference between atheism and religion is not that one believes in God and the other one doesn't. For what I care you could believe in a God and be an atheist: a- theist, it comes from a- teo, Greek words for negation and religion, not God. In fact, believing in an immobile motor, a God which started the world by being uncaused cause is and has been an atheist position for a long while.
Second, as QT said, discussion is not brainwash, and even if you think brainwash is too strong a term, how do you call it when somebody is seen as the only one who has the right to talk about a matter by a whole community due to having "studied the mysteries of God" and is therefore listened to respectfully and without rebuttal by every member of said community once every week?
Third, does this supposed "church of atheism" impose such a view on others the same way that religious churches impose a vision of the world on religious people thanks to the menace/promise of Hell/Heaven/eternal life/eternal-and-unprovable-whatever? Or is it an affiliation which tries to make people reason on their own actions and proposes an alternative through dialogue and actual logical thinking?
Fourth, I'm not arguing as to why you should believe in God. Actually, believe in whatever you like, I'm not going to stop you (of course, I'm positively going to judge you an idiot if you follow most common beliefs, but eh, I think the same for lots of other respectable people... and of course I don't judge people
only because of religion; and don't come over and say "you shouldn't judge", because that's one of the most idiotic things people ever said and guess what? It comes from religion too.). Anyway. Believe what you want, as I said, the only two things I'm disputing are 1) peace out and understand I don't have to believe what YOU want and neither is logical to do so, even by your own admission; 2) churches are a problem for society, and while you can believe whatever you want the institution of churches is something worth fighting against.
Later you say, "even if it had leverage, it wouldn't be as bad because atheism actually enhances different points of view and logical reasoning, which belief is of course against." Who says belief is against logical thinking? The Jesuits were founded on the principle of educating people. They formed some of the schools that became the universities of Europe. Just because your personal experience with religion is through (I'm guessing) ignorant sheeple doesn't mean everyone is like that.
First, Jesuits were founded on the principle of educating
THEIR people. Do not make the assumption that they wanted to educate the masses, because they didn't do that, whatever may be their "founding principle": they created schools for rich people / future priests / an elite, be it by census or choice, that positively ruled behind the screen most of Europe's countries answering mostly to the Pope for about one hundred years. Not what I call "jolly good-doers", actually.
Second, I agree some religious people are nice guys, but the point is right that: they have to be people, not organizations. If you believe God and teach everybody you meet how much that God is awesome, I'm ok with that and will possibly argue with you about how much you're wrong in my opinion, but I'll leave it at that. When you start having a political and social status that places you in a relevant position, though, things change. Be it because you have a role in the society, because you were elected somewhere or because the society gives you such a role (as is the case with Priests), you have power. And if you use that power to spread your ideas without opposition or cancelling opposition by defining them "misbelievers", you are a problem for the society. This is true both in politics and in religion: forcing people to act the way you want them to is just wrong. Now, you could argue about laws and such, but that's another discussion altogether, and I will be happy to answer to those points in another thread.
Third, as QT said, faith is by definition the opposite of logical thinking. Faith is accepting some facts as proven without evidence, and refusing to see evidence to the contrary.
On the mirror side, while Atheism may believe it is logical, it is silly to assume that the population that claims to be atheist are logical, intelligent, or reasonable. I have met more than my fair share of young teens and early 20s who claim atheism, who cannot defend their position or even properly define it. Don't claim to be on a pedestal of reasoning when a celebrity of atheism in the same speech rationalizes hostilities as a reaction to hostilities.
Your last point is debatable. And that's the whole point is it? It's debatable. As in, we have no reason to believe you are right by definition, and neither do you. But we are in here together, must live together and might better come up with something that works for both before either one goes out of here with feet first.
As for teens, those are the kind of people that call themselves atheist just because they do not believe in God. Bunch o' rebeles, they are...
Your third point is true. Religion is taught to children before they develop rational logic to defend any premise you teach them. That said, humans are taught a LOT of things before we are 15-20(if ever), much of which is controversial. Furthermore, your statement hints at the solution be to not teach religion, I.E. Atheism. If you tell a child that there can't be a god, and if anyone tells to believe, say no; that child will just as dogmatically believe there is no god, than a child who is told about Mohammed and Original sin, or of Zeus and Poseidon.
Except that atheism is not the same as believing in no God. It is having no beliefs. A theory about the existance of a God is about as good as a theory on the existance of subatomic particles (by
some points of view). You don't have to believe in no God to be an atheist. You have to believe in
nothing.
One final point: you critique the teaching of religion to a child as if it is an afflicition, that the child be protected or separated from it. This presumption is not shared by all, and is not a logical critique but a critique by associative wordplay.
Of course not everybody agrees with me. I'd be happy if they did.
Anyway, the critique is founded on my definition and description of churches. If you want to discuss that, I'm ok with it, but if you really believe that exposing children to associations that teach their beliefs and ideas bringing as evidence tradition and faith, then I will never agree with you.
