Why anti-theism is a joke.

[Quagmire]

I'm still waiting for the punch-line.

To get to the other side.

(and from all the whining, it seems that some of us are. )

 

[Copernicus]

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

Theism is the belief that one or more gods exist, by definition. I have always taken the position that theism per se is doctrine-neutral, although most theists do believe in some specific religious doctrine.

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

You are setting up a straw man. I have not taken the position that you are attributing to me. When I oppose theism, I am talking about opposition to theism--belief in gods. There is nothing inherently wrong or abusive in being opposed to belief in gods. I do not consider theism to be a correct belief, and I do think that maintenance of belief in gods teaches people to suspend critical thinking. That is, it ultimately does more harm than good.

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

I hope that I have done that to your satisfaction.

 

[Quagmire]

Theism is the belief that one or more gods exist, by definition. I have always taken the position that theism per se is doctrine-neutral, although most theists do believe in some specific religious doctrine.

You are setting up a straw man. I have not taken the position that you are attributing to me. When I oppose theism, I am talking about opposition to theism--belief in gods. There is nothing inherently wrong or abusive in being opposed to belief in gods.

And yet you seem to feel free to assign a pro-religious, anti-atheist bias to any theist who disagrees with you.

I'd call that a bit of a generalization, wouldn't you?

 

[lunamoth]

– This isn’t a fallacy itself, but rather it is a bias that often goes hand-in-hand with or is the underlying basis for a fallacy. It is so common, once attuned to its presence, you cannot go a day without seeing an example of it in action. Have you ever been driving along and someone cuts you off going a hundred miles an hour? Your response is likely: “That person’s a maniac.” Have you ever been in a big hurry–perhaps late for a job interview or rushing home to use the bathroom? Bet you sped a little bit and passed a few other cars along the way. In short, the bias attributes external bases for our own actions but attributes internal ones for the actions of others. The bias often manifests with an ad hominem attack: “Obama’s a communist!” (Wikipedia)

Source: Fallacy « Back at Beck

 

[Copernicus]

And yet you seem to feel free to assign a pro-religious, anti-atheist bias to any theist who disagrees with you.

I'd call that a bit of a generalization, wouldn't you?

It would be if that is what I had done, but it wasn't. Once again you put words in my mouth and argue against a straw man. Just because I consider you to have a pro-religious, anti-atheist bias, that does not mean that I attribute the same attitude to any theist who disagrees with me. If you want an example of a hasty generalization, you may consider your response to me a classic.

 

[atanu]

It would be if that is what I had done, but it wasn't. Once again you put words in my mouth and argue against a straw man. Just because I consider you to have a pro-religious, anti-atheist bias, that does not mean that I attribute the same attitude to any theist who disagrees with me. If you want an example of a hasty generalization, you may consider your response to me a classic.

But your posts show generalization and lack of willingness to take all data unlike atheists who do so.

How do you like that statement?

 

[Copernicus]

But your posts show generalization and lack of willingness to take all data unlike atheists who do so.

How do you like that statement?

I find it ungrammatical and a bit hard to understand, atanu. Can you make it clearer and perhaps give an example of how you think your criticism applies?

 

[lunamoth]

It would be if that is what I had done, but it wasn't. Once again you put words in my mouth and argue against a straw man. Just because I consider you to have a pro-religious, anti-atheist bias, that does not mean that I attribute the same attitude to any theist who disagrees with me. If you want an example of a hasty generalization, you may consider your response to me a classic.

You have totally missed the point.

 

[Quagmire]

It would be if that is what I had done, but it wasn't. Once again you put words in my mouth

No, just recalling your own words. I don't think I've ever gotten into a single debate with you where you haven't alluded to my "bias" at least once.

I've asked you for a little clarification on what you perceive the specific nature of my biases to be and up until now you've never even acknowledged the request.

But (finally)...

and argue against a straw man. Just because I consider you to have a pro-religious, anti-atheist bias, that does not mean that I attribute the same attitude to any theist who disagrees with me.

I don't belong to any religion. I'm an a-religious theist. Anyone who's bothered to read even a few of my posts in here would have gotten that by now.

Also, probably half (or more) of my friends in here are atheist, and I'm sure any one of them (or anyone else in here who's been paying even a little attention over the years) will tell you that I'm just as quick to call a religious propagandist/troll/etc on their crap as I am an anti-religious propagandist/troll/etc.

There's no doubt in my mind that the reason you've been ignoring any requests I've made for clarification about these alledged biases of mine is because you realized, at least on some level, that doing so would expose them as baseless.

Your accusations are based on convenience rather than conviction.

If you want an example of a hasty generalization, you may consider your response to me a classic.

Not hasty at all, I've been studying you intently for a while now.

People like you fascinate me.

 

[atanu]

I find it ungrammatical and a bit hard to understand, atanu. Can you make it clearer and perhaps give an example of how you think your criticism applies?

Is it because of my poor grammar or is it because of your lack of willingness to acknowledge that the criticism is of generalisations exemplified in some of the posts in this thread?

 

[waitasec]

But your posts show generalization and lack of willingness to take all data unlike atheists who do so.

How do you like that statement?

if i may interject here atanu...
this is what i understand you saying:
your posts show generalization and no willingness to take all data as all atheists do...in other words
Copernicus is a non typical atheist.

is that what you meant by this statement?

 

[atanu]

if i may interject here atanu...
this is what i understand you saying:
your posts show generalization and no willingness to take all data as all atheists do...in other words
Copernicus is a non typical atheist.

is that what you meant by this statement?

It was a sarcasm. My haste and poor english skill possibly contributed to the confusion.

I meant that if Copernicus was impartial, how would he judge a statement such as: theists only generalize and are not willing or are not capable of taking all data into consideration as atheists do.

Copernicus being impartial is of course a sweet impossiblity:yes: I say sweet because Copernicus is sweet the way he is.

 

[Copernicus]

I meant that if Copernicus was impartial, how would he judge a statement such as: theists only generalize and are not willing or are not capable of taking all data into consideration as atheists do.

Copernicus being impartial is of course a sweet impossiblity:yes: I say sweet because Copernicus is sweet the way he is.

Atanu, you leave me puzzled. Have I ever claimed to be impartial in these debates? Indeed, in what post did I say "theists only generalize and are not willing or are not capable of taking all data into consideration as atheists do"? Not only did I never say this, but it is something that I never would say. I have never tried to hide my biases, but your paraphrases of my opinions do me no justice.

 

[Copernicus]

You have totally missed the point.

Perhaps you are right, but a bare statement of this sort is unhelpful to me. Please describe the point that you think I missed so that I can understand your comment.

 

[waitasec]

i have been on this forum for over a year and i have always found Copernicus to be fair and one who wouldn't say something for the sake of saying something. His words are always deliberate and thoughtful... and i have never come across any post of his as sarcastic or mean spirited. as far as i am concerned i think Copernicus should be a moderator because he has shown an even keel and has proven himself exemplary.

 

[atanu]

Atanu, you leave me puzzled. Have I ever claimed to be impartial in these debates? Indeed, in what post did I say "theists only generalize and are not willing or are not capable of taking all data into consideration as atheists do"? Not only did I never say this, but it is something that I never would say. I have never tried to hide my biases, but your paraphrases of my opinions do me no justice.

I did not say that you said that. I asked what you would have to say about that kind of statement if you were another -- say a person who was neither an atheist nor a theist.

Do you get me?

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Waitasec, but now I have to try to live up to the kind things you said.

I did not say that you said that. I asked what you would have to say about that kind of statement if you were another -- say a person who was neither an atheist nor a theist.

Do you get me?

I'm not sure that I do, but I would consider that statement a sweeping generalization.

 

[atanu]

I did not say that you said that. I asked what you would have to say about that kind of statement if you were another -- say a person who was neither an atheist nor a theist.

Do you get me?

I'm not sure that I do, but I would consider that statement a sweeping generalization.

What? I asked you what your opinion would be. Asking you your opinion is a sweeping generalisation?

Okay. As you wish.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Slow down there. YOU attributed the following attitude to me: "Well, you're wrong but I guess I better shut up because you're staff and I don't want to get in trouble". Those were YOUR words. I said: "I have no intention of shutting up because you are a staff member" in reaction to YOUR characterization of me. Then you accuse me of pointing to your staff badge and saying that I had better shut up. This stuff is coming from you, not me.

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?

After your claim that I was intimidated by your staff status, you called my alleged attitude a "tactic sometimes used by people in here when they feel they're losing ground in a debate against a staff member." I did not feel I was "losing ground" to you. That was YOU speaking as a self-appointed judge of your debate with me.

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.

It takes my breath away sometimes just to watch how you make stuff up about me and then go on as if I had actually said it despite my attempts to correct your mischaracterizations. Are you even aware that you do this? You don't respond to what I say. You put words in my mouth and then act as if I had said them.

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

We could go back to your first post in this thread and debate your subsequent exchanges, but I doubt that you would see them in the same light that I do. Let's try to debate the topic and not the attitudes of debaters. My consistent position has been that the label "anti-theist" is prejudicial and inaccurate usage. You load up the label with a lot of negative baggage about how bad "anti-theists" are, and then you hang it on individuals who may or may not fit into your stereotype. Substituting the term "religiophobe" doesn't help. We could also start using the term "atheophobe" in a similar manner. In the end, it is just namecalling, not useful discussion.

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.

Well, this is the heart of the problem, IMO. You really do think it worthwhile to attack people's characters rather than their arguments. You encourage ad hominem attacks, and that really is something that moderators ought to avoid. We could have a nice, lengthy debate on which of us is the worse character. My fear is that anyone with the stomach to follow it would come away with the impression that both sides had made excellent points.

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.

I strongly disagree with this. Whether someone deserves to have such labels applied is really irrelevant to a debate, and it frequently just starts flame wars. I'm surprised that you don't get this.

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

It won't. Inventing a different label to stigmatize someone with just invites more angry responses. It is unnecessary and counterproductive. You aren't going to cure people of bad behavior by putting labels on them.

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.

What I see is the problem here is your feeling that you need to "call them out". You seem less interested in debating issues than working off your aggressive feelings.

I don't belong to any religion. I'm an a-religious theist. Anyone who's bothered to read even a few of my posts in here would have gotten that by now.

How is that relevant to what I said? I don't care whether you self-identify with any particular religion. You still seem to get pretty angry at people who disagree with your religious opinions.

Also, probably half (or more) of my friends in here are atheist, and I'm sure any one of them (or anyone else in here who's been paying even a little attention over the years) will tell you that I'm just as quick to call a religious propagandist/troll/etc on their crap as I am an anti-religious propagandist/troll/etc.

OK, your friends know you better than I do. Perhaps I have gotten the wrong impression. I'm glad that you have friends who are atheists. I'm not really condemning you here. I just think that your desire to "call people out" for their character flaws is counterproductive.

There's no doubt in my mind that the reason you've been ignoring any requests I've made for clarification about these alledged biases of mine is because you realized, at least on some level, that doing so would expose them as baseless.

I'm not sure what you expect here. I don't see the point of me trying to go back and mine your posts for quotes to back up a claim that you are biased. In fact, bias isn't the problem. We are all biased in some ways. I think that the problem is a tendency to prefer ad hominem attacks over issue-oriented debates. Personally, I "suspect" that you are as decent a fellow as anyone else here.

Not hasty at all, I've been studying you intently for a while now. People like you fascinate me.

You've got your eye on me, eh? I don't know what you mean by the expression "people like you", but I'm not surprised that you would have a category of people to put me in.

 

[Copernicus]

What? I asked you what your opinion would be. Asking you your opinion is a sweeping generalisation?

Okay. As you wish.

Atanu, back up and reread what I said. I did not say that asking me an opinion was a sweeping generalization. I said that the statement you asked my opinion about was a sweeping generalization. In other words, I was giving you my opinion of it.