Permanently Deleted
Most atheism is not the “hard-atheism” of “God doesn’t exist and I will not believe in God even if it is proven that God does exist.” Most atheism is the “soft-atheism” of “There is no actual evidence for God existing, and I will not believe in God without evidence. If evidence comes forwards, I will believe in God, but until then, I will not.” In fact, most atheism could be better described not as “disbelief in God” but rather as “skepticism in God”.
But even then, I don’t see how “hard-atheism” is any more of a reactionary view than any other religion (“hard-atheism” could be considered a religion due to its beliefs not being founded on factual evidence). If you would care to explain why that is so, I would gladly listen.
“soft-atheism” is just Agnostic, which is fine and probably what I am.
“Hard-atheism” has bred a pretty gross culture of debate bros that end up going pretty hard against religious groups to the point where it crosses the line into western cultural chauvinism.
I’d say it’s reactionary because the movement mostly cropped up as a way to funnel anger toward Islamic people, instead of the philosophical stance which they claim.
It takes all the worst aspects of religions, blind faith in a concept and hatred towards certain groups, and removes any of the cultural depth and community so it also serves to alienate people that delve deeply into it, helping to create the aforementioned toxicity.
? Go check out some online atheist communities. I don’t need to watch my wording, it’s just the reality of those communities.
Dogmatic atheism is reactionary. Atheism itself is not.
I’m specifically referring to anti-theists. That form of atheism. there’s nothing wrong with agnosticism or atheism in general. Anti-religiosity is a different animal.
