The atheist is always wrong

In the mainstream press — and even in much of the leftysphere — commentary about atheism routinely boils down to this:

1. Atheists question religion, which has caused many wars, acts of terrorism, and so on. Hmm, maybe they have a point...
2. Nah, using little or no documentation, I've decided that atheists are a bunch of angry freaks. Unlike the people who cling to ancient supernatural beliefs, atheists are unreasonable. Screw 'em!
   

Canadian writer Andrew Potter beautifully illustrates this formula in his article, "At what point does belief in religion constitute a threat to others?"

Hey, that sounds like an important and interesting topic — asking whether religion is a potential hazard. It's not too interesting to Potter, though, who wastes no time careening over to point #2. The piece is subtitled "Radical atheists are wrong not to find common cause with religious moderates."

This cycle repeats in the body of the article, with the cadence resoundingly completed at the end.

The only quote he offers is from a relative of the accused plotters of a terrorist attack on Fort Dix:

"It's fine to be a religion man. But if you get too much of the religion, you get out of your mind and do stupid things."

Potter continues to validate the rationalist viewpoint:

I entirely agree with the substance of the atheist critique, that religious belief of just about any sort is intellectually lazy and that there is no more reason to believe in God or saints or angels than in ghosts, goblins, or the tooth fairy. It's all infantile magical thinking as far as I'm concerned, and any rational person should be embarrassed to believe any of it.

But it just wouldn't do to conclude with that perspective, now would it?

Without any citations from their work whatsoever, Potter declares that skeptics such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens are too extreme in seeing religion as generally problematic.

... if I had to choose between the overheated ranting of Hitchens' God is Not Great and the mannered sensibility of Murat Duka, I know whose side I'd choose. As Duka might say, it's fine to be an atheist man. But if you get too much of it, you get out of your mind and write stupid things.

So, despite the fact that religion is "intellectually lazy" and "infantile magical thinking" that drives some people to horrific acts of mass murder, who is the target of Mr. Potter's critique?

Just remember rule #2: when in doubt, shoot the atheist. Even when there is no doubt, and you totally know that religion is a sorry farce, still, you shoot the atheist.

After all, atheists are "militant."

How militant are they? Very militant, it seems.

A Google search finds 90,500 citations of "militant atheist" or "militant atheism," and the same number of pages citing "Richard Dawkins" and the m-word.

Aside from "militant Muslim" and "militant Islam," with an impressive 991,000 citations, atheism is the point-of-view on faith most painted with the "militant" brush.

Other results include:

• "militant Christian, "militant Christianity," "militant Christianist": 32,868
• "militant "Hindu," "militant Hinduism": 23,550
• "militant Jew," "militant Judaism," "militant Zionist," "militant Zionism": 11,868 (about 1,300 without Zion/Zionism)
• "militant Buddhist," "militant Buddhism": 3,520
• "militant Quaker": 240
• "militant Baha'i": 4

A handful of the "militant atheist" references are from people who have claimed that epithet as a badge of honor. But typically, it's a pejorative meant to caricature those who think widespread, institutionalized irrationality can and does cause major problems.

Even though these authors tell us we're right, we are still adjudged as wrong, and our writings are "stupid," unlike those sensible stories where a guy houses every species of flora and fauna in the world for over a month on a homemade boat, or where a virgin's resurrected son ascends bodily to heaven.