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.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But doesn't that work both ways?
मैत्रावरुणिः;3581148 said: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.
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.
how grave is that?
And you are free to disagree with them. So what is the problem?
So it must be pointed out. I take it that it was?
Eh. How often, and how grave is that?
There is the fact that offenders complaining about the offense while failing to realize their own fault is hardly helpful.
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.
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.
You said, and i quote:
Not every theist thinks people should just believe in whatever rings true to them.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3581148 said: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.
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.
From where I stand, anti-theism is hardly a worry at all. For anyone.
Eh. How often, and how grave is that?
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.
To me these lines seem to show a bit of a disconnect with what's happening outside of these forums.
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?
And in your opinion that applies to anti-theism?
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.
Obviously, but that's not my concern in the least. The theist is doing what I support from the start. Believing.
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?
Maybe so. How much damage has you seem caused by anti-theists? Can you give me some examples?
What is the trouble with being "anti"?
Don't misrepresent what happened.