New member who is concerend about anti-theism

[LuisDantas]

But doesn't that work both ways?

You tell me. Does it?

From where I stand, anti-theism is hardly a worry at all. For anyone.

 

[nazz]

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.

I have no problem with that. As a theist I do that as well. But I do have an interest in truth and don't like it when either side twists it.

 

[LuisDantas]

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".

And you are free to disagree with them. So what is the problem?

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

So it must be pointed out. I take it that it was?

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

Eh. How often, and how grave is that?

 

[Poeticus]

how grave is that?

It's a crime against the universe and all of humanity. It's totally and irrevocably unforgivable.

 

[nazz]

And you are free to disagree with them. So what is the problem?

My disagreement is that it is a problem!

So it must be pointed out. I take it that it was?

Some folks did not get the memo. Because atheists are just as apt at regurgitating nonsense as theists are.

Eh. How often, and how grave is that?

Often...and quite!

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

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

And how exactly does this apply to me? Did I in some way "fail to realize" that some theists may be dishonest in their attempts to spread their faith? If that was your point you've assumed incorrectly. I realize that theists may very well attempt such tactics as well, but as I explained already... the tactics are not my concern. The philosophy of anti-theism itself is the issue that concerns me.

Anti-Theism is a legitimate, very legitimate indeed stance. Arguably a badly needed one, even.

I disagree completely. Atheism is a legitimate stance. Anti-theism is not in my opinion. Thus my concern.

And I wonder what the point of arguing that it is a form of faith would be in any case.

For starters, wasn't it you who said... "offenders complaining about the offense while failing to realize their own fault is hardly helpful."??

I believe that in view of anti-theism your quote actually makes a lot more sense.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

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.

In my opinion, being intolerant of what other people believe is hatred, however it was "meant".

And there's quite a huge difference between a warning against unchecked theism, and what I'm talking about. Anti-theism isn't a simple warning, it's being "anti" (against) the concept completely. The equation of theism with harmful superstition is a perfect example.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

You said, and i quote:

I know what I said. The problem is you chose to interpret it in such a way that you believe I was talking about a certain type of tactic being used by certain people, when I was not. I clarified the point already.

I don't really care how, or why anti-theists are against religion. I find anti-theism to be a flawed philosophy that relies entirely on flawed logic and dishonest pseudo-science.

Not every theist thinks people should just believe in whatever rings true to them.

Obviously, but that's not my concern in the least. The theist is doing what I support from the start. Believing.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

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.

There's a difference to having a "right" to do something, and it being the right thing to do.

If you come across a theist who is spreading "absurdities" I would expect you to give your opinion. That does not however mean that anti-theism is the proper response to something you didn't like from an individual theist.

Unless of course you consider ALL forms of theism to be "absurd". In which case you'd fall directly into the type of thinking that concerns me.

 

[LuisDantas]

In my opinion, being intolerant of what other people believe is hatred, however it was "meant".

And in your opinion that applies to anti-theism?

I guess we will have to disagree then.

And there's quite a huge difference between a warning against unchecked theism, and what I'm talking about. Anti-theism isn't a simple warning, it's being "anti" (against) the concept completely. The equation of theism with harmful superstition is a perfect example.

Yes. An example of something that you see as a problem and that I do not.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

From where I stand, anti-theism is hardly a worry at all. For anyone.

Eh. How often, and how grave is that?

To me these lines seem to show a bit of a disconnect with what's happening outside of these forums.

 

[LuisDantas]

There's a difference to having a "right" to do something, and it being the right thing to do.

If you come across a theist who is spreading "absurdities" I would expect you to give your opinion. That does not however mean that anti-theism is the proper response to something you didn't like from an individual theist.

Unless of course you consider ALL forms of theism to be "absurd". In which case you'd fall directly into the type of thinking that concerns me.

People oppose "socialism" all the time without going through the trouble of clarifying that they do not want, say, the ruin of Iceland.

Do we truly need to make a point of stating that Dawkins - or me - do not want to maul priests in the dark of night or something?

 

[LuisDantas]

To me these lines seem to show a bit of a disconnect with what's happening outside of these forums.

Maybe so. How much damage has you seem caused by anti-theists? Can you give me some examples?

 

[Me Myself]

People oppose "socialism" all the time without going through the trouble of clarifying that they do not want, say, the ruin of Iceland.

Do we truly need to make a point of stating that Dawkins - or me - do not want to maul priests in the dark of night or something?

You are saying anti-theist not anti-theism

Thats probably from were the need of clarification steams.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

And in your opinion that applies to anti-theism?

Very much so.

You can disagree if you like, but the very idea that we are talking about a philosophy based completely on being "anti" anything else, would seem to indicate the truth of the matter.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is the trouble with being "anti"?

 

[Koldo]

I know what I said. The problem is you chose to interpret it in such a way that you believe I was talking about a certain type of tactic being used by certain people, when I was not. I clarified the point already.

Don't misrepresent what happened.
It is not that I misunderstood what you said.

It is that:

1) You didn't mean what you said.

Or

2) You backpedal like a pro.

I don't really care how, or why anti-theists are against religion. I find anti-theism to be a flawed philosophy that relies entirely on flawed logic and dishonest pseudo-science.

Just as anti-theists find theism to be a flawed philoshophy that relied entirely on flawed logic and dishonest pseudo-science.

Obviously, but that's not my concern in the least. The theist is doing what I support from the start. Believing.

As long as it supports your agenda, it is acceptable.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

People oppose "socialism" all the time without going through the trouble of clarifying that they do not want, say, the ruin of Iceland.

Do we truly need to make a point of stating that Dawkins - or me - do not want to maul priests in the dark of night or something?

So are you saying that the only way to show intolerance to another belief system is through some attempt to physically harm those who hold it?

Maybe so. How much damage has you seem caused by anti-theists? Can you give me some examples?

It depends on what you consider "damage"... I've yet to personally see anti-theism in a place of power where it could cause any real "damage" in the form of physical, military, political attacks, etc. unless of course we want to beat the dead horse of people like Stalin and Mao.

Then again religion is constantly blamed for all manner of evil throughout history, where the real culprit is the same basic intolerance that anti-theism is based around. So the amount of damage anti-theism has caused so far isn't so much the issue, as how much damage has intolerance caused, and whether anti-theism is simply the latest form.

As the movement against faith grows, we'll have to wait and see. I would hope that in modern society this type of damage isn't really possible anymore.

If you're willing to accept alternate forms of "damage" such as cyber-bullying, then I'd have to say I've personally seen a great deal more of that from anti-theists than I have from every other religion combined.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

What is the trouble with being "anti"?

You might as well ask what's the trouble with being intolerant. I would think the answer is fairly clear.

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

Don't misrepresent what happened.

I haven't. If you refuse to accept the clarification I gave you, so be it.