What are your opinions on Anti-Theism?

[Quintessence]

Also you are talking to a person who literally worships nature and kowtows to the atom. I find the cosmos very worshipful but I do not call it divine.

Golly gee, that sure sounds like theism to me.

You sir, make no sense to me whatsoever. I'm thinking that anti-theism is not the word you are looking for.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Golly gee, that sure sounds like theism to me.

You sir, make no sense to me whatsoever. I'm thinking that anti-theism is not the word you are looking for.

??? I am not theistic in any sense of the word. How is worshiping something worthy of my worship theism? I am not worshiping Zeus, Allah or even Quetzalcoatl.
I am worshiping the Sun, a celestial object that is so real and so glorious that it is monitored by scientists to this very day.

I am as anti-theistic as Satan himself. Test me.

...meow

 

[Viker]

My opinion?

 

[Sha'irullah]

My opinion?

Kawaiiiiiiiiii!

 

[Quintessence]

??? I am not theistic in any sense of the word. How is worshiping something worthy of my worship theism? I am not worshiping Zeus, Allah or even Quetzalcoatl.
I am worshiping the Sun, a celestial object that is so real and so glorious that it is monitored by scientists to this very day.

You come across as theistic in several senses of the word. Theism can (and does) include veneration of non-otherworldly, non-supernaturalistic forces. Put another way, theism can (and does) include immanent god-concepts where there is no distinction between "nature" and "gods." Such god-concepts are pretty darned common once you get outside the box of classical monotheism. Such god-concepts are frequently understood through anthropomorphism depicted mythopoetically; that's basically what the Pagan gods are. Even if one chooses to eschew such mythopoeticism and anthropomorphism or chooses not to adhere to any historically recognized set of deities, honoring various aspects of reality is still a type of theism. Gods are essentially that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship, and it seems pretty obvious to me that nature is the gods for you.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You come across as theistic in several senses of the word. Theism can (and does) include veneration of non-otherworldly, non-supernaturalistic forces. Put another way, theism can (and does) include immanent god-concepts where there is no distinction between "nature" and "gods." Such god-concepts are pretty darned common once you get outside the box of classical monotheism. Such god-concepts are frequently understood through anthropomorphism depicted mythopoetically; that's basically what the Pagan gods are. Even if one chooses to eschew such mythopoeticism and anthropomorphism or chooses not to adhere to any historically recognized set of deities, honoring various aspects of reality is still a type of theism. Gods are essentially that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship, and it seems pretty obvious to me that nature is the gods for you.

You are only providing that the notion of a god can mean anything then.
Here is a philosophical issue: "If it is anything then how is it something"?

I am gonna start calling you an atheist because you lack a belief in "Stun Kid"(I hope you see the word play in that ). Relabeling something is the greatest cop out to avoid criticism.

 

[Alceste]

You are only providing that the notion of a god can mean anything then.
Here is a philosophical issue: "If it is anything then how is it something"?

I am gonna start calling you an atheist because you lack a belief in "Stun Kid"(I hope you see the word play in that ). Relabeling something is the greatest cop out to avoid criticism.

You don't see " if it is anything then how is it something" as a word game? Looks like pure sophistry to my eyes.

Theism is, at its core, the very common (perhaps even universal)experience that when we look at the world, the world looks back.

Unless your criticism of theism takes that basic fact of human psychology into account, it's kind of...
:sleep:

 

[viole]

It probably is.

The point is that removing every religion from the face of the planet would cause a lot of a damage to humankind.

I personally would not want that tomorrow all theists turn into atheists. That might sound selfish, but I cannot imagine what would happen when all those poor multitudes suddenly realize that this is the only life they get.

However, I believe that by increasing income, education and social security, belief in God would evaporate, as a bonus. Probably, social security is the most important factor that leads people away from a protector in the sky.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sha'irullah]

You don't see " if it is anything then how is it something" as a word game? Looks like pure sophistry to my eyes.

Theism is, at its core, the very common (perhaps even universal)experience that when we look at the world, the world looks back.

Unless your criticism of theism takes that basic fact of human psychology into account, it's kind of...
:sleep:

You speak of sophistry as if it is bad yet you support sophistry. Good grief no wonder theists are deluded so much.

I have mention psychology and theism numerous times already by the way and I doubt it is by mistake you mention it. Theism is not a universal experience because if that was the case animals would be theists.

Theism is just nothing but a misunderstanding of reality on homo sapiens part.

Using poetry does not change anything. Theism is not a matter of viewing the world in the way you describe. Sophists in ancient Greece would praise you for your poetry because it works the way a Sophist would want to. It functions only as a slogan with little to no merit.

Theism is a view of the world in terms of the supernatural. The world around us does not echo "believe in god".

You should spend more time constructing arguments not poetic come backs

 

[Alceste]

You speak of sophistry as if it is bad yet you support sophistry. Good grief no wonder theists are deluded so much.

I have mention psychology and theism numerous times already by the way and I doubt it is by mistake you mention it. Theism is not a universal experience because if that was the case animals would be theists.

Theism is just nothing but a misunderstanding of reality on homo sapiens part.

Using poetry does not change anything. Theism is not a matter of viewing the world in the way you describe. Sophists in ancient Greece would praise you for your poetry because it works the way a Sophist would want to. It functions only as a slogan with little to no merit.

Theism is a view of the world in terms of the supernatural. The world around us does not echo "believe in god".

You should spend more time constructing arguments not poetic come backs

Sorry, what poetry do you mean? have I been accidentally rhyming again? Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[icehorse]

Back to the topic:
I find theism to be dangerous for what it is, a delusion. Many delusions are beneficial such as hope, peace or happiness but theism is a sword that points in both directions and has no purpose. Instead of praying to god for a better future we could be making one. Instead of hoping and wishing for god to answer our prayers we could be fulfilling it ourselves.
Theism does many things such as giving leaders support to kill and commit horrible actions. It motivates the Muslims and the American conservatives to kill each other. It motivates these same groups to oppress women and make their god an entity of evil.
This same conception of a god motivates people to be supposedly "moral" yet only serves as a way for people to deny their humanity. This morality they speak of is bankrupt of itself and paradoxical. It clouds people's minds on the basis of their own actions and makes it relevant to a nonexistent entity who serves as a third party issuing rules.
There is nothing redeeming about theism since it only serves as obfuscation of nature, reality and human goodness.

It allows priests to be pedophiles and live a life hoping and wishes they will enter a better place.
It permits people to do the most horrible actions to think they are doing the work of god.
It permits children to be killed, women raped and the world we live to be destroyed.
Theism deludes people of their human nature and human will and gives false hope to weak people and great hope to those without minds or wills.
I oppose theism for opposition to reason in areas like science where true progress is made.
I oppose theism for opposition to philosophy where great thoughts are made.
I oppose theism for what it is and always will be which is a plague like cognitive pathogen.

No matter what god you associate with theism it becomes pointless because that same good is easily contributed to something that does not harm nearly the amount of lives that theism has.

If you despise humanity enough all you need is a god and a religion and there you go.

Yup, yup, yup, count me among the anti-theists.

Of course none of these things are universally true. But they're true often enough that they're worth paying attention to.

Let's also say that religion *tends* to:

- be misogynistic
- be homophobic
- be intolerant
- reduce life-long learning
- muddy otherwise clear, universal morality
- get tax breaks! (at least in the US)
- foster behaviors like corporal punishment (true in the Bible belt and the ME at least)

 

[Quintessence]

You are only providing that the notion of a god can mean anything then.

No, I'm providing the notion that gods are essentially that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. The reasons why something is deemed worthy of worship vary depending on the person or culture, though you can come up with a general list of characteristics that humans usually find granting worth-ship. The idea is to define theism in a way that includes the full range of theisms instead of the more ethnocentric understanding of theism that seems commonplace in my culture.

I am gonna start calling you an atheist because you lack a belief in "Stun Kid"(I hope you see the word play in that ). Relabeling something is the greatest cop out to avoid criticism.

Well, if you see it fit to call me something I am not without my permission, I am going to do likewise. You're a polytheistic pantheist, specifically the empirical and materialistic variety it seems. There are plenty of those flying around in Neopagan circles. Most of them call themselves theists. A few, like you, call themselves atheists for some reason, but until now, I've never seen one who wants to associate themselves with anti-theists..

 

[Viker]

Yup, yup, yup, count me among the anti-theists.

Of course none of these things are universally true. But they're true often enough that they're worth paying attention to.

Let's also say that religion *tends* to:

- be misogynistic
- be homophobic
- be intolerant
- reduce life-long learning
- muddy otherwise clear, universal morality
- get tax breaks! (at least in the US)
- foster behaviors like corporal punishment (true in the Bible belt and the ME at least)

That just represents an impression of the patriarchal systems were most exposed to these days.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yup, yup, yup, count me among the anti-theists.

Of course none of these things are universally true. But they're true often enough that they're worth paying attention to.

Let's also say that religion *tends* to:

- be misogynistic
- be homophobic
- be intolerant
- reduce life-long learning
- muddy otherwise clear, universal morality
- get tax breaks! (at least in the US)
- foster behaviors like corporal punishment (true in the Bible belt and the ME at least)

These sort of things are really more of an ideological and cultural issue if anything. It is always best to separate theism from religion

 

[Thana]

Once more, do you have an actual example of those evil disrespectful anti-theists to offer, or are they indeed part of some fiction?
Eh, reallly?

I thought you knew me better than that already. Maybe you are reading way too much into "anti-theism". It is not like being a predatorial monster or anything. And I can hardly be expected to feel troubled by comparisons with Theists. Do you have any idea of how highly I hold some Theists?

Go ahead, I am waiting for them to be offered so that I may be disturbed by them.

Honestly, If you really want to see what they're like, Just google some Anti-Theist websites and take a gander through their propaganda.

Either way, It seems I'm a little late to the party as the thread has changed considerably since I went to bed. Oh well, Perhaps another time.

 

[Sha'irullah]

No, I'm providing the notion that gods are essentially that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. The reasons why something is deemed worthy of worship vary depending on the person or culture, though you can come up with a general list of characteristics that humans usually find granting worth-ship. The idea is to define theism in a way that includes the full range of theisms instead of the more ethnocentric understanding of theism that seems commonplace in my culture.



Well, if you see it fit to call me something I am not without my permission, I am going to do likewise. You're a polytheistic pantheist, specifically the empirical and materialistic variety it seems. There are plenty of those flying around in Neopagan circles. Most of them call themselves theists. A few, like you, call themselves atheists for some reason, but until now, I've never seen one who wants to associate themselves with anti-theists..

Oh good grief . Are you familiar with Theological Noncognitivism?

To give you a brief summary of it. God has no relevancy nor cognitive basis to be understood which means that any set of useless words could apply.
A god is a god, not a rock or a river. A rock is a rock and a river is a river and a god is a god. Now you have to define what a god is.

I really liked how Dawkins called pantheism "sexed up atheism" because it is. You are trying to find a way to cling to this notion of god and make one that is irrefutable.

I worship planets, they are not gods but planets. You are merely trying to support the existence of a god by using semantics. This is pathetic and I cannot think of a more Last Resortish tactic ever.

If a god is whatever one worships then a screwdriver is whatever undoes a screw. So you are saying scissors are not scissors but actually screw drivers and are incorrectly labelled.

Seriously, you are taking the most refutable position in history

 

[Chakra]

What type of theism do anti-theists find the easiest to refute (besides pantheism)?

 

[Sha'irullah]

What type of theism do anti-theists find the easiest to refute (besides pantheism)?

Pantheism is usually first on the picking order honestly. It is just a play on words and in case people do not know this but words are primarily 'metaphysical'. They have no basis for existence. There are not like mathematics which quantify matter and are the same no matter what because of their objectivity. A rock would not be a rock if the word rock did not exist but 'two' rocks would be two rocks regardless of the language.

Are you familiar with the Mimamsa school and epeolatry? This is actually a Hindu conception for the ontological basis of god and worship

 

[Chakra]

Pantheism is usually first on the picking order honestly. It is just a play on words and in case people do not know this but words are primarily 'metaphysical'. They have no basis for existence. There are not like mathematics which quantify matter and are the same no matter what because of their objectivity. A rock would not be a rock if the word rock did not exist but 'two' rocks would be two rocks regardless of the language.

Yes, thank you.
What I meant by my question was that what is next on the list of refutation. Like, do you think polytheism is more logical than monotheism?

Are you familiar with the Mimamsa school and epeolatry? This is actually a Hindu conception for the ontological basis of god and worship

Are you talking about Purva Mimamsa or Uttara Mimamsa?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yes, thank you.
What I meant by my question was that what is next on the list of refutation. Like, do you think polytheism is more logical than monotheism?

Next in line would be animism but not many people are familiar with this so polytheism comes next because for some moronic reason atheists and anti-theists alike get confused by this. I do not see how honestly.

I personally think that polytheism and monotheism are the same although monotheism i easier for the mind.

Are you talking about Purva Mimamsa or Uttara Mimamsa?

Talking about Purva Mimamsa and not the religious text itself