New member who is concerend about anti-theism

[SpiritualFreedom1]

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

Great question.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

There is the fact that offenders complaining about the offense while failing to realize their own fault is hardly helpful.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No doubt an oversight on my part. Just where was SpiritualFreedom1 at fault?

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you asking me, Jayhawker Soule?

I wasn't thinking of him, but since you ask, I take issue with this.

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.

Anti-Theism is a legitimate, very legitimate indeed stance. Arguably a badly needed one, even. And I wonder what the point of arguing that it is a form of faith would be in any case.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you asking me, Jayhawker Soule? I wasn't thinking of him, but ...

I took this ...

There is the fact that offenders complaining about the offense while failing to realize their own fault is hardly helpful.

... as branding him as an offender.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anti-Theism is a legitimate, very legitimate indeed stance.

But anti-(anti-theism) is not?

 

[LuisDantas]

I took this ...... as branding him as an offender.

Hardly. I just fail to see how or why complaining against the lesser offense (those of anti-theisms) would be convenient at a point in time when the greater is so badly unchallenged already.

 

[LuisDantas]

But anti-(anti-theism) is not?

It is certainly not clearly needed at this point. I guess it is legitimate, if odd.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Welcome to the forum, SpiritualFreedom.

It seems to me that theism is such an encompassing label that something like "anti-theism" is pretty much guaranteed to include overgeneralizations and misconceptions about what people believe and the reasons for such. With that in mind, I think anti-theism is generally unhelpful, because it doesn't appear to me that the opposite of perceived hatred is hatred in the opposite direction.

 

[Koldo]

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?

It does not. Have I stated otherwise?

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, but that is not the point of anti-theism, DS. It is not supposed to be hatred, nor opposed to hatred alone.

It is rather a warning and a wake-up call against various excesses caused by unchecked theism. Not just hatred, but also superstition-caused damage, misguidance and loss.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Oh, but that is not the point of anti-theism, DS. It is not supposed to be hatred, nor opposed to hatred alone.

It is rather a warning and a wake-up call against various excesses caused by unchecked theism. Not just hatred, but also superstition-caused damage, misguidance and loss.

I know. My comment was about the kind of anti-theism mentioned in the OP. However, I do think that theistic beliefs are so diverse that the label of "anti-theism" is unhelpful to the purposes you say it exists for. Not all forms of theism propagate hatred, "superstition," or intolerance to people who don't embrace them.

 

[Koldo]

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.

You said, and i quote:

"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."

You are going to see a lot of religious arguments and opinions being spread as dogmatic fact as well.

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.

I think that is an oversimplification of what is anti-theism.
Anti-theists are against religious beliefs because they perceive harm in them, and consider them to be unfounded.

It is actually not different from a theist who believes it would be better for everyone if his neighbour converted to the same religion as his.
Not every theist thinks people should just believe in whatever rings true to them.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know. My comment was about the kind of anti-theism mentioned in the OP. However, I do think that theistic beliefs are so diverse that the label of "anti-theism" is unhelpful to the purposes you say it exists for. Not all forms of theism propagate hatred, "superstition," or intolerance to people who don't embrace them.

That may be a failure of our perception of the term rather than of the label itself, though. It is not supposed to be reckless and absolute just because it is an "anti-".

 

[nazz]

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

But that is neither a half truth or pseudo science

It's not so much engaging in pseudo science as it is misrepresenting science. I have actually heard atheists state: "science has disproven the existence of God".

I recently read Sam Harris' book Free Will and from what I've read he misrepresented scientific research in the field.

Atheists often embrace scientism which could be described as pseudo science.

 

[nazz]

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

Yeah, they do. Does that give antitheists the license to do the same?

 

[nazz]

There is the fact that offenders complaining about the offense while failing to realize their own fault is hardly helpful.

But doesn't that work both ways?

 

[Poeticus]

Yeah, they do. Does that give antitheists the license to do the same?

Anti-theism is a reaction to theism.

Who made the first strike?

 

[nazz]

Anti-theism is a reaction to theism.

Who made the first strike?

so you are arguing the ends justify the means?

 

[Poeticus]

so you are arguing the ends justify the means?

Definitely not. Just don't expect atheists to accept the absurdities of theists quietly and subordinately. They have a right to voice their objection through dialogue as much as theists have a right to voice theirs.