Koldo
Outstanding Member
I have already presented a possibility:
1) You didn't mean what you said.
You refuse it. I wonder why.
You said what you said. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
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!
New member who is concerend about anti-theism
- Thread starter SpiritualFreedom1
- Start date
I have already presented a possibility:
1) You didn't mean what you said.
You refuse it. I wonder why.
You said what you said. Nothing more, nothing less.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Excuse me?
To suggest that he complains simply or primarily because it's convenient strikes me as condescending ad hominem.
I don't see much anti-theism where I live (Western Canada), and my circle of Internet forums is limited to... well this one. So, no, it hasn't been a concern.
Welcome to the forums.
SpiritualFreedom1
Member
Because it's wrong.
Sigh..... I actually don't like to waste time going over what was said already, if you didn't read my words as I meant them, I find it better to clarify my point than to go back and forth arguing over who is or is not "back peddling". But since you want to force the hand, I'll play along.
What I originally said (and you quoted) doesn't say anything about a concern for anti-theists, or the tactics they use. My concern was then, as it is now, with the philosophy of anti-theism. As I said.... "anti-religious arguments and opinions are being spread as dogmatic fact."
It has nothing to with any tactic that theists may or may not also use. It's about the anti religious arguments themselves. They are not factual, they are anti-religious opinions. I don't know why it's so hard to distinguish the difference.
In fact on page one, the poster "Me Myself" seemed to grasp my point perfectly as he stated....
He knew that I wasn't talking about individuals, or tactics, but the philosophy itself.
You also seemed to understand at first, at least partially, since you asked in question form....
I answered the question for you. "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."
Even if my initial wording wasn't clear to you, I made it perfectly clear from then on. Why then do you continue to badger me on such a pointless matter? Rather than taking the time to really understand my point, you stoop to accusing me of back peddling and misrepresenting what happened as though I've been dishonest in this thread.
Was there an actual point you wanted to make? Or you just wanted to point fingers at me and throw theists under the bus as a way of justifying anti-theist behavior?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
No, not when you make statements like that!
SpiritualFreedom1
Member
Thanks for the welcome! And for answering my question.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
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.
Both sides have crappy arguments.
Honestly this thread just seems like another "help we're being oppressed" thread.
Anti-theism is a reaction to the repugnant (happy now revoltingest?) actions by theists.
Boohoo for them. They could just stop being ********.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Actually, it's a "welcome to the forums" thread.
SpiritualFreedom1
Member
I don't know what word was censored there, but I'm pretty sure I'm not one of them.
I'm also a bit disappointed by the concept that intolerance is the correct response to religion. Or that concern over repression is something to be shrugged off.
Who exactly are these repugnant theists you're talking about, and what have they done to turn you against ALL theists in such a way?
SpiritualFreedom1
Member
Thanks Quagmire. I didn't mean to start an argument, I just wanted to know who else was concerned. Didn't think I'd have to defend the question itself in such a way.
:sorry1:
:sorry1:
No problem, SpiritualFreedom1.
I actually kind of enjoy debates about this topic. It's just, you know, in the wrong place.
Knight of Albion
Well-Known Member
A very warm welcome to the forum, dear SpiritualFreedom.
Last edited:
Welcome to RF SpritualFreedom1.
Here's a theory: Anti-religionists appear, because the faithful begin to impose tests on one another to determine who is real and who is fake among themselves. The hypocritical dancing this causes among the faithful eventually creates anti-religionists.
SpiritualFreedom1
Member
Invalid theory, wrong forum.
Check the mod post a few posts up.
Welcome to RF SpritualFreedom1.
Thanks!
Woops. Welcome.