How honest is it to present an extreme fringe person as being representative of a whole sector of society?
I've been investigating the notion that atheists are considered abnormal. But I was shocked at the level of exaggeration used to present such an argument. Based on this link, atheism is a sickness that is not only absent of morals, but is actually morally perverse. It equates atheism with APD (antisocial personality disorder).
As a curious aside, it also notes the following associated evils: "sexual immorality like homosexuality or "women on top" positions, drug/alcohol abuse, rebellion, feminism, oreo cookies, jazz music, following liberal politics, yoga, and transcendental meditation"
Further reading suggests that atheism is prompted by some sort of adolescent reaction / non-conformity, possibly due to poor father figure and other negative influences.
According to his book Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing a Distorted Mindset, by Fr John J. Pasquini, there are 3 types of atheist. 1. Categorical, a reasoned inability to comprehend the possibility of God, which leads to 2. Militant atheism, the desire to convert God-believers, and 3. Practical atheists, for whom God's existence is irrelevant to meaning and decision making.
He goes on to say that atheism is a disorder precipitated by conscious or subconscious wounds. He says that with counseling and medication, atheism can be managed and even healed.
I'm discovering that the above is just the tip of the iceberg. But a lot of it comes down to two things. The first is circular logic. The second is the brown dog analogy. If all dogs are brown and that animal over there is brown, then it must be a dog. In other words, if an atheist is identified as APD, atheism is responsible, therefor atheism is a disorder.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.