What are your opinions on Anti-Theism?

[LuisDantas]

Your joking or your trolling, aren't you xP

Nope. I am very serious about this. I want to challenge this supposed equivalency that, far as I can tell, is an urban legend and nothing more.

I keep hearing about those mean and dangerous anti-theistic radicals. Do they exist at all?

So far, it would seem not.

As for dangerous radical theists...

Just because you firmly believe there isn't a god doesn't mean, of course, there isn't one.

Indeed. That means that it is impossible to prove atheism to be "true".

Anti-theism is however not about atheism or about the existence of God, but rather about theism.

It would hypothetically be possible (and perhaps advisable) to have theistic anti-theists, even - people who happen to believe in the existence of some deity, but nonetheless advise against pursuing such belief.

Not all that different from recovering addicts, come to think of it.

Trying to debate it with you applies directly to thianas statement.

May you remind me which one?

Would you prefer me to get banned by naming a few people on these forums to which this applies to? As I'm aware it's against the rules.

You may always PM me. Or point out someone from outside the Forum, I suppose. Neither is against any rules.

I think your trolling. + 1 interwebz for you my fine man.

I am most definitelly not trolling.

 

[Smart_Guy]

It really depends on the situation. For communication to occur, both sides must reach a common level of expression.

I understand you say it could mean just people in disagreement, or it also could mean disrespectful bashing people.

I respect the former by default, just as I respect anyone else I don't know, for being people like me. I respect the freedom of disagreement.

If it is the latter, then they are just a disrespectful bunch that don't deserve respect accordingly in return and I have a negative impression against them. I however don't fire back at them, don't wish them harm, and I stay the better person. It is just that they earned the place in my heart of the people that are not respected nor decent.

 

[StarryNightshade]

The one thing I've noticed from anti-theists is that, while they claim they are against theism in general, most only really seem to harp on the dangers of religious organizations. All the while still claiming it is theism itself that is the issue.

Would it be more accurate to say that many are more anti-organized religion; rather than anti-theist? As many know, you can be a theist without being religious, adhere to certain doctrines without being a part of an organization, or believe in God while also being against organized faith.

 

[Willamena]

It would hypothetically be possible (and perhaps advisable) to have theistic anti-theists, even - people who happen to believe in the existence of some deity, but nonetheless advise against pursuing such belief.

Not all that different from recovering addicts, come to think of it.

Or, if you define theism in terms of practice, it could simply be people who believe in god(s) but without expression of it or practices built around it.

 

[Thruve]

Nope. I am very serious about this. I want to challenge this supposed equivalency that, far as I can tell, is an urban legend and nothing more.

I keep hearing about those mean and dangerous anti-theistic radicals. Do they exist at all?

So far, it would seem not.

As for dangerous radical theists...




Indeed. That means that it is impossible to prove atheism to be "true".

Anti-theism is however not about atheism or about the existence of God, but rather about theism.

It would hypothetically be possible (and perhaps advisable) to have theistic anti-theists, even - people who happen to believe in the existence of some deity, but nonetheless advise against pursuing such belief.

Not all that different from recovering addicts, come to think of it.




May you remind me which one?




You may always PM me. Or point out someone from outside the Forum, I suppose. Neither is against any rules.




I am most definitelly not trolling.

1-look at the post I first quoted you on.
2- look at thianas post to which you quoted from, to which I quoted you.
3-thats the argument I was referencing to.
4- it's true.

 

[Willamena]

The one thing I've noticed from anti-theists is that, while they claim they are against theism in general, most only really seem to harp on the dangers of religious organizations. All the while still claiming it is theism itself that is the issue.

Would it be more accurate to say that many are more anti-organized religion; rather than anti-theist? As many know, you can be a theist without being religious, adhere to certain doctrines without being a part of an organization, or believe in God while also being against organized faith.

This would depend on how the individual defines theism, surely.

 

[LuisDantas]

You may say that, sure. Do you believe it is true, however?

I wouldn't have said it if I didn't think it had any validity.

That is surprising. Your statement in post #52 was

You know it's interesting that exactly the same can be said for an Anti-Theist. So in denial and so blinded by their own prejudices that they don't realize that the fundamentalism they fight against is the very thing that they themselves have become.

Isn't the world just funny that way ^^

Quite frankly, it is simply disconnected from reality entirely.

Is that so? Interesting, because it is essentially impossible to strip anyone from his or her beliefs without convincing that person that she is believing wrong.

I'm sure many Anti-theists would happily take our churches, Take our holy books and criminalize the practice of religion.

I don't think so.

Hoping to convince people to let go of churches and religion, I am aware of (although that is not necessarily representative of Anti-Theism as a whole, but still a legitimate stance to hold).

But what you describe is just a boogeyman fantasy. I sincerely doubt you will find even one name to offer as evidence.

There is much more to Anti-Theism than simply opposing Theism.

Actually no, there is not. But if you know otherwise, enlighten me, please.

So yes, it is by definition personal. And far more often than not it is a display of consideration for the person, and takes considerable effort. Yet you seem to think of it as invasive, even disrespectful. Or am I misreading you?

Not disrespectful, Intolerant.

In the same sense that one may be intolerant of bigotry or, say, Communism? I can live with that.

Still, it is mostly in the eyes of the behold in this case. You seem to simply have a hard time accepting that people may legitimaly oppose Theism.

Eh. You misunderstand us, Thana. From our perspective, God does not exist. We have no reason to even want to take Him from whoever, to even believe that goal makes any sense.

Please don't waste my time, You know that I know that Anti-Theists don't believe God exists. I meant the God concept.

Yes, it should be challenged, and the legitimacy of pursuing and advising for that belief should be questioned, for it is often a dangerous belief to hold.

I feel that saying so and meaning it make me a true-to-existence Anti-Theist with all ensuing rights. And that is really all there is to it, far as I can see.

It is really a service to religion, in that it seeks to promote legitimacy and purity of belief and practice. Because in case you have not noticed, there is quite a lot of unwise and even outright destructive theistic belief running amok even inside well-established Faiths, with nowhere near enough challenge to try and correct its ways.

No chance. We have killed your General already, and now we are coming for you! Bwahahahaha!

Or something. Seriously, I am worried by how far removed from reality your understanding of what anti-theism is has gone.

Anti-Theism is quite straightforward, If nothing else.

That it is. Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt you understand the basics of it.

If I have somehow misinterpreted Anti-Theism, Please, Enlighten me.

See if my attempts above were of any help.

Come to think of it, anti-slavery is also so very simplistic and intolerant of such a time-tested tradition. How come?

You really feel it's appropriate to compare Anti-Slavery to Anti-Theism?

Oh yes. It is entirely appropriate, and for so many different reasons that I will probably write something about it sometime.

One is about the freedom of people and the other about oppression.

More accurately, both are about challenging oppression.

An interesting choice that reflects your beliefs, If nothing else.

Yes it does.

You expected that to trouble me, didn't you?

 

[StarryNightshade]

This would depend on how the individual defines theism, surely.

That is true.

 

[Willamena]

But what you describe is just a boogeyman fantasy. I sincerely doubt you will find even one name to offer as evidence.

This statement, sans evidence, is denial and blind prejudice.

 

[LuisDantas]

The one thing I've noticed from anti-theists is that, while they claim they are against theism in general, most only really seem to harp on the dangers of religious organizations. All the while still claiming it is theism itself that is the issue.

Would it be more accurate to say that many are more anti-organized religion; rather than anti-theist?

In my case, that is not at all accurate. Much of the reason why I oppose theism is so that it does not corrupt religion further. Or, hopefully, that the challenging at least helps in enabling some healing from the inside.

As many know, you can be a theist without being religious, adhere to certain doctrines without being a part of an organization, or believe in God while also being against organized faith.

Yes, that is true. I don't think that is particularly advisable, though. I certainly do not think it is better than participating in organized religion, unless we are talking about a particularly troubled religion.

 

[Erebus]

Oh golly, your religion sounds quite folly, yet I'm so interested as to what exactly you believe in? Telly Telly my warm fuzzy devil friend. Any threads you can link that describe what it is you believe in?

Saint Frankenstein summarized well, Demonolatry is the worship of demons. I tend to describe it as the halfway point between Paganism and Theistic Satanism just to give people a rough idea about it.

This website has a fair few resources to give you a primer on the basics: demonolatry.org | Files & eBooks (Downloads)

 

[LuisDantas]

This statement, sans evidence, is denial and blind prejudice.

I don't know what you are talking about, Willamena - I am not even sure if you are talking about me or Thana - and I will not encourage you to assume that I will try to find out.

I am attempting to communicate with Thana at the level that she seems to prefer. While so doing, I am entirely out of the loop of whatever you are attempting to say.

Given past history, I don't particularly see the point of attempting to change that circunstance, either. You could really try a bit harder to make your attempts at communication effective, but half the time I wonder if you even care.

 

[Thruve]

Saint Frankenstein summarized well, Demonolatry is the worship of demons. I tend to describe it as the halfway point between Paganism and Theistic Satanism just to give people a rough idea about it.

This website has a fair few resources to give you a primer on the basics: demonolatry.org | Files & eBooks (Downloads)

Thanks. Viewing it now ^^

 

[Levite]

Anti-theism is just radical fundamentalist atheism. And I don't care for extremism in any form.

 

[LuisDantas]

Anti-theism is just radical fundamentalist atheism. And I don't care for extremism in any form.

Maybe you can produce one of those examples of radical fundamentalism then?

 

[Thana]

Quite frankly, it is simply disconnected from reality entirely.

Honestly mate, Subtly is not your strong suit. Just say what you mean and mean what you say and we'll get along great.

I don't think so.

Hoping to convince people to let go of churches and religion, I am aware of (although that is not necessarily representative of Anti-Theism as a whole, but still a legitimate stance to hold).

But what you describe is just a boogeyman fantasy. I sincerely doubt you will find even one name to offer as evidence.

Ah yes, The overactive imagination/delusions/dramatics of the Theist. I'm not surprised you would stoop to this in defence of Anti-Theism.

Actually no, there is not. But if you know otherwise, enlighten me, please.

"Anti-Theism.... is active opposition to theism." Meaning they don't just oppose it, They actually try and do something about it. That's why I said it wasn't simply opposition.

In the same sense that one may be intolerant of bigotry or, say, Communism? I can live with that.

Still, it is mostly in the eyes of the behold in this case. You seem to simply have a hard time accepting that people may legitimaly oppose Theism.

I know people do. And I know they believe in their own self-righteousness.

And as someone who is defending Anti-Theism, I didn't expect anything other than exactly what you've said. So I'm sure you can easily live with it.

Yes, it should be challenged, and the legitimacy of pursuing and advising for that belief should be questioned, for it is often a dangerous belief to hold.

I feel that saying so and meaning it make me a true-to-existence Anti-Theist with all ensuing rights. And that is really all there is to it, far as I can see.

It is really a service to religion, in that it seeks to promote legitimacy and purity of belief and practice. Because in case you have not noticed, there is quite a lot of unwise and even outright destructive theistic belief running amok even inside well-established Faiths, with nowhere near enough challenge to try and correct its ways.

Your comment suggest you're answering a question but I never asked you one.

That it is. Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt you understand the basics of it.

I asked you to enlighten me, You've yet to do so. I imagine you'd rather just be vague and comment on how I just don't know what I'm talking about.

Oh yes. It is entirely appropriate, and for so many different reasons that I will probably write something about it sometime.
More accurately, both are about challenging oppression.
You expected that to trouble me, didn't you?

My bad, I honestly forget the fanaticism of Anti-Theists. If it weren't so sad it would be amusing how they believe that they're doing the world a favour. All the while, On the other side of the world, The religious fantatics think the same thing.

No, I expect me comparing Anti-Theists to Theists to trouble you, Or at the very least, Make you think about the disturbing similarities.

 

[Sunstone]

To me, the major problem with anti-theism is that, in so far as it might seek the end of faith or religion, it is unlikely to succeed. Some kind of religiosity appears to be intrinsic to our species, rooted in our DNA, and thus -- without draconian measures -- the majority of people are likely to be religious in one way or another.

A better approach to religions than seeking an end to them might be to find ways to make all of them benign, for religions can be terrifyingly destructive, and some more so than others.

 

[Levite]

Maybe you can produce one of those examples of radical fundamentalism then?

Unless someone has absolute, objective proof that there is no God, it is by definition fundamentalism to say, "I don't believe in God, no one else should either, and believing in God is exclusively bad."

 

[LuisDantas]

Unless someone has absolute, objective proof that there is no God, it is by definition fundamentalism to say, "I don't believe in God, no one else should either, and believing in God is exclusively bad."

It may fulfill some technical requirement to qualify as fundamentalism, but how destructive exactly do you see it as being, and why?

 

[Sha'irullah]

To me, the major problem with anti-theism is that, in so far as it might seek the end of faith or religion, it is unlikely to succeed. Some kind of religiosity appears to be intrinsic to our species, rooted in our DNA, and thus -- without draconian measures -- the majority of people are likely to be religious in one way or another.

A better approach to religions than seeking an end to them might be to find ways to make all of them benign, for religions can be terrifyingly destructive, and some more so than others.

Anti-theism does not seek the end of religion. I am very fond of Buddhism and Daoism for example for its lessened theistic aspects. I myself am obviously very knowledgeable on philosophy just because of this since I view it as a great way of adapting religion without theistic inclinations.