My opinion is that those aggressive and extrem atheist dont understand religion properly. They see only one side of it, the bad side, like religious fundamentalism, fanatism, religious hatred and so on. One side of the story is not enough for understanding.
It's not a matter of rejecting all religion.
There are two main possible approaches I see to religion:
- say that religion is a good thing, on average. Accept religious ideas simply because they're religious, and hope that you're accepting more good than bad, because you may very well be.
- say that religion is made up of both good and bad things. Accept or reject religious ideas not on the basis of whether they're religious, but whether they're demonstrably good in their own right. If you're a good judge, then you'll accept all the good and reject all the bad.
IMO, the second approach yields a much better result than the first. Maybe the first approach will yield a net benefit by bringing in more good than bad, but it still brings in some bad, while the second approach does not.
But here's the thing: it's a necessary part of the second approach to not give any regard to religion itself. You're evaluating each individual idea separately; the religion it came from is irrelevant. If an idea or precept can't stand on its own merits, then the fact that it comes from a religion that you think is generally good shouldn't matter.
So that's what I aim for: to hold no regard for religion itself, while still being open to the possibility that religions can come up with good ideas.
