Is it? Either you believe what you say, or else you're staring at a reductio ad absurdum argument that should cause you to abandon your position.
If you believe Religion = Poison, then you have a moral obligation to exterminate that Poison, or contain that Poison behind lock and key, or to make use of that Poison illegal.
I don't believe Religion = Poison. So I'm not in the awkward position you now find yourself in.
Rather, I consider some religious beliefs to be incorrect. Not "poisonous". Merely mistaken and untrue. Most non-religious beliefs are also wrong. I can disagree with and challenge ideas that I consider incorrect without labeling a few billion people as poisonous.
Likewise, I think that some religious rules, practices, and values are harmful whereas others are good. I can say exactly the same thing for non-religious rules, practices, and values. Even in a secular society, there is no shortage of harmful notions.
No, that isn't your position. You didn't say that religion was simply wrong. You called all religion "Poison". And that is why I cornered you about the logical conclusion of your opinion โ which should be concentration camps or forced re-education or laws making poisonous ideas illegal. Rationally, that is the next step. If you're not prepared to take it, then you don't have the courage of your convictions.
Whether I'm an atheist or a zoroastrian or an army of monkeys typing at 1000 typewriters makes no difference. The identity or credentials of the person who is presenting an argument makes no difference as to the argument's validity. That's the ad hominem fallacy.
It strikes me as a bit childish that you want to pick fights with religious people and are only prepared to consider what I've said because I'm not religious.
But you believe Religion = Poison. Given that attitude, I assume you want policies to be made in such a way that Poison is excluded from society as much as possible. For example, I assume you want state education to teach that religion is a fairytale. In other words, you want anti-religious dogma to drive policy making. It's not that you object to dogma driving policy. Rather, you just want the opposite dogma to be in charge so that religious dogma can be suppressed or minimized in the future.
We may both be atheists. But we have diametrically opposed views about society. I would object to any dogma, religious or anti-religious, driving policy. As mentioned previously, I want a free, pluralistic society that allows people with incompatible ideologies to coexist. From my perspective, the enemy isn't someone whose theistic worldview disagrees with what I consider the truth. Rather, the enemy is someone who attempts to enforce homogeneity and create a "pure" society with "correct" beliefs โ like you and the Taliban.
Give me a break! If you believe Hell doesn't exist, then how does it hurt you if someone mistakenly believes you'll go there? Don't pretend to be hurt by something that doesn't hurt you.
"Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets of the brain awe a man from the career of his humor?"
In any case, we can turn that argument around. Many atheists believe that religious people won't enjoy heaven or see their loved ones again after they die. Atheists believe that a child who dies of cancer is simply worm food. How insulting to the parents who have just lost a daughter and who hope to be reunited! How discouraging to the grandmother in the hospital! "But [they are] meant to respect [your] abhorrent position?"
Yes, people can respect one another even if their world view includes human suffering. Believing that human suffering will occur is very different from hoping to cause that human suffering oneself. Grownups understand this.
