Some of the reasons why I am an anti-theist as well as an atheist are expressed by Richard Dawkins here:
Every day, all across the world, millions of our fellow humans are diminished by religion: religion that may force them to mutilate their children, cover their hair or faces, stay silent when they have so much more to say than those who suppress them, surrender control over their reproduction, donate money they cannot afford, obey and submit to their inferiors, deny reality, forgo education, close their minds, reject proper medical care, suffer needlessly, be burdened by pointless guilt, and live with the spectre of eternal torment. Every day, religion works to recruit more victims, among the young, the sick, the poor and dispossessed, the old: anyone who is weak and vulnerable is a legitimate target in religion’s eyes.
Yes, there are theists that are perfectly unobjectionable in that regard, but there are relatively few of them. More pertinently, their preparedness to accept things on faith rather than evidence opens the way to the majority of theists who do the sort of things listed above. It also prevents those who do not actually perpetrate the cruelties to simply passively accept them as part of their credo.
I think RD is wrong and here's why:
He excuses their behaviour and instead blames 'religion' people mutilate children not religion. One of the biggest issues surrounding faith is one of a person's ability to determine their own behaviour. People of faith may argue that we have original sin, that god rather than man determines the course of events, we don't advance any cause to reduce brutal behaviour by joining in and agreeing the individuals who indulge in cruelty have no choice - that doesn't wash when it comes to war crimes, why should it with religion?
What would be so bad about condemning denying a child education or healthcare or forcing women to shut up and cover up without making excuses for those that do it. It's as if RD sees religion as something which came from nowhere (was he at one time religious?), if it is acknowledged that it comes from people, is used by people and shaped by people one can only conclude that it's absence will not remove the flaws of it's creators.
Last of all, and this is the bit I think is simple bad thinking, historically and currently religion is tied to struggles for power, particularly power of one group over another, to think this can be disentangled or simply ignored leaving a clear cause and effect with religion alone is surely untenable - at least as yet I have not heard anyone convincingly, or even mildly convincingly do so. One only has to look at the history of employment, child labour, the rise of unions, working hours and education of the masses to see similar issues appear simply from power imbalance and economic gain - almost every issue on RD's list could be found in something as mundane as the history of employment. Of course the Quaker philanthropists did plenty to challenge many of them.
I find that with almost every RD quote I read I have less respect for his sociology - what I can't help but wonder is whether a man so capable of incredible science is just caught up in his own battle with sincerity or simply making money, because hell, he makes more than the quiet scientists by far!
"Whatever it is, it spits and it goes 'WAAARGHHHHHHHH' - that's probably enough to suggest you shouldn't argue with it." Mousy.