Why anti-theism is a joke.

[Quagmire]

who's making it a contest...

LOL! You don't even read your own posts, do you. At this point I can't blame you.

it doesn't come out from no where...
it depends on the situation...sure there are jerks...on both sides of the coin.
why are you making this all one sided? are all theist angels...? don't think so.

Apparently you haven't been reading my posts either.

if they don't subscribe to that behavior why should they?
i'm a cuban, should i get up set at how cubans are portrayed in the movie scare face?

and if someone in here said "All Cubans are gangsters and drug addicts...." you would be OK with that?

yup

Ah, so you know that, you just choose to ignore it.

you're making this far more difficult than what it should be.

I'm making it difficult for you to dance around the question (although you still are). :yes:

i mean contrary to or in opposition of....
do you consider vocalizing an opposing opinion throwing bricks through a window...

No. do you consider throwing bricks through someone's window the same as passively objecting to someone's opinions?

how about people knocking on your door or calling you on the phone or approaching you at starbucks when you're enjoying a cappuccino telling you your world view is wrong

How about telling those people to **** off instead of smiling and nodding at them and then coming in here and telling religious people who haven't done any of those things to you to **** off?

...would you consider that throwing bricks through a window?

I gave you the "something in between" option. You're ignoring it just like you're ignoring the point I was trying to make.

again it depends on the situation, wouldn't it?
and i always alluded to the fact the theists that are giving other theists a bad wrap are the conservative right wingers..

Don't know if you've started doing that lately, I haven't read many of your posts, but I know you never did that before.

I know I wont get a straight answer to this, because I'm asking you, but if you're not making insulting, blanket statements about theists and religious people (anymore) then why do you think this thread is about you? Why are you even bothering with it? what is it you're taking offense at exactly?

Again, at this point, I'll consider all my questions to you rhetorical. Makes not getting a straight answer less frustrating.

remember 2/3 of the entire population is either christian or islamic
and their record hasn't been so perrdy.

And again: in your mind that means it's OK to troll all religious people.

the question hasn't been answered, sorry...

The questions been answered repeatedly. I'm sure if I answer it again you'll just ask it again.

I remember this game, I used to play it myself. Then I turned 8....

i have and i do not see what you see, so if you want to back up what you're saying it's up to you to point it out...and thus far you haven't....so i am to think that you got nothing...in other words, prove it
:beach:

You mean "Make me look at something I don't want to see", which at this point I realize would be impossible. Like I said, I'm about done with you. Your unwillingness or inability to be honest with yourself is an impenetrable defense and a complete waste of time.

 

[waitasec]

and if someone in here said "All Cubans are gangsters and drug addicts...." you would be OK with that?

it wouldn't bother me because i know it isn't true...
there is empirical evidence that would prove them wrong...

No. do you consider throwing bricks through someone's window the same as passively objecting to someone's opinions?

no.

How about telling those people to **** off instead of smiling and nodding at them and then coming in here and telling religious people who haven't done any of those things to you to **** off?

edit:
i don't do that.

oh i see.
isn't this forum set up to have discussions and disagreements?
isn't this a place to exchange ideas?
i have more respect for others than you think...and thus far you haven't proven anything as far as my behavior is concerned pal...
you on the other hand are being rude.

I gave you the "something in between" option. You're ignoring it just like you're ignoring the point I was trying to make.

no the difference is that in this forum everyone who is on a debating section
has glass houses so to speak...
if i'm minding my own business and someone approaches me they basically threw a brick window by offending me...get it.

Don't know if you've started doing that lately, I haven't read many of your posts, but I know you never did that before.

here this was between me and you...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2490422-post34.html

I know I wont get a straight answer to this, because I'm asking you, but if you're not making insulting, blanket statements about theists and religious people (anymore) then why do you think this thread is about you? Why are you even bothering with it? what is it you're taking offense at exactly?

on this forum there are ideas that are in opposition and when someone said anti theism is hatred, i had to point out that theism has had a hand in hatred too..it all depends on the person. just because i am caucasian doesn't make me a racist..do you see how far back goal posts move when making such a statement? so as an non theist...my nature is anti theist and i do no such things as throwing bricks...

And again: in your mind that means it's OK to troll all religious people.

no. that isn't what i said. stop putting words in my mouth...

The questions been answered repeatedly. I'm sure if I answer it again you'll just ask it again.

you keep changing your mind....

I remember this game, I used to play it myself. Then I turned 8....

if you look at the discourse between you an i, it is plain to see who is being the bully here...

You mean "Make me look at something I don't want to see", which at this point I realize would be impossible. Like I said, I'm about done with you. Your unwillingness or inability to be honest with yourself is an impenetrable defense and a complete waste of time.

whatever...you admitted you don't read my posts so i'm curious as to how you can come up with this lie...
so are you a liar? sure looks like it...at first i thought we had a mis understanding but now i know you are intentionally misrepresenting me...
nice job... captain.

 

[Quagmire]

In post 106, I said:
Originally, Quagmire said that the OP might not be about me,

Not exactly: you said:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...anti-theism-joke-post2490362.html#post2490362

I'm happy to carry on a religious debate with those who wish to, but I have no desire to impose my religious opinions on others.

I responded:

Then you aren't one of the people the OP is talking about.

I was giving you the benefit of a doubt here. Doesn't necessarily mean I agreed with you.


http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...anti-theism-joke-post2490362.html#post2490362

but he then defined "antitheist" as someone who was opposed to theism in principle. I thought that a good definition and that it meant that the OP was describing someone like me. But Quagmire changed his definition after that to be someone who did not just oppose theism in principle, but did so in an aggressive or unfair manner.

Also not true: I said this, in the same post, one line following the other:

For the sake of this debate, I'm using it to refer to anyone whose opposed to religion/theism in principle.

Putting aside the debate of whether or not this is ever a valid stance, what is someone whose aggressively anti-religion/theism doing in a place whose stated purpose is this?:

It was a clarification, not a contradiction.

 

[Quagmire]

it wouldn't bother me because i know it isn't true...
there is empirical evidence that would prove them wrong...

Bull.

no.

Then why are you acting like you do?

oh i see.
isn't this forum set up to have discussions and disagreements?

You consider "**** off" a legitimate debate point?

isn't this a place to exchange ideas?
i have more respect for others than you think...and thus far you haven't proven anything as far as my behavior is concerned pal...

I don't have to, you're doing it for me wonderfully.

you on the other hand are being rude.

I'm being honest. I wouldn't expect you to understnd the difference between those two concepts either.

no the difference is that in this forum everyone who is on a debating section
has glass houses so to speak...
if i'm minding my own business and someone approaches me they basically threw a brick window by offending me...get it.

Get what? Are you trying to say that theists in here have been attacking you? Or have most of your posts in this place so far been a preemptive strike?

here this was between me and you...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2490422-post34.html

What's your point? all you're saying in that post is that you have a beef with certain religious people and that you don't bother to make any distinction between them and all religious people. It's nice you admit that (accident though it obviously was), but it would be better if you tried to understand whats wrong with that.

on this forum there are ideas that are in opposition and when someone said anti theism is hatred, i had to point out that theism has had a hand in hatred too..it all depends on the person. just because i am caucasian doesn't make me a racist..do you see how far back goal posts move when making such a statement? so as an non theist...my nature is anti theist and i do no such things as throwing bricks...

You use vague terms like "going against". Intentionally vague. That way you can claim more innocence than you're entitled to.

no. that isn't what i said. stop putting words in my mouth...

LOL! Of course you didn't say that. You didn't have to. I was just pointing out that that's what everything else you've been saying so far adds up to.

you keep changing your mind....

About....?

Another meaningless statement to get the spotlight off yourself.

if you look at the discourse between you an i, it is plain to see who is being the bully here...

I'm being honest. You're being passive/aggressive (and you're not even very good at it).

Depending on who you're talking to, it's practically impossible to be honest and not come off as rude sometimes.

And at least mine is upfront. :yes:

whatever...you admitted you don't read my posts so i'm curious as to how you can come up with this lie...

I've been reading them over the course of our conversation. I probably wont make that mistake again.

so are you a liar? sure looks like it...at first i thought we had a mis understanding but now i know you are intentionally misrepresenting me...
nice job... captain.

Trying to get some people to be honest with themselves is the surest way to get them to label you a liar. Almost inevitable.

 

[waitasec]

Bull.



Then why are you acting like you do?


You consider "**** off" a legitimate debate point?


I don't have to, you're doing it for me wonderfully.



I'm being honest. I wouldn't expect you to understnd the difference between those two concepts either.


Get what? Are you trying to say that theists in here have been attacking you? Or have most of your posts in this place so far been a preemptive strike?



What's your point? all you're saying in that post is that you have a beef with certain religious people and that you don't bother to make any distinction between them and all religious people. It's nice you admit that (accident though it obviously was), but it would be better if you tried to understand whats wrong with that.



You use vague terms like "going against". Intentionally vague. That way you can claim more innocence than you're entitled to.




LOL! Of course you didn't say that. You didn't have to. I was just pointing out that that's what everything else you've been saying so far adds up to.




About....?

Another meaningless statement to get the spotlight off yourself.




I'm being honest. You're being passive/aggressive (and you're not even very good at it).

Depending on who you're talking to, it's practically impossible to be honest and not come off as rude sometimes.

And at least mine is upfront. :yes:



I've been reading them over the course of our conversation. I probably wont make that mistake again.



Trying to get some people to be honest with themselves is the surest way to get them to label you a liar. Almost inevitable.

so i guess in your world fred phelps is the poster boy for theism...

excellent work!

 

[Willamena]

I'm being honest. I wouldn't expect you to understnd the difference between those two concepts either.

oh oh I know which one that is.

 

[smidjit]

God has made it up to the present without being wiped out by previous ideologies. I don't suppose he's going anywhere soon.

 

[waitasec]

anti theism is not an action it is a world view as is theism
actively being opposed to theism is speaking your mind about what you think about it
the way one acts has nothing to do with their world view it has to do with their character...other wise as i pointed out to quagmire, fred phelps would be a poster child for theism...
so far there have been jerks and decent people on both sides of the coin which doesn't set theism a part from anything...it's just another justification for good and for bad.

it's no wonder why there are threads with the title "where do atheists get their morals from" with this type of mindset... especially when one considers all the evil that has been done in the name of religion...so why is the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Willamena]

So instead of looking at only a very small sample under the microscope, why not broaden your horizens and look at everything us humans have to offer? I promise you will find different reasons, but similar ends for any cause you look for.

Amen.

 

[Quagmire]

so i guess in your world fred phelps is the poster boy for theism...

excellent work!

LOL! Not even going to ask you what you're basing this on. I've decided I'm better off not understanding how your mind works.

 

[waitasec]

LOL! Not even going to ask you what you're basing this on. I've decided I'm better off not understanding how your mind works.

i'm basing that off of your over generalized posts...

 

[kepha31]

I remember a time when I learned a great deal about many religions from this site. Some religions I liked less the more I learned about them, and some I thought were fascinating.
But it seems as if for now a new crowd has the spotlight now, and this crowd seems to eager to criticize religion as a whole.

Yes, and with evangelical fervor. The Godless Delusion — The Curt Jester

I've noticed many hear love to question religion and criticize it. And I will say some beliefs need questioned and criticized. One that sticks out like a sore thumb is a global flood. There simply is no evidence to suggest such a thing. Or the earth being six to ten thousand years old. It just is not so.

Agreed. This is a very long article, but a scroll to the last paragraph or two says it all. It's written by a Calvinist geologist.
History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

But what it wear that a God created the universe, and decided to leave it at that and see what happens? Or perhaps as Family Guy suggested (or joked rather) than God light a fart on fire to cause the big bang? How do we even really know the big bang happened?
You may say there is a such thing as peer review, but look at the horrors that has produced. Hitler had many who approved of his tactics. Da Vinci had very little support (from the scientific community) during his day.

He had "little support" (from the scientific community) because he did not publish his works. I might add he was a devout Catholic.

Leonardo is revered[2] for his technological ingenuity. He conceptualised a helicopter, a tank, concentrated solar power, a calculator,[5] the double hull and outlined a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics. Relatively few of his designs were constructed or were even feasible during his lifetime,[nb 3] but some of his smaller inventions, such as an automated bobbin winder and a machine for testing the tensile strength of wire, entered the world of manufacturing unheralded.[nb 4] He made important discoveries in anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics, but he did not publish his findings and they had no direct influence on later science.[6]
Leonardo da Vinci - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A small group of scientist who agreed produced the atomic bomb, while global climate scientist have been struggling for decades for people to see the urgency of their cries.

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.... We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be."
Pope John Paul II

 

[kepha31]

Sure religion has produced a few ******** who believe they are better than everyone else, but my next door neighbor believes he is better because he has a penis dangling between his legs. But at the same time some people pray to god and find in this mystical force to strength to achieve sobriety. One religion says man shall not wear that which pertains unto a woman, but yet another religion holds a very special place for transsexuals. One religion sacrificed people to appease gods that are more blood-thirsty than vampires, while another simply teaches that marijuana is a gift from god. And then the most active of the American Founding Fathers believed that God did not play an active role in the events of the universe.

Argument #1
Values differ from culture to culture. What is right in one culture is not right for another. Since they differ from culture to culture, we can conclude that values are relative.
Response: This argument assumes what it is supposed to be proving; that is, values differ from culture to culture. It doesn’t. What they differ about is what they think value is or their opinions on values. As I have shown before, opinions can be wrong. If one culture believes that murdering six million Jews is morally right, it doesn’t make it so. Also, if this is true, then how can we condemn the Nazis? If there is no objective standard to apply to, then we ought not to condemn them because it would be meaningless. The only reason why we can condemn some things such as the holocaust is that we presuppose an objective or absolute standard that everyone ought to apply to.
Second, this argument presupposes that one should always obey the culture in which he lives in. If my culture says that slavery is okay, does it make it so? Slavery was once permitted by the Supreme Court in the United States. However, we all know that slavery is wrong. So what made us overturn that decision? The answer is that there is a higher law than the civil law in which the government ought to apply to. This is what we call the natural law or moral law. Morality is not dependent on the government, but the government is dependent on the morality.
Moral Relativism Refuted by Apolonio Latar

So I ask, given that there are some religious views that are very ignorant of what we know (or at least think) to be true, and while some simply cannot be disproven, why attack religion as a whole? It really can't be proven a Deist who believes God does not play an active role is wrong, or an Agnostic who claims we simply cannot know is wrong, and when Stephen Hawking says science does not prove or disprove God, why the need to attack religion at all? Some people are vile people. They don't need religion. They have used race, money, nationality, blonde hair and blue eyes, or really any excuse they can find. And some will be good in the name of religion. Mother Teresa doubted, but would we know of of her many good deeds had it not been for religion? For some people their God, even if imaginary, is the only source of comfort they have at the end of the day.

Imaginary gods don't give comfort. What matters is that one's deity provides what is needed to deal with the trials of life.

As a person, I say religion may do some harm. But in all reality what is 100% free from this? Even marijuana, which many embrace as a harmless drug, is ultimately responsible for various things from nasty allergic reactions to death over drug deals gone wrong.
As an observer I see that religion has done some wrongs, it has done some goods, but today most people just claim (here in America at least) to be Christian and it seems to have a very minimal impact (unless you're looking at Texas.)
As a psychology student I say yes there is some harm. But rather than religion as a whole specifics must be mentioned first, as I know a Priest that simply would not condemn a single soul to Hell (he openly welcomes gays to his church, and he even invited me, as Luciferian and transsexual to diner with his family and made no mentions of God or Salvation), and I know some who condemn anyone who looks at them wrong. There are examples of pastors who believe America is God's country and English is his chosen language, and those who believe we all children of God and in Heaven we will all just simply know what each other is saying.
So instead of criticizing religion, which is a very broad term and no mater how much you wish it could cannot be disproven entirely, why not focus on the real problem which is people? People can be mean, vile, hateful, and vengeful. And people will use anything they can to justify their negativity. It can be religion, or it can be race, wealth, resources, power, nationality, religion, or something very trivial like music or video game preference.
People can be good, people can be bad. We don't have to search long or hard to find instances in which drugs, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, wealth, nationality, or any "insert reason here" is used to justify bigotry, hate, intolerance, or at the same time love, compassion, and unity.
So instead of looking at only a very small sample under the microscope, why not broaden your horizens and look at everything us humans have to offer? I promise you will find different reasons, but similar ends for any cause you look for.

Well said.

 

[Copernicus]

That doesn't give me your understanding of the word, only your objection to mine.

I've also gone one to ask people who disagree to explain why. I'm TRYING to figure out what the hell you mean, and you're not making it very easy.

Sorry, but I thought that I made it clear. My understanding of antitheism is the same as that in Wikipedia and various dictionaries. It refers to an active or outspoken opposition to belief in the existence of God(s). I don't see how you could not have gotten that impression from multiple posts, but I hope I've answered your question to your satisfaction now. Antitheism is neutral with respect to the manner in which a person actively opposes belief in gods.

No. I've said that several times.

OK, I'll take that as your position, but in post 81, you did say:

Anti-theism is not rejection. Anti-theism is not criticism, even when harsh. Anti-theism is hatred.

and

In short, the fact that I label atheistic religious bigotry "anti-theism" does not mean I accept, much less condone bigotry from the other side...

If you no longer label atheistic religious bigotry as "anti-theism", then we are on the same page.

Please accept my most sincere apology. I have never considered you an anti-theist, and insulting you could not be further from my intentions.

I know that. I never took it as an insult. I was just saying that others would form that conclusion because they saw "antitheism" as a more neutral term than you did.

2) It is my honest understanding of the word that bigotry is inherent to anti-theism. If you disagree, pleae take the oppurtunity to educate me. Time out on debate.

It is not just a matter of our disagreement. The dictionary definitions and the Wikipedia entry on that term are incompatible with your interpretation. Bigotry is simply not inherent in the meaning of that word. It is more like the word "theism" in that respect.

3) I do not consider criticism of theism (or any other position) to be intolerant, much less bigoted. I do, however, see a spectrum of disagreement, ranging from "I don't believe this because _______" to "Anyone who believes this is a moron." Obviously, bigotry lies on the far end of the spectrum.

Yes, but "anti-theism" covers the entire spectrum, not just the far end. Should anti-theists consider bigotry to be inherent in theism because some theists make extreme remarks about atheists and call them names? I don't think that you have been able to justify using the label "anti-theist" for just one end of the spectrum of those who actively oppose theism.

 

[Copernicus]

Not exactly: you said:
I responded:
I was giving you the benefit of a doubt here. Doesn't necessarily mean I agreed with you.



Also not true: I said this, in the same post, one line following the other:

It was a clarification, not a contradiction.

Quagmire, thanks for pulling those quotes from previous posts. I do not really see how they contradict what I said. You did imply that I might not be the "antitheist" referred to in the OP (i.e. it was conditioned on my description of myself as a self-described "antitheist") and you did appear to shift your definition of the term by adding a description of aggressive behavior to it when replying to outhouse in a subsequent post. It appeared to me that you realized that you needed to add something to the definition later on to make your case. I preferred the earlier, more neutral definition. I guess that we just saw all of that discussion from different perspectives. You certainly know what is in your mind better than I do, so I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[Sunstone]

Religion is an enabler. Historically it has enabled both good and evil. To say that the problem is entirely people and has nothing to do with religion is inaccurate.

Inaccurate. It is exactly the same as saying that people have accomplished just as much with a set of tools as they have without a set of tools. Or that people have accomplished just as much with matches as they have without matches.

Such arguments deserve to be dismissed. It is true that it is up to a person with a stick of dynamite how to use her dynamite. It is true she can choose to blow up a tree stump or a school bus. But to assert that because she has a choice, we must therefore conclude she is just as empowered with dynamite as she is without dynamite is confusion and madness.

It is arguments such as that one which cause strong men and women to seek refuge in the psyche wards of hospitals. Whole activist wings of the Republican and Democratic Parties are populated by people driven insane by such arguments as that one. Such arguments can but lead to the downfall of societies, nations, and civilizations. They have even been known to cause adolescents to remain chaste on their prom nights.

 

[Quiddity]

But to assert that because she has a choice, we must therefore conclude she is just as empowered with dynamite as she is without dynamite is confusion and madness.

What dynamite did Mao and Stalin have? I don't know.

Would a non-religious world be less prone to tolerance in it's absence? Perhaps.

A world without religion might be better...but fear and ignorance are difficult obstacles to overcome even without dynamite. If Mao and Stalin is a mere glimpse of a world without religion, then perhaps it's not about getting rid of dynamite. The void will be filled in with something.

I'm certain some would still have to give it w whirl...

 

[Copernicus]

What dynamite did Mao and Stalin have? I don't know.

Would a non-religious world be less prone to tolerance in it's absence? Perhaps.

A world without religion might be better...but fear and ignorance are difficult obstacles to overcome even without dynamite. If Mao and Stalin is a mere glimpse of a world without religion, then perhaps it's not about getting rid of dynamite. The void will be filled in with something.

I'm certain some would still have to give it w whirl...

It's hard to know how a non-religious leader would turn out. We've had good and bad religious leaders. One of the most non-religious was Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Quiddity]

It's hard to know how a non-religious leader would turn out. We've had good and bad religious leaders. One of the most non-religious was Abraham Lincoln.

I wouldn't consider him an atheist either. At best, he had some contempt toward organized religion, but so do several other religious folks. To that end, he was definately religious or spiritual at the very least.

 

[outhouse]

If Mao and Stalin is a mere glimpse of a world without religion

Ya, well there not.

its was a glimpse of that society in that culture at that time.

It was a reflection of politics, not the lack of religion which in their case would have made no difference at all.