There are good arguments for why a rationalist should distance him or herself from anti-religiousness (distinct from atheism), but the irrationality of others isn’t one of them.
Even if you start from the presumption that religion is a social evil, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you should be anti-religious. If you start from the presumption that religion is a social evil, you should operate on the mechanisms that abolish religion, rather than the mechanisms which signal your opposition to religion. This may mean encouraging critical thought; it doesn’t mean claiming critical thought will lead to atheism.
Presuming somebody is religious, at best, the claim that critical thought will lead to atheism is going to lead to their looking for flaws in your reasoning. People’s ability to rationalize is directly proportional to their capacity for reason, so they’ll probably find them, whether or not they exist.
There are good arguments for why a rationalist should distance him or herself from anti-religiousness (distinct from atheism), but the irrationality of others isn’t one of them.
Even if you start from the presumption that religion is a social evil, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you should be anti-religious. If you start from the presumption that religion is a social evil, you should operate on the mechanisms that abolish religion, rather than the mechanisms which signal your opposition to religion. This may mean encouraging critical thought; it doesn’t mean claiming critical thought will lead to atheism.
Presuming somebody is religious, at best, the claim that critical thought will lead to atheism is going to lead to their looking for flaws in your reasoning. People’s ability to rationalize is directly proportional to their capacity for reason, so they’ll probably find them, whether or not they exist.