Please name one major contention you have about Islam and we can discuss it.
I have no beef with Islam in particular. My criticism is of faith-based thinking in general (not just religious faith - I also disapprove of faith in anti-vaxxers, election hoax proclaimers, and climate science deniers, for example) and of organized, politicized religion.
As an atheist, my principle objection to these religions is the teaching that unbelievers are morally defective people. I see more immorality coming from the theists than the secular humanists, for example. Look at how nicely they have treated you so far.
Are you asking disbelievers for insults? That's what usually happens.
Congratulations. You just gratuitously insulted unbelievers on the third post of this thread. And I checked ahead. So far, this is the only post on this thread demeaning a group of people.
Thinking that encouraging people to turn away from G-d will fix mankind's tendency towards evil is deeply flawed.
I'd say that the opposite is true.
As I alluded, secular humanism - the ultimate disavowal of religion - is doing a better job with the Golden Rule than the theists are. Your posting was contentious and divisive. None of the humanists are posting like that. Are you treating people as you would like to be treated? I hope so, since I'm mirroring you. You want to tell others how turning away from God makes them worse people and the world a worse place. But I say that it is the theists that are the poor moral example. They've had millennia to make the world a better place, but it's secular humanism that did that - that gave humanity the modern liberal secular democracies in place of monarchies, science in place of superstition, and freedom of and from religion rather than theocracy as well as a host of other personal guaranteed rights and freedoms. That was a huge step in the right direction religion never made. Why would we ever want to go back to religious guidance in such matters?
Back to the Golden Rule, and why if one believes in it, he should support humanism, not the religions. While the theists in America are working as hard as they can to discriminate against LGBTQ, it is the humanists that are actually embodying the Golden Rule and treating others as they would like to be treated. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't like being called an abomination in the eyes of a good and just God that intends to torture me since I don't like it when theists tell us atheists. Nor would I like to be told that my marriage was immoral by people who get their morals from a book, or that they refuse to bake my wedding cake, so, by the Golden Rule, I don't treat others that way. It kind of flows naturally from a godless world view based on reason and empathy.
What is deeply flawed is continuing to believe that religion makes people better. There are good people in religion, but they're not good because of their religion. I like to point to Mother Teresa, who is an icon of religious goodness. But her church didn't make her a spiritual genius. It's principle influences on her mission was to teach her that suffering is good, a horrible message for the head of multiple hospices, and to take money fraudulently from donors who thought that it would be going to help the suffering, dying, poor rather than the Vatican's treasury. It a fraud that religion has answers and provide moral guidance.
Is this the kind of thing you're calling insults? I see it as a rebuttal to your comment, which I found flawed itself, and I provided what I thought was a sound counterargument. The opposite is true. Man will only make progress creating kinder people by shaking off religion - the opposite of your claim.
Can we assume that you believe that when you make your claim, it's not an insult or attack on secular worldviews, but when you see the same in reverse coming from a godless heathen, it is an attack or insult?
