TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
...to replace it with their "state religion" of communism / facism.
Let's not pretend as if "atheism" was the driving factor there.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?
- Thread starter IndigoChild5559
- Start date
Let's not pretend as if "atheism" was the driving factor there.
Yes, we have gone over this before and I wonder when you are going over a narrative that justifies the atrocities of these Christians who wanted Jews and homosexuals exterminated and today want homosexuals eliminated. You are also ignoring the slaughter of non-believers, minorities and "Conversion by the Sword" as the Christian Colonial Manifest Destiny moved over the Americas and Africa,
The problem in part arose when you made the statement that "Christians love atheists." This is as far from the truth as you can get based on the facts of the history of Christianity. You say you love atheists today, but you directly associated the atrocities of the past by Nationalist Manifest Destiny with atheists today when there is no direct relationship. This common in Christianity today when atheists are among the most disliked and in this thread it is demonstrated that many Christians hate atheists. History is a witness demonstrates that Christian "love" has been very selective based on an ancient tribal agenda.
You are still ignoring the role of Christians in the atrocities committed by Hitler and Stalin. Nationalist Manifest Destiny is a primary cause of the atrocities be both Chinese and Japanese in China not atheism. Actually if you know history there is very long history of Tribal wars between Japan, China and Korea with extreme atrocities going back thousands of years,
There are other rather scary problems arising in the Christian USA today like the QAnon movement among Conservative Christians that is anti-semitic and demonizes atheists and the LGBTQ community. This movement has and is supported by elected representatives in government that also support Christian Nationalism.
QAnon explained: the antisemitic conspiracy theory gaining traction around the world
The visibility of the online movement has surged as a supporter appears headed to Congress and Trump fails to debunk claims
Again . . . You need to read Martin Luther's book Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies). and the 2000 years of pogroms against the Jews, homosexuals and other minorities. This book was Hitler's blue print for his motives of pogroms against Jews not atheism
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I don't like Martin Luther or his positions so no thanks. And I already know about the pograms against the Jews, homosexuals, and other minorities and I find them atrocious.
I merely mentioned that Kenny might like the book, and I bet he does. Good thing I knew the title or I'd have never found it via my search engine.
I believe the emphasis of this book selectively is problematic.
When considering the history of humanity and the racial, ethnic and religious atrocities over the thousands of years since civilizations began it is the extreme tribalism of different tribes based regardless of beliefs.
In history atheists have never had any doctrines, scripture or organized beliefs to justify the persecution, ethnic and religious extermination of those that believe differently, The ancient tribal Abrahamic religions have such scriptures that may be used to justify persecution, pogroms exterminating other tribes and religions.
Nationalist, racial, ethnic, religious and tribal Manifest Destiny is the cause of the pogroms and persecution of "others" in history.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Well, not from me. I find humanity to be fascinating and I do not involve myself in any sort of pograms.
Nope. The prefixes "a-" and "anti-" aren't interchangeable or synonymous. Consider the words apathy and antipathy. They aren't synonymous.
The issue is never intended to address the beliefs and actions of anyone personally. The problem is considering the history of humanity objectively and not from the agenda perspective of one religion, belief or tribe.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Like I said, I will not be involved in any pograms.
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
I gave a like to your post because overall I agree with the general direction of it except the above, because you veer a little into overstatement. The history of Christianity is wide, and political Christian leadership shouldn't be generalized to all believers. What percentage of "many Christians hate atheists" do you estimate?
The "a" in atheism stands for without
Theos stands for gods.
Therefore atheism is without gods. Nothing more nothing less. Anything you add to that is down to your own bias
Check the etymology before making silly statements
PureX
Veteran Member
"Anti-" doesn't apply to the posing of a proposition (it can only apply to the content being proposed). That would make no sense, which is why it's not the term being used. And "a-" theism doesn't mean "non-" theism which is what you're trying to push as it's meaning. If you mean "non-theism" then that's the term you should be using. It leaves your position undeclared while it remains unaligned with the theist proposition, which seems to be yours and others whole goal.
"A-theism" is actually very specific in this context: the context of a proposed philosophical thesis. It refers to the philosophical antithesis to theism i.e., that no God/gods exist in a way that effects our existence. Atheism is not anti-theism (that would make no sense), it's not non-theism (undifferentiated non-agreement with the theist proposition), and it's not agnosticism (a different proposal). It is, in fact, the antithesis to theism's thesis. We have the other terms already in use and available, and they are accurate to the various positions one might choose to hold in relation to the proposition of theism.
What you and others here are perpetually describing as "atheism" is not atheism. It's undifferentiated non-theism. But from the many conversations I have seen from you and others, most of you are, in fact, atheists. You just don't know how to defend it as an antithesis. So you try and claim it isn't one. That it's just some sort of natural default. But it's not. The natural default would be to withhold determination.
Last edited:
Yes. It is the rejection of the claim that there is a god, one which requires supporting evidence to be believed. For whatever reason, you are incapable of differentiating between "I don't believe your god or any other exists" to "I don't believe in gods."
Nope. Do atheist and antitheist mean the same to you? If they do, there's your problem. You don't understand what these roots mean.
Same thing.
I did not generalize to all believers as, of course, many generalize this concerning atheists, and ignore the problems in the history of Christianity. The biggest problems are equating National Tribal Manifest Destiny (Hitler, Stalin and Mao) with atheist beliefs as the subject of the thread.
It is not an overstatement that the tribal conflicts between and among the Abrahamic religions and the anti-semitic and anti-LGBTQ ethnic cleansing and persecution can be based on an interpretation of scripture
Actually it is some Christians that brought this up concerning a generalization of atheism is the cause. The bottomline it is tribal Manifest Destiny apparent throughout the history of humanity, particularly since civilization began, Thou there is evidence Paleolithic and Neolithic more advanced humans with agricultural abilities 'out of Africa' moved in and displaced, pushed out or exterminated other more primitive hunter gatherer tribes between 50,000 and 5,000 years ago.
.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
That's not specific enough. Atheism is the ANTITHETICAL rejection of the theist proposition. There's a difference. An agnostic can reject the theist proposition without making any further determination. And an anti-religious zealot can reject the theist proposition based on pure loathing for some specific religious depiction of "God". Yet these two responses to the theist proposition are wildly disparate and irrelevant.
Just claimig that atheism is the rejection of the theist proposition is not nearly specific enough, and we already have other labels that will specify these other various responses far more clearly and accurately. So we should be USING THEM where they apply. Not just tossing them all out so we can throw every response under one vague label.
NO ONE CARES WHAT ANYONE BELIEVES. I don't understand why you can't grasp this. The thesis are not defined by who believes them or who doesn't, or why, or how much. Thst only spplies to the reactions.
I just posted that they do not. And why. Theism is a proposition. One cannot logically oppose the existence of the proposition. That would be silly. One can only be opposed to the content (the thesis) of the proposition. This is why we use the term "atheist" and "atheism" instead of "antitheist" and "antitheism". The latter terms would be nonsensical in that it's the thesis of the proposition that is being opposed, not it's existence.
I understand them better than you do, because I understand why they are different, and what specifically those differences refer to. Whereas you want to toss them all under the same label so as to maintain vagueness and confusion.
Last edited:
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
Without expanding the scope to the reverse scenario, it seemed to me that you went from "You are also ignoring the slaughter of non-believers, minorities and "Conversion by the Sword" as the Christian Colonial Manifest Destiny moved over the Americas and Africa" to "many Christians hate atheists." Again - I don't argue the violent history of Christianity as political movement, but I don't apply that across the board to all Christians, or even "many" Christians. The political/religious leaders of movements, the sects and cults should be called out directly, and I do agree with your position on Christian nationalism and Qanon in particular.
I agree with your list of "nationalist, racial, ethnic, religious and tribal Manifest Destiny" but would add to recent history the communist totalitarian regimes across Europe and Asia which spanned rather than fit exactly into those categories individually.
You don't need the word antithetical there. The theist says there is a god and the atheist says, "I don't agree." If that's what you mean by antithetical, then you are correct, but the word is still superfluous in this context.
Theist and atheist together comprise a MECE set (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive). Everybody is one or the other, and nobody is both or neither.
A better word is complement. Every element of U is either A or not-A (indicated by A'), and none are both or neither If A is the set of atheists, then A' are theists (or vice versa):
That makes him an agnostic atheist. That's exactly what the term means. He rejects the theist's claims but doesn't call them incorrect.
Nothing you write is difficult to grasp, although much is impossible to agree with.
Did you mean theists? They are defined by what they believe and only by that. I don't understand why you can't grasp this.
I don't know what that means, but I DO know what it means to reject theism. And I know what that's called. You don't.
There is only one logical position possible: agnostic atheism. Why? Because without sufficient evidence that gods exist, theism is illogical. Also, without sufficient evidence that gods cannot or do not exist, only agnosticism is logical. I don't understand why you can't grasp this.
Why pretend? It is!
I assume that you teach your parishioners such bigotry. It's one of the worst aspects of Christianity. It needs to perpetuate itself on the backs of atheists (atheophobia) and LGBTQ+ (homophobia), and it needs to get to children before they can think critically, which is why so many Christians want state-led prayer and creationism back in public schools and why so many are anti-education. It also seems to like to steal rights and control women (misogyny).
PureX
Veteran Member
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, it's never going to become logical.
Theism proposes that God/gods exist, and this proposition then generates a given set of logical possible responses.
Affirm:
a. We accept the proposition as valid (logically and factually viable).
b. We also accept the proposition as true.
c. We move on to develop a theology based on this assumed truth.
Deny:
a. We do not accept the proposition.
b. We remain undecided.
c. We decide the proposition is false. (Because the proposition is either not logically or factually valid, and therefor is not true.)
The proper labels for the second group of reactions are:
a., Unspecified "non-theist".
b., "Agnostic" or perhaps "indifferent non-theist".
c., "Atheist". (Note that logically one cannot claim to be both "non-theist" and "atheist" because an atheist is not agnostic, nor indifferent, nor undecided.)
Last edited:
Together, those two describe the agnostic atheist, who neither accepts nor denies the proposition that gods exist.
a) atheist (can be gnostic or agnostic)
b) agnostic (can be theist or atheist)
c) gnostic atheist
The name for an indifferent person is apatheist, which, along with atheist, agnostic, humanist, and antitheist, also describes me. I don't care if something called a god can be said to exist. If it exists I'll likely never know it, and if it exists and I will know that, I can wait to find out. In the meantime, the subject is irrelevant.
Rather than merely repeating already refuted claims, how about addressing that refutation?