Why anti-theism is a joke.

[blackout]

If they live on Earth, yes.

Red Apples, Green Apples and Yellow Apples exist only for those who know Red, Green and Yellow. (as Color is concerned)

A color blind person with working taste buds may know "Macintosh" and "Delicious",
and even "Green", by taste.

However in the world of a colorblind person with dead taste buds,
there are only Apples. Big Apples and Little Apples. Firm Apples and Mushy Apples.

 

[McBell]

"It" being....?


Edit: Sorry Mes, but even after going back over the last few of your posts I'm still baffled as to what your point is.

Unless it's "nu uh, yeeeeeeeeeeewww are".

You did not understand my post and simply labeled it as meaningless and empty.

And right after your multiple posts concerning perceived nonsense.

What makes your not understanding my post and simply labeling it empty and meaningless any different than the posts you addressed about the nonsense?

Like I said:

Seems you fell into the same hole you claim others are in...
​

What hole you might be wondering?

---Look at what's being said...
---Stare at the screen in a state of privately embarrassed befuddlement...
---Start searching for some way to dismiss the premise without having to reveal the fact that it went over my head...
...Take a wild guess at what the premise being presented might be saying, with particular emphasis on coming up whatever mis-interpretation is most likely to cause the most retaliatory embarrassment.

Interesting how you would start off this one on one with an assumption on where I was coming from:

Everyone else is falling back on the old "I don't get it so it must be nonsense" maneuver.

One wonders why you would fail to apply the procedure you yourself presented:

---Look at what's being said,...
---Make an attempt to understand what's meant...
---Ask for clarification if you need it...
---And once you think you have a reasonable grasp of the idea being presented, decide for yourself wheter it's valid or not.

Of course, you might have thought you had a reasonable grasp on what was being said, though I fail to understand why you would think that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Red Apples, Green Apples and Yellow Apples exist only for those who know Red, Green and Yellow. (as Color is concerned)

A color blind person with working taste buds may know "Macintosh" and "Delicious",
and even "Green", by taste.

However in the world of a colorblind person with dead taste buds,
there are only Apples. Big Apples and Little Apples. Firm Apples and Mushy Apples.

Like all these arguments, without commonly defined context and definitions, there can be no meaningful argument or discussion. These get so old as everybody is right in their own context - but nobody bothers to reach a contextual understanding before lecturing everybody else that their argument is "correct." They're all correct.

 

[blackout]

As we are subject to our own senses,
as we are subject to every experience of every thing
through the filters of "human being",
there is no purely "objective" experience to be had by us.

There is only the "human experience" to be had.
(by anyone human)

Not that there is anything wrong with this.
The human experience is a truly wonderful thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Subjectivity & objectivity are extremes.
What actually happens is in between, tending towards one or the other.

 

[Quagmire]

You did not understand my post and simply labeled it as meaningless and empty.

And right after your multiple posts concerning perceived nonsense.

What makes your not understanding my post and simply labeling it empty and meaningless any different than the posts you addressed about the nonsense?

Like I said:

Seems you fell into the same hole you claim others are in...
​

What hole you might be wondering?Interesting how you would start off this one on one with an assumption on where I was coming from:One wonders why you would fail to apply the procedure you yourself presented:Of course, you might have thought you had a reasonable grasp on what was being said, though I fail to understand why you would think that.

Ok then, let's backtrack:

As far as I can see, Me Myself, Atanu, and later myself were making the point that there's no way to logically determine objective reality.


Over the course of that, Waitasec asked this:

what are you guys talking about?

Your response was this:

I bet it is one of those things you have to have a belief in something without any compelling evidence for in order to understand.
Or you gotta be possessed.

Now, there was really nothing esoteric or metaphysical about any of this. The fact that our perceptions of reality are subjective is scientific fact.

If I'm understanding their posts correctly, Atanu said it this way:

To me the joke is: When a person while acting as a thinker and doer, preaches falsity of other views while using the powers that he has not created or possesed. When such an individual declares that there is no reality in Self, that there is no consciousness, and that there is no life force.

They declare the objects of mind-sense as real while declaring the very subject as false. They want to become like Buddha, without realising the falsity of objects that Buddha realised and taught.

Me Myself said it this way:

The entire premise of what?

Maybe we are answering in too short for the answers but I got kinda lost.

Someone said that it is unhealthy to believe in something that can´t be proven logically, referring to beleiving in deities.

My answer was that it is imposible to prove the exterior world logically, so according to this person´s reasoning, believing in the exterior world should be unhealthy.

Which is your posture on it?

That being the case (if I'm understanding them correctly), my take on this:

I bet it is one of those things you have to have a belief in something without any compelling evidence for in order to understand.
Or you gotta be possessed.

...Is that you didn't realize that that was what was being said and decided to dismiss it out of hand with a short response couched in a somewhat snarky dig at anyone holding any sort of theistic beliefs.

If that' wasn't your intention, please, feel free to clear that up for me.

 

[Copernicus]

What exactly do you think our job is?

Being a fair referee. When the referee is also an enthusiastic player or cheerleader for one side of a debate, that referee may find it difficult to judge fairly.

There's quite a difference between "provocative remarks" and propaganda. Although I fully realize that focusing on those distinctions runs counter to the interests of the propagandist.

You are the one who is focusing on the distinction. One person's "provocative remark" is another person's "propaganda". I don't find the distinction all that useful.

That's much easier to remember in some cases than in others.

It is still worth trying to remember.

Please give some consideration to the distinction between the terms "think" and "suspect".

Since the two words are synonyms in the context that I used "think" in, I'm quite happy to use the word "suspect".

Thinking leads to an understanding of situations and the people involved. Suspicions, probably more often than not, only serve to cloud the thinking process.

I suspect that you are over-thinking these semantic nuances.

So in your view there are only two sides?

Not at all. I was only talking about two sides.

All an atheist is is someone who doesn't hold a belief in God/Gods/etc.

Let's not go through that tedious debate again. My use of the term "atheist" means "someone who rejects belief in gods". An "anti-theist" is someone who opposes theism.

Have you seen anyone in this thread say or even allude to the idea that that in itself is a bad thing? Or that anyone who doesn't hold a belief in any of the above isn't welcome here solely because they don't?

I have seen people use the term "anti-theist" to describe atheists who behave obnoxiously, not just anyone who happens to take a stand against theism.

No. What people are objecting to in this thread are anti-theists, not athiests.

Not really. They are objecting to people who make arguments against religion that they consider too aggressive or abusive, and they are applying the label "anti-theist" inaccurately to that group of people.

Saying or even suggesting that "atheist" automatically equates to"anti-theist" makes as much sense as saying that a non-Semite is the same thing as an anti-Semite.

If you decide to use the term "Zionist" to refer only to Jews who argue aggressively and obnoxiously, then you are using the term in a bigoted, anti-semitic way. My point is that a lot of "anti-theists" do not deserve to be tarred with the broad brush that they have been in this thread.

To me it seems ridiculously obvious that a lot of people in this thread are purposely clouding the issue by blurring the distinction in order to get the focus off of their behavior and try and make it look as if they're being attacked exclusively for their theological stance.

What seems obvious to you is not at all obvious to me. I can question your motives just as easily. This is about attacking a class of people, not their arguments.

The distinction between atheist and anti-theist has been made over and over again in this thread by people who are actually trying to address the topic rather than attempting to do everything they can to avoid addressing it. The people in the later category are inadvertently making a much better case for the OP via demonstration than anyone could ever hope to by explanation.

The distinction that you and others have been making "over and over again" is inaccurate. There are anti-theists who are abusive and overly aggressive, but that generalization cannot be applied to everyone who happens to oppose theism.

Even so, if it'll help make things clearer, I think I'll be using the term "Religophobe" from now on.

If it makes you feel better to apply labels like that to people, I'm sure you will continue to do it. I don't think it is necessary.

 

[Quagmire]

Being a fair referee. When the referee is also an enthusiastic player or cheerleader for one side of a debate, that referee may find it difficult to judge fairly.

Unless the referee is primarily enthusiastic about fairness. It's really a moot point anyway given that everything staff does here is done by the consensus of a group of people intentionally chosen from as wide an array of beliefs and perspectives as possible.

I suspect that what your attempting to do here is just a more sophisticated version of the the ever popular "Well, you're wrong but I guess I better shut up because you're staff and I don't want to get in trouble" tactic sometimes used by people in here when they feel they're losing ground in a debate against a staff member.

Just a suspicion mind you.

You are the one who is focusing on the distinction.

Yes, I am. Personally, I think any honest person would.

One person's "provocative remark" is another person's "propaganda". I don't find the distinction all that useful.

So if someone presents something in an intentionally misleading manner, you don't see any difference in declaring it a "provocative statement" or just calling it "propaganda"?

It is still worth trying to remember.

I'll try and remember that.

Since the two words are synonyms in the context that I used "think" in, I'm quite happy to use the word "suspect".

Good. That makes things a bit clearer.

I suspect that you are over-thinking these semantic nuances.

I suspect that you are intentionally ignoring them.

Not at all. I was only talking about two sides.

Yes, and as if they were in fact the only two.

Let's not go through that tedious debate again. My use of the term "atheist" means "someone who rejects belief in gods". An "anti-theist" is someone who opposes theism.

Yes, there's no argument about that. The problem seems to be that we have different ideas about what qualifies as fair, intelligent, and honest opposition (as opposed to mindless bashing or propagandizing I mean).

I have seen people use the term "anti-theist" to describe atheists who behave obnoxiously, not just anyone who happens to take a stand against theism.

Yes, I thought it's been made clear that the obnoxious one's were the focus of this debate.

In any case, no worries. Like I said, in the future I'll be using "religiphobe" to indicate the kind of people I'm talking about.

Not really. They are objecting to people who make arguments against religion that they consider too aggressive or abusive, and they are applying the label "anti-theist" inaccurately to that group of people.

Well, if anyone else wants to borrow my new term, I'll be flattered, and we wont have this problem.

What seems obvious to you is not at all obvious to me.

That's obvious to me.

I can question your motives just as easily.

which doesn't necessarily qualify them as questionable.

This is about attacking a class of people, not their arguments.

If the people I'm talking about had more class, we wouldn't be having this argument.

The distinction that you and others have been making "over and over again" is inaccurate. There are anti-theists who are abusive and overly aggressive, but that generalization cannot be applied to everyone who happens to oppose theism.

If it makes you feel better to apply labels like that to people, I'm sure you will continue to do it. I don't think it is necessary.

Well, we have to call them something.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. To me, it seems like he's speaking in purely pragmatic terms:
(and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your meaning here, Me Myself, but I wanted to give it a shot):


There's absolutely no way for a being that's reliant on sensory perception to experience reality directly. All we have access to are the interpretations of reality our senses provide us with. We already know that what our brains tell us we're seeing isn't what we're actually looking at:

---our brains via our eyes tell us that we see an apple, and that that apple is in a state of status (that is: to our direct perception, discounting any external influence, that apple is stable and unchanging). What we're actually looking at is a collection of molecules in a constant state of flux.

We don't need to know any of that. For our purposes all we need to "know" is that it's an apple.

From a pragmatic perspective we can prove that the apple is in fact an apple by taking a bite out of it. Our eyes interpret the light refracting off the surface of this collection of molecules and tell us that it is in fact and apple and that it's red. Our sense of touch tells us that it has the weight and feel of an apple. Our sense of taste tells us that it tastes like an apple.

For our purposes, this is close enough to absolute proof. Our subjective, sensory experience confirms all this for us. This isn't absolute proof by any means but for our purposes it's close enough.

But, eliminating subjective experience, subjective perceptions, subjective "proof", and approaching the subject logically, how would you go about proving, logically, that:

---this is an apple and that it is red?

---that it has weight and mass?

---that it does in fact taste like an apple?


You can't, because none of the above is true objectively, only subjectively.

So when Me Myself said this:

He has a good point.

You understood what I meant completely. Thanks for the unasked clarification

 

[Quagmire]

Just a note, when I said this:

I'm becoming convinced it was also so that the open-minded would get the message and everybody else would just sit there and go "OH! Pretty!" and leave it at that.

I wasn't calling anyone stupid, just saying I thought they were being a bit closed-minded in this instance.

 

[blackout]

Originally Posted by Copernicus
The distinction that you and others have been making "over and over again" is inaccurate. There are anti-theists who are abusive and overly aggressive, but that generalization cannot be applied to everyone who happens to oppose theism.

If it makes you feel better to apply labels like that to people, I'm sure you will continue to do it. I don't think it is necessary.

The ironic thing here though is that by labeling oneSelf anti-theist,
one must necessarily make broad, unknown and innacurate generalizations about theists.
(in order to be anti "all of them")

This was the whole point of my posts a few pages back.
(regarding my own unconventional experience/style/understanding of theism)
#308, #309, #310

You cannot, with integrity, "anti" things you know nothing of.
It can of course be done disingenuosly, or out of ignorance,
but that does not make the generalizations "so".

How can you oppose theisms you know nothing about,
and moreso,
that do not fit your pre-concieved and generalized
mold/s, models and notions of theism?

How many of your anti's stand on a foundation of inaccuracies alone?

The highlighted and underlined words of your quoted post up above,
might just as well have been typed
from me to you.

 

[Copernicus]

The ironic thing here though is that by labeling oneSelf anti-theist, one must necessarily make broad, unknown and innacurate generalizations about theists. (in order to be anti "all of them")

Not all generalizations are wrong just because they are general. Not all anti-theists are obnoxious and unfair, but some certainly are. To assume that all anti-theists are obnoxious because some are is a "sweeping generalization" or "hasty generalization" fallacy. Opposition to a point of view or philosophy does not necessarily imply that one need oppose it in an obnoxious manner. One can have perfectly reasonable objections to theism (or atheism) and oppose it on those grounds.

You cannot, with integrity, "anti" things you know nothing of. It can of course be done disingenuosly, or out of ignorance, but that does not make the generalizations "so".

I do not think that my opposition to theism is based on ignorance of theism, but you are welcome to explain why you think it is. I haven't seen any such explanation from you before.

 

[MataM]

In the following quote I think you’ll find it is not me that uses a thesaurus

the word you are looking for is "anthromorphism": giving things human properties.

.

Thus one of my pieces of logic which define all of my posts, In the confides of reality there is always a realistic solution, It just takes time.

Thus theism is a quick answer with a severe deficiency of information.

I think you’ll find you just disproved theism as well as if it is just the wording which personifies internal attributes and gives human like qualities to the unknown then it is just but wording, as surely we may have different wording but view reality the same way?

Have a nice day.

 

[Copernicus]

Unless the referee is primarily enthusiastic about fairness. It's really a moot point anyway given that everything staff does here is done by the consensus of a group of people intentionally chosen from as wide an array of beliefs and perspectives as possible.

I have not criticized the moderation of this board, which I consider to be among the best I have experienced. (Well, you haven't banned me yet, anyway. ) I do think that your posting style is accurately reflected by your avatar. That is, you tend to like aggressive and provocative interchanges, and I find it hard to believe that your attitude does not cloud your judgment sometimes. I could be wrong, of course. Obviously, I don't know what goes on inside your head. I suspect that you would be a lot friendlier in person, and I really try not to take your insults personally. Just a suspicion, mind you.

I suspect that what your attempting to do here is just a more sophisticated version of the the ever popular "Well, you're wrong but I guess I better shut up because you're staff and I don't want to get in trouble" tactic sometimes used by people in here when they feel they're losing ground in a debate against a staff member.

I have no intention of shutting up because you are a staff member, and I am not surprised that you gain ground in every debate in which you are both an active participant and the judge of who is winning.

So if someone presents something in an intentionally misleading manner, you don't see any difference in declaring it a "provocative statement" or just calling it "propaganda"?

I don't find the distinction between "provocative statement" and "propaganda" relevant, interesting, or informative in this discussion. Obviously, you do.

Yes, there's no argument about that. The problem seems to be that we have different ideas about what qualifies as fair, intelligent, and honest opposition (as opposed to mindless bashing or propagandizing I mean).

I agree.

Yes, I thought it's been made clear that the obnoxious one's were the focus of this debate.

You did, and I objected on the grounds that you were unfairly tarring all anti-theists with the same brush. While some may be obnoxious, unfair, inaccurate, and just plain lousy people, not all of them are. To insist on applying the label "anti-theist" to just people who oppose theism in an obnoxious manner is to stigmatize everyone who opposes theism, no matter what their behavior or attitude. I felt it reasonable to call you on that point.

In any case, no worries. Like I said, in the future I'll be using "religiphobe" to indicate the kind of people I'm talking about.

Fine. I do not see such labels as helpful in these debate forums. All you are doing is trying to drum up anger against a class of people whose philosophical position on theism you disagree with.

Well, if anyone else wants to borrow my new term, I'll be flattered, and we wont have this problem.

This underscores a point I made earlier. You are a respected administrator of this board, yet you promote prejudicial behavior towards a class of people who oppose theism. Maybe you don't intend to do that, but you give others a somewhat official green light to stigmatize anti-theists.

If the people I'm talking about had more class, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Your sword cuts both ways on this one.

Well, we have to call them something.

No, we do not.

 

[Breathe]

Thus theism is a quick answer with a severe deficiency of information.

Heh, no.

I think you’ll find you just disproved theism as well as if it is just the wording which personifies internal attributes and gives human like qualities to the unknown then it is just but wording, as surely we may have different wording but view reality the same way?

Heh, no.

Anthromorphism =/= Theism
Anthromorphism = Giving something human characteristics which lacks them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have not criticized the moderation of this board, which I consider to be among the best I have experienced.

I think Quag identified why the moderation is good, in that the cooperation of diverse mods yields a superior result. Certainly, each mod has his/her/its
strengths & weaknesses, as do we posters. And unlike some places, mods may post without the restrictions often imposed by being one. We even get to
see that some are complete louts & jerks (not Quaggie, of course....must avoid banning & poofing) at times. It's unavoidable to have one's agenda, likes
& dislikes influence moderation, but our system accommodates this reality. (I say "our", since Revoltistan has conquered a portion of RF.)

I do not see such labels as helpful in these debate forums. All you are doing is trying to drum up anger against a class of people whose philosophical position on theism you disagree with.

Labels are often the bringer of death to discussion. Consider how often the weaponized word "homophobe" is thrown around for the purpose of discrediting
another poster. Tis not enuf to believe that the other guy deserves to be discredited, for this thwarts civil discourse, which is the purpose of being here.
(Moreover, the word is loaded with "phobia", an irrational fear, as its root, yet it's applied to anyone who would merely dislike or disagree.) Let labels be
applied with accuracy (or mirth) for the purpose of advancing understanding & perhaps even friendship.

 

[blackout]

Not all generalizations are wrong just because they are general. Not all anti-theists are obnoxious and unfair, but some certainly are. To assume that all anti-theists are obnoxious because some are is a "sweeping generalization" or "hasty generalization" fallacy. Opposition to a point of view or philosophy does not necessarily imply that one need oppose it in an obnoxious manner. One can have perfectly reasonable objections to theism (or atheism) and oppose it on those grounds.


I do not think that my opposition to theism is based on ignorance of theism, but you are welcome to explain why you think it is. I haven't seen any such explanation from you before.

There IS no "point of view" or "philosophy" that all theists hold.

This would be(an example of) a sweeping generalization.

Since "theist" does not encompass any particular view point or philosophy
or understanding or kind of belief,
you would need to be more specific about this (all encompassing)
"theist"(theism) you are anti.
If you can somehow show me that EVERY theist is "this" or "that",
and that you are particularly anti "this" or "that"
any additional lack of knowledge and understanding
regarding people's unique and differing "theisms"
would not matter. (for the sake of this discussion- anti-theism)

Perhaps you could be more specific about exactly what it is you are anti.

 

[atanu]

You did, and I objected on the grounds that you were unfairly tarring all anti-theists with the same brush. While some may be obnoxious, unfair, inaccurate, and just plain lousy people, not all of them are.

I think it is unfair. There has been no tarring all with same brush but some posts that came up -- as if on their own-- were duly pointed out as examples.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm still waiting for the punch-line.

 

[Quagmire]

I have not criticized the moderation of this board, which I consider to be among the best I have experienced. (Well, you haven't banned me yet, anyway. ) I do think that your posting style is accurately reflected by your avatar. That is, you tend to like aggressive and provocative interchanges, and I find it hard to believe that your attitude does not cloud your judgment sometimes. I could be wrong, of course. Obviously, I don't know what goes on inside your head. I suspect that you would be a lot friendlier in person, and I really try not to take your insults personally. Just a suspicion, mind you.

If you weren't taking them personally you wouldn't be so quick to label them "insults".

I have no intention of shutting up because you are a staff member,

Of course not. Pointing to my staff badge and saying anything resembling "well I better shut up" isn't actually an expression of any intention on the part of the pointer to shut up, it's an attempt to get the staff member to shut up. Doesn't usually work though.

and I am not surprised that you gain ground in every debate in which you are both an active participant and the judge of who is winning.

The "judge of who is winning"? What are you talking about? Are you implying that it's the staff's job to decide who "wins" the debates?

The staff's job is to enforce he rules and do whatever we can to keep things running in line with the mission statement.

Do you see us coming into debates and saying "OK, so and so won. Debates over"?

Like I said: not our job.

If you see me gaining ground, there must be another reason.

I don't find the distinction between "provocative statement" and "propaganda" relevant,

I know you don't. that's the problem.

interesting, or informative in this discussion. Obviously, you do.

Yes. I find your refusal to acknowledge any distinction between the two quite interesting.

I agree.

You did, and I objected on the grounds that you were unfairly tarring all anti-theists with the same brush.

Show me where I've been doing that (or is this another "suspicion" of yours?)

While some may be obnoxious, unfair, inaccurate, and just plain lousy people, not all of them are.

Never implied that they were. This is why I've been going out of my way to make the distinction by:

---giving descriptions.
---providing examples
---engaging some of the people I'm talking about in this thread in order to allow them to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

All of which, in my opinion, presents a much stronger and much more interesting argument than just saying "I suspect".

To insist on applying the label "anti-theist" to just people who oppose theism in an obnoxious manner is to stigmatize everyone who opposes theism, no matter what their behavior or attitude. I felt it reasonable to call you on that point.

Once again, I'll be using "reliophobe" from now on (said that 4 times now) . I don't doubt that you'll be just as personally offended, but you may have to be a little more sly about it when you jump in to accuse me of making unfair generalizations.

Fine. I do not see such labels as helpful in these debate forums.
All you are doing is trying to drum up anger against a class of people whose philosophical position on theism you disagree with.

Again: a person's philosophical or theological position isn't the issue. It's really more an issue of character or lack thereof and the behaviors that go along with it.

Of course, in the same way that any religious propagandist is going to cry persecution of all religious people as the motive when someone exposes them for what they are and what they're doing, an anti-religious propagandist is going to try and paint any objections to what he's doing as persecution of all non-religious people.

Stirring up the masses with a platform of imaginary persecution is the usual defensive strategy of someone who doesn't have what it takes to stand on his own.

This underscores a point I made earlier. You are a respected administrator of this board, yet you promote prejudicial behavior towards a class of people who oppose theism.

Pointing to my staff badge again. OK, not that I think it'll help, but I'll go ahead and outline (once again) the sort of people I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about atheists, I'm talking about:

---propagandists
---bullies
---bigots
---fanatics

Anyone who doesn't fall into one of those categories has nothing to worry about and no reason to be offended.

Maybe you don't intend to do that, but you give others a somewhat official green light to stigmatize anti-theists.

Well hopefully the new term and corresponding description I provided will help put an end to that.

Your sword cuts both ways on this one.

I prefer swords to daggers or poison (or poisoned daggers). Seems more honorable to me.

No, we do not.

You have to call someone something if you want to call them out. Unless you want to spend your life communicating in a lot of passive/aggressive hints and riddles, which many seem to.