Atheism is More Dangerous than Christianity

Anti-atheist bigots like to claim that not only is their religion the One True Source for morality and goodness, but also that people who reject their religion are a dangerous influence on society. It's instructive to note that Christians who make such claims don't include Hindus or other non-Christians in this denunciation. For some reason, it's only atheists, which simply makes it clear that what bothers them is not believing in any gods, not simply disbelief in their personal deity.

Blacknad claims:

Authentic Christianity does not kill, persecute or wield power over others.

Without establishing that there is a sound, undisputed definition of Christianity which justifies he above conclusion, Blacknad is committing the No True Scotsman fallacy: he's redefining Christianity to suit his conclusion, rather than developing a conclusion on the basis of independent evidence. The truth of this is made especially clear by the fact that according to this "definition," almost no self-professed Christian has ever been an "authentic" Christian. How many, for example, have never wielded power over any other person — not even a child?

As "evidence" that atheism is "more dangerous than Christianity and is "leading us towards a decline of Western Culture," Blacknad offers the following:

Television is the greatest teacher of ideas and attitudes - billions of pounds spent on advertising attest to this. Television's message through advertising (and therefore a picture of what humanity values and is telling itself) is as follows:

I don't drive the right car,
Or have a big enough house - with enough appliances.
My clothes aren't new enough or stylish enough,
My hair isn't the right colour or shiny enough or even strong enough - split ends are a disgrace, as is dandruff.
My white's aren't white enough.
My skin is too wrinkled and not tanned enough.
I don't holiday in the right places or eat at good enough restaurants.
I am too fat or just the wrong shape.
I don't eat enough fast food.
I don't have enough debt.
My breasts aren't big enough.
My teeth aren't white enough or are too crooked.
My lipo hasn't been sucked enough.
I am not famous enough.
And on...
And on...


This is about the best that Atheism seems to be able to manage on a mass scale.

Since when has atheism ever "offered" any of these advertising messages? What does eating at good restaurants, having large breasts, or driving the right car have to do with atheism? The truth is, none of this is even remotely relevant to atheism. They are not messages, doctrines, dogmas, or elements of atheism. The people responsible probably aren't any more atheistic than the rest of the general population.

This is an example of the Red Herring fallacy. Blacknad is bringing up things he considers objectionable in order to criticize something (atheism) that is completely unrelated to them. It really doesn't matter how awful, immoral, objectionable, or dangerous any of these things may be, we cannot derive from that any conclusions about atheism — negative or positive. Indeed, I suspect that many atheists would agree that many of the things on this list are objectionable to one degree or another.

If this is the best case against atheism that Blacknad can manage (and that seems to be the case), then we have to conclude that he has no real case against atheism. In fact, I consider it doubtful that he really understands what he is talking about.