I caught an article on another site that simply forced my hand in this regard. A guy who runs a site called Friendly Atheist wrote an article entitled “Why I’m Not an Angry Atheist”. In it, he attempts to explain, as the title says, why he’s not an angry atheist, apparently equating passion with anger. Such as here:

But if your religious beliefs (illogical as they may be) are doing something positive for our community and our world, and in the process, you’re not trying to stop scientific progress, impede promising research, hurt my gay friends, control another woman’s body, force your beliefs upon anyone else, ask the government to give you special privileges, or make me fear coming out as an atheist in public, why should I be attacking you?

Look, I’m a humanist as much as I am anything else. I want what’s best for people. And yes, on the surface, it’s difficult to explain why on earth someone would still be against religion if people are willing to be “moderate” about them and still accept scientific research and civil liberties. It sounds like the person simply has a vendetta and it’s more about personal grudges than societal progress.

The problem here is twofold. In the first case, we have to realize that nowhere in the Bible/Torah/Koran does it say that it’s okay to be gay or have an abortion. Everything in his list is, according to the various holy books, exactly what a believer in said religions should do. The bible says birth begins at conception, homosexuality is wrong, and anyone who worships false gods should be punished for it. Among other things. If one claims to be a Christian or a Muslim and does not do what the “Friendly Atheist” lists, then that believer is allowing sin to occur.

I often read and hear from people who start to say things like “well that’s not meant literally” or “as long as you do good, you’ll be fine.” In both cases there is nothing in the actual holy books to support that. The bible doesn’t come with a color code to signify what’s literal and what isn’t, and Jesus may be the redeemer but he didn’t disregard all sins in a blanket sweep. So what we have here is the unavoidable conclusion that religious “moderates” are letting people commit mortal sins damning their souls to hell and they have no problem with that.

The next time you talk to, for example, a Christian moderate, ask him if Jews can go to heaven. Make him answer.

Problem two is one that Dawkins and others have touched upon: the “floodgates” thought. Religious moderation, ignoring how misguided and bizarre it seems to me, still accepts religious belief and leaves room for fundamentalists. As long as we, as a society, accept the holy books as part of our culture in a true and real sense and the gods in them are real, then we are tacitly allowing people to take them literally (after all, read above) and giving them free reign to go crazy.

Fundamentalism cannot exist if we eliminate all religion, and to expect it to go away while moderate religiosity remains is a foolish endeavor indeed. We live in a society where it is considered admirable to watch documentaries of the believers who flog themselves, crucify themselves, whip and lacerate themselves in grand parades to show the depth and devotion of their beliefs, as opposed to scoffing at the insanity of beating yourself with chains to prove you really, really love the man in the sky. We, even many liberals I’m afraid to say, offer quiet admiration for those who act on such unwavering faith, and this is dangerous thinking.

And then we get into the intellectual conundrum. Too many people focus on whether “religion” is good or bad. Religious people do great things, they do terrible things. For every charity, there’s a violent militant group. But that’s missing the point. The point is that their beliefs are based on falsehoods, and maybe this is where I separate from many of my atheist brothers but I value truth over whether or not it’s good to believe the lie.

Religion is the only aspect, the ONLY aspect, of knowledge in which disagreements over facts is accepted. In history, we’re not allowed to disagree about who Socrates was or how he died. We can’t say that Christopher Columbus may not have actually sailed to America. Mathematicians can’t argue over how many the number 10 signifies, or whether or not the area of a triangle is one half its base multiplied by its height. Physicists don’t get to say that objects in a vacuum really do fall at different speeds.

Now this isn’t entirely true. Disagreements are accepted, but only when they can be proven and then the theory that is proven true is considered the new “fact”.

However, in the case of religion, we simply accept the differing viewpoints. You believe Jesus was the messiah? Grand. You believe he didn’t exist? That’s fine. You think Noah truly built an Ark with all the species on it and lived to be 950? Fantastic. You think it’s a folk tale? Wonderful. You believe Mohammad was truly inspired by an angel to write the Koran? Lovely. You don’t believe he was a real man? More power to ya. In religion only is “truth” seemingly disregarded and replaced with “respect”.

Furthermore, religion is, as many of my more extreme brethren have described, a conversation-stopper. We have a society that does not pursue interrogation when it comes to religious beliefs. An example I’ve seen is that of the conscientious objector in wartime. If you’re religious, it’s easy. If you’re a decorated moral philosopher, it’s much harder. When someone tells you that a belief of theirs is based upon their religion, our culture has decided that you can’t press on. “God” terminates all discussion.

If I say the flat tax favors the wealthy, you can insist that I support my opinion with statistics and economical evidence. If I say that the PATRIOT Act is invasive and not necessary to fight terrorism, I would not only have to explain how it’s invasive but also demonstrate how terrorism can be fought without it. But if I say homosexuality is wrong because God says so, then that’s the end of it, I don’t need to provide any more support.

To this end, while it’s true that “moderate believers” allow more freedom than “fundamentalists”, it does not stop the moderates from still acting irrationally because that same acceptance is given. When a doctor refused to see a patient because the mother was tattooed, his beliefs were his reason and as such the standard dealing with the issue was not accepted. Had it been some old guy who disliked tattoos, he would have been duly criticized and lambasted for idiocy.

Consider abortion or any other issue (stem cell research, gay marriage). Taking the stance of scientists, be they social or medical, we can have a debate between both sides to argue their beliefs. When does life begin? What kind of an effect would gay marriage truly have on society? These can be discussed rationally, with real points to be made, and perhaps one side may yield and acknowledge being wrong, and in the end the conclusion will, optimally, be one reached by rational discourse.

Not so if one side bases its beliefs on religion. When that happens, the debate is over. What rebuttal is there to “God says so”? In a debate, if one side says he believes what he does because that’s what God decreed, the other side can’t argue that maybe God is wrong or that God is not a reliable source of information (or that he’s not there at all), because that, as above, is not “respecting” religious beliefs. When that happens, all you can do is cross your fingers and hope that someone else, preferably someone in power, has different beliefs because you sure can’t do anything to change your god-worshiping opponent.

Moderate religion is intellectually dishonest and leaves the door open for suicide bombers and fundamentalist nutjobs. Simple as that.

Do I stand on street corners and yell about the evils of religion? Of course not. Do I antagonize the religious at every turn and make it a war against them? Not at all. However, do I accommodate those who cling to religious dogma even if they claim to be a “moderate”? No. I do not and will not.

“Friendly” atheism is an atheism that allows and accepts theism not because it’s what is right, but because it’s what’s easy. It’s easy to say “well I don’t believe in God but I don’t have a problem with it.” It’s easy to say “well Jesus was a great guy, I just don’t think he was the son of God.” Unfortunately, that ignores the core problems that religion presents to society. Soft and flaccid atheism will inspire no change.

I am “friendly” in that I present my beliefs rationally, without antagonizing, and in a calm and civil manner. That is all the friendlier atheists need to be.