New member who is concerend about anti-theism

[lewisnotmiller]

I only "except" both sides in as much as the other person is willing to do the same. You can't really be "anti" anything and claim to do that. Can you?

I reckon this would make a good initial thread for you to create around the concept of anti-theism and it's intellectual honesty.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

The power of anti-theists seems to be waning...the fall of the USSR, the PRC easing up on believers (except for Tibet). And in the west believers are able to worship pretty easily. The big threat I see is from fellow believers who want to impose their dogma & traditions upon others, especially in Islamic countries.

You seem to be talking in global / political terms, where I'm more concerned about the internet as a subtle, but equally powerful way of changing how people think and behave.

I would hope, especially in the west, that government isn't an issue, and that no one group is going to have the power to impose their dogma onto anyone.

However, just because a group can't politically force dogma onto others, doesn't stop them from being a threat to spirituality, religion and faith. Especially with the help of the internet, where anti-theistic dogma is represented and spread as if complete fact, faster than any religion has ever had a chance to spread.

This is why I'm concerned. There's a clear anti-theistic movement to belittle and degrade believers, while spreading emotionally compelling half truths. This pseudo-science and flawed logic, disguised as "rational thinking", seems to be having a great effect on a very large number of people.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

I reckon this would make a good initial thread for you to create around the concept of anti-theism and it's intellectual honesty.

I like that Idea. Thanks

 

[nazz]

You seem to be talking in global / political terms, where I'm more concerned about the internet as a subtle, but equally powerful way of changing how people think and behave.

I would hope, especially in the west, that government isn't an issue, and that no one group is going to have the power to impose their dogma onto anyone.

However, just because a group can't politically force dogma onto others, doesn't stop them from being a threat to spirituality, religion and faith. Especially with the help of the internet, where anti-theistic dogma is represented and spread as if complete fact, faster than any religion has ever had a chance to spread.

This is why I'm concerned. There's a clear anti-theistic movement to belittle and degrade believers, while spreading emotionally compelling half truths. This pseudo-science and flawed logic, disguised as "rational thinking", seems to be having a great effect on a very large number of people.

Yes, it can have an indoctrinating effect just like religion

 

[StarryNightshade]

Hello and welcome.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

There's a clear anti-theistic movement to belittle and degrade believers, while spreading emotionally compelling half truths. This pseudo-science and flawed logic, disguised as "rational thinking", seems to be having a great effect on a very large number of people.

Can you please give us some examples of these half truths and pseudo-science?

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

Can you please give us some examples of these half truths and pseudo-science?

I'm actually working on a book on the subject, because the truth is I've yet to hear an anti-theist argument that isn't one of the above.

A quick example would be the assertion that there is "no evidence" for God. This is untrue. What people who make this claim actually should say is that there is no proof.

There is actually a great deal of evidence, in the form of eye witness account, historical context, and even scientific study. None of which is proof, but it is evidence. The terms are switched around in order to strengthen the argument, and to dismiss evidence we do have, but the reality is they are ignoring the full truth in order to make their claim sound more compelling.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

It has not been my experience that they are switched around deliberately.

But that is neither a half truth or pseudo science

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

It has not been my experience that they are switched around deliberately.

I'm sure that most people aren't doing it deliberately, as the vast majority of people who use these arguments are simply repeating claims they've accepted as fact without taking the time to fully distinguish the difference between the two terms.

Whether or not the terms were originally switched on purpose isn't something we can know, but I don't think it matters. Deliberately or not, the argument is dishonest at it's core.

But that is neither a half truth or pseudo science

It's truth twisted in half in order to strengthen an argument, and the assertion that there is no evidence while ignoring existing evidence. It's both actually.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Nope it's neither

But atleast you got a chance to have a rant I guess

 

[bobhikes]

There is a constant rise and fall to all things.

The newest rise is Atheistic Churches, how long before they split. One branch supporting the expanding universe and one branch supporting the collapsing universe.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

Nope it's neither

Yes, that's quite the argument you've made.

 

[Koldo]

I've actually been very concerned lately about a trend I've noticed around the internet, in which anti-religious arguments and opinions are being spread as dogmatic fact.

Do you mean you are concerned of anti-theists using the very same tactics ( many ) theists have used?

People are people, after all.

Anyone else concerned by the spread of anti-religion / anti-theism, especially on the internet?

I don't consider myself to be an anti-theist, however, I couldn't care less if all religions ceased to exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a constant rise and fall to all things.
The newest rise is Atheistic Churches, how long before they split. One branch supporting the expanding universe and one branch supporting the collapsing universe.

Oh, you big silly! We don't fight over such minor matters.
We're primarily about church socials & pot luck dinners.
But don't bring up the debate about whether puppies should be
stewed or BBQed....vicious sectarian fighting will break out.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

Do you mean you are concerned of anti-theists using the very same tactics ( many ) theists have used?

Not really. I'm not so concerned with the "tactics" of individuals, as I am the spread of what is an inherently dishonest form of argumentation.

 

[Amechania]

BBQed...obviously...you anti-expansion SOB!

Rhetoric is the sauce smeared on the schnauzer.

 

[Koldo]

Not really. I'm not so concerned with the "tactics" of individuals, as I am the spread of what is an inherently dishonest form of argumentation.

In other words, the very same thing many theists are guilty of doing.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is a constant rise and fall to all things.

The newest rise is Atheistic Churches, how long before they split. One branch supporting the expanding universe and one branch supporting the collapsing universe.

Eh. Like they would bother.

Now, splits over actual relevant matters such as ecological worries and social goals, now that is indeed likely to happen sooner or later.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you mean you are concerned of anti-theists using the very same tactics ( many ) theists have used?

In other words, the very same thing many theists are guilty of doing.

You seem very pleased with this retort despite it being little more that a petty and tepid form of tu quoque.

Just how does the presumed fact that "( many ) theists" do it render the concern any less legitimate?

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

In other words, the very same thing many theists are guilty of doing.

No.

Again, it has nothing to do with what someone is "doing" but with the underlying basis of the arguments themselves and how they NEED to be spread.

I feel that people should believe whatever rings true to them, regardless of the religion or belief they may have. Anti-theism is the opposite of that. It's not faith based, like theism, or spirituality... it's anti-faith. That's what I'm against. The assertion that NO faith is good, without honestly admitting that a form of faith is what's being promoted.

How isn't the issue, as much as what it is that's being promoted in the first place.