Atheists claim that the problem with religion is that it's mythical, legendary, supernatural, blind faith and untrue, and that somehow these are all bad things.
First of all, there's nothing wrong with myths per se. I can think of a lot of corrosive psychopathic myths such as that America ever was a "beacon of hope and freedom" for people. I can also think of constructive ones such as Justice existing or being attainable in this our Evil world.
Secondly, there's nothing wrong with legends. For all the Narcissists and RWAs driven to be legends like Richard Feynman and Josef Stalin, there are also real legends such as Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Albert Einstein, Douglas Engelbart, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Hugo Chavez Frias, Mao Tse Tung, and the list goes on.
Thirdly, the supernatural exists and is awesome. Just search for 'ultra high detail screenshots' on any search engine. The contrast in these images is impossible under any real world lighting conditions thus they are literally supernatural. Like I said, it is real and it is awesome!
Fourth, and this is the one that is most laughable because Danniel Dennet claims in his essay:
no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at the top'—among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers, too. This tradition puts its faith in the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting in the habit of asking "What if I'm wrong?" Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated. Imagine the reception a scientist would get if he tried to suggest that others couldn't replicate his results because they just didn't share the faith of the people in his lab!something which is utterly laughable since doctors are butchers who are incapable of logic, rely on guesswork for their diagnoses, and routinely butcher people for prestige and money in the USA. And scientists' work is largely entropic crap that adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge, is rarely replicated, and they are all driven by an insane blind faith in a fictional "scientific method" that simply DOES NOT EXIST. To say nothing in their blind faith and membership in a communal enterprise that ossifies preexisting knowledge rather than generating insight!
Finally is the claim that religion is untrue. Well, Jesus at least is certainly and completely true. Jesus is human culture and human culture exists. Jesus is omnipresent and human culture is omnipresent. Jesus loves you and human culture loves you. You'd have to be a total fucking moron to try to argue that circa -100 to +100 CE human culture didn't suffer greatly to expunge infanticide from civilization. It happened. It's historical FACT.
No, the problem with religion is that it's FICTIONAL! It may be true fiction, fictionalized history, but it's still fiction.
There are three levels of human knowledge. The metaphoric, the literal, and the formal. Religion offers us only metaphoric knowledge. And that is why I scorn it as utterly pathetic and contemptible.
But there is another level of human knowledge beneath these three. The zeroth level of NO knowledge. And that is what atheists offer. They stupidly and idiotically offer a DEGRADATION in human knowledge!
And that is why atheists are worthless motherfuckers. Rather than being forward-thinking, forward-looking and progressive, they are anti-deluvian, backwards-looking and reactionary. They couldn't be stupider and more anti-human if they joined the SS.
Let's recap briefly,
- no knowledge = atheists
- metaphoric knowledge = religious
- literal knowledge = antitheists
- formal knowledge = people who understand what gods, souls, good and evil are and can see them in the real world
Throughout my adolescence I was an antitheist. Since then I've grown up. Most atheists it seems start out religious and then they grow DOWN.
Parenthetically, Daniel Dennet's Thank Goodness essay is laughable for another reason. Because Goodness is alien to him. Whenever he says 'thank goodness' he really means 'thank Neutrality' but that just doesn't flow right off the tongue, does it?