Why anti-theism is a joke.

[Quagmire]

Sorry it came across that way. I assumed it would be quite apparent that if the shoe doesn't fit it can be safely disregarded.

Ah. so if someone said "Atheists are idiots" intelligent atheists shouldn't be offended?

And considering that in my opening remark I was careful to qualify the culprits by identifying them as "actually certain religious people"

In a separate point. You corrected yourself in your next paragraph.

I didn't expect anyone here to have forgotten this point in just two sentences.

Like I said: a separate point.

My mistake in overestimating your reading comprehension.

Looks like you're underestimating everybody else's (as usual).

:sorry1: I'll recalibrate my Expectation scale for you.

That would be nice. Then I wouldn't have to spend most of our conversations letting you know I'm not buying your excuses.

And like I said:

Your prejudice is like the blazing sun, it blinds you to any other possibility.

I'm prejudiced against self-serving, narrow minded people.

And, of course, your hyperbole here is noted and appended to my E-scale. That said, I think were good here.

At least I am until you throw a toaster oven or whatever at me.

Take care.

I notice you didn't even attempt to address any of my points though. Good for you. Have to admire someone who recognizes when they've been shot out of the saddle.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Didn't say it was equivalent, said the attitude was the same.

What was I saying about Elective perception?

Nice robe btw.

Ah, so then you've spent a lot of time with people from the middle ages I assume?

 

[Quagmire]

Ah, so then you've spent a lot of time with people from the middle ages I assume?

Feels that way a lot of the time. :yes:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Feels that way a lot of the time. :yes:

Ha! Now that I can agree with.

 

[Skwim]

Ah. so if someone said "Atheists are idiots" intelligent atheists shouldn't be offended?

Not if you had qualified it beforehand as I did.

In a separate point. You corrected yourself in your next paragraph.

Like I said: a separate point.

And once more your prejudice has you concocting another face saving ploy: I most assuredly must have been mistaken when I took the time to say "actually certain religious people" because when I later felt it unnecessary to repeat the qualification it had to be because deep down I really didn't mean it.

Looks like you're underestimating everybody else's (as usual).

Nope. Just overestimating yours, but don't fear, I have you marked down.

That would be nice. Then I wouldn't have to spend most of our conversations letting you know I'm not buying your excuses.

And that's pretty much what I figured it would take you to say something that simple: most of our conversations.

I'm prejudiced against self-serving, narrow minded people.

Okay, then that's one more thing in addition to what I listed. Any other prejudices you'd like to tell us about?

I notice you didn't even attempt to address any of my points though. Good for you.

And this is a sterling example of what I mean by hyperbole. You say "you didn't even attempt to address any of my points," when it's quite obvious that I did address the point you made about my use of "the religious" and "your people." Obviously reading comprehension isn't the only thing you have difficulty with. Exaggeration seems be a problematic area as well.

Have to admire someone who recognizes when they've been shot out of the saddle.

Hey, ♫ Pick yourself up, Dust yourself off, and ♪ Start all over again.* ♪ ♪






*
Pick Yourself Up
From the film: Swing Time 1936
(Lyrics by: Dorthy Fields / Music by: Jerome Kern)

 

[Quagmire]

Not if you had qualified it beforehand as I did.

And once more your prejudice has you concocting another face saving ploy: I most assuredly must have been mistaken when I took the time to say "actually certain religious people" because when I later felt it unnecessary to repeat the qualification it had to be because deep down I really didn't mean it.

What exactly do you perceive as the nature of my prejudice?

What I'm seeing in your above statement is a lot of denial.

Nope. Just overestimating yours, but don't fear, I have you marked down.

Other than for amusement purposes, your opinion isn't even on the list of things I care about.

And that's pretty much what I figured it would take you to say something that simple: most of our conversations.

No idea what your trying to say here, although I'm pretty sure you understood what I was getting at.

Okay, then that's one more thing in addition to what I listed. Any other prejudices you'd like to tell us about?

Nope, that pretty much covers it. And that's plenty. Where is this "list" you're talking about btw?

And this is a sterling example of what I mean by hyperbole. You say "you didn't even attempt to address any of my points." When it's quite obvious that I did address the point you made about my use of "the religious" and "your people." Obviously reading comprehension isn't the only thing you have difficulty with. Exaggeration seems be a problematic area as well.

LOL! Let it all out big guy.

You want to go off on tangents about incidentals and ignore the crux of what I was saying, I completely understand.

Hey, ♫ Pick yourself up, Dust yourself off, and ♪ Start all over again.* ♪ ♪

Dust is the least of it.

 

[Sunstone]

Spirituality is one thing, religion is another. Religious people have no choice but to follow authority. How else do you find out even something so basic as the name of your god, let alone what you should believe about it?

Spiritual people are free to follow their own experience, rather than the experience of others.

 

[Skwim]

What exactly do you perceive as the nature of my prejudice?

It goes, in part, back to our private exchange when you moded me. :slap:

What I'm seeing in your above statement is a lot of denial.

EXCELLENT! BRAVO!:clap ATTA WAY TO GO BRO. Can't fool you can I.

Other than for amusement purposes, your opinion isn't even on the list of things I care about.

Aw c'mon :sad4: Please.

No idea what your trying to say here, although I'm pretty sure you understood what I was getting at.

Why yes, I did understand. I'm pretty quick that way.

Nope, that pretty much covers it. And that's plenty. Where is this "list" you're talking about btw?

On my desk top.

LOL! Let it all out big guy.

Why thank you. I didn't think you were ever going to give me permission.

You want to go off on tangents about incidentals and ignore the crux of what I was saying, I completely understand.

Yes, I would like to, but as you can tell I haven't, although I do appreciate your understanding. And because you've shown us just what an understanding guy you are I take back all those things everyone has said about you.

Dust is the least of it.

No kiddin' Dusty.

 

[Yerda]

I'm especially disgusted by the blanket denial about all this I see among the people I'm talking about, but then again, that's typical orthodox thinking too.

Blanket denial?

Who said anything about atheists? I said anti-theist. Strike an unacknowledged nerve did I?

Aye, I never realised that anti-theism was different from generally angry atheism.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't see the anti-theism here to be any worse than the anti-atheism, except that there seem to be more atheists who are up for religious debates than theists. Let's not forget that this portion of the forum exists for the purpose of conducting debates over religion, and debates of that sort can get heated and, for many people, abusive. This is especially true in an internet forum, where it is easy to mistake the intentions of others and to read things into posts that weren't there in the first place.

What bothers me about theism is not just the belief that it trains people to suspend critical thinking or engage in special pleading, but that it can have a profound impact on public policies. I live in a country where politicians are often required to declare their religious affiliation while running for public office, even though the government is officially secular. Science classes in public schools are dumbed down to avoid offense to a minority of religious believers, and women are harassed or denied the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term because of the religious views of--again--a minority of citizens. But that political influence is not a necessary consequence of theism. It is just an unfortunate fact of how religion plays out in my country in these times. When religion is a matter of personal conscience, not public policy, then I have no problem with it. 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.

 

[Storm]

I don't see the anti-theism here to be any worse than the anti-atheism,

Oh, absolutely not! No bigotry is better than any other.

Let's not forget that this portion of the forum exists for the purpose of conducting debates over religion, and debates of that sort can get heated and, for many people, abusive. This is especially true in an internet forum, where it is easy to mistake the intentions of others and to read things into posts that weren't there in the first place.

There's a difference between getting a bit heated and displaying bigotry, though.

FTR, there are few folks here (and fewer irl) that I would consider anti-theists.

 

[Copernicus]

Oh, absolutely not! No bigotry is better than any other.

Alas, I fear that none of us are completely free of prejudice or bigotry. If we didn't make any false generalizations or jump to any false conclusions, we probably wouldn't be able to jump to arrive at true ones in a timely fashion. It is in our nature to make flash judgments and then sort things out later by reason and reflection.

There's a difference between getting a bit heated and displaying bigotry, though.

The line is sometimes hard to draw. I do wish that there were fewer blanket angry generalizations about theists or atheists, accusations of dishonesty, and less name-calling, but I sometimes catch myself doing the same thing.

FTR, there are few folks here (and fewer irl) that I would consider anti-theists.

Agreed, and most of us would behave a lot more respectfully of each other if we could have these discussions face-to-face. It is easy to forget that the person on the other side of the keyboard is probably a fairly decent person most of the time, even though that person might appear to be making unfair comments.

 

[Storm]

Alas, I fear that none of us are completely free of prejudice or bigotry. If we didn't make any false generalizations or jump to any false conclusions, we probably wouldn't be able to jump to arrive at true ones in a timely fashion. It is in our nature to make flash judgments and then sort things out later by reason and reflection.

Hmm. I would say that bigotry is when we allow our prejudices to rule us.

You're absolutely right that none of us is free of prejeduce, but that doesn't make us all bigots.

The line is sometimes hard to draw. I do wish that there were fewer blanket angry generalizations about theists or atheists, accusations of dishonesty, and less name-calling, but I sometimes catch myself doing the same thing.


Agreed, and most of us would behave a lot more respectfully of each other if we could have these discussions face-to-face. It is easy to forget that the person on the other side of the keyboard is probably a fairly decent person most of the time, even though that person might appear to be making unfair comments.

Agreed.

 

[waitasec]

This is what I mean: you say "the religious" and "your people", as if they're all part of the same unified group, practicing the all same things in the same ways, and responsible for what every other person in this imaginary coalition does.

Like I said:

Elective perception
A tendency towards mindlessly generalizing
Contempt and hostility towards anyone who doesn't think the way they do
Complete disregard for the rights or feelings of any innocent bystanders based on an unexamined "if you aren't with us you're against us" attitude.

but with 1/3 of the human population this behavior is encouraged (not to say that everyone who calls them self a christian does, but a great deal of people do...proselytizing is a commandment...)
it is a problem.
of course there are other religions that do not do this...and i would be the first to admit that when i say "religious people", when it comes to infringing on the rights of others, i don't clarify it enough to single out the evangelical right wing christians who are, in my opinion, the culprits here...

 

[gnomon]

A much ado about nothing.

I don't know. Let's ask the resident Scientologists!

 

[lunakilo]

I'm not anti-religion. If anything, I'm anti the type of mindset which elevates faith over reason - but, then again, I'm not really anti that either, as it's like being anti gravity or math. It's pointless to be anti something which simply is.

Oh, want to be anti gravity.

 

[fantome profane]

I think we need to more clearly define what we mean by anti(fill in the blank)ims. Is an “anti-theist” someone who is opposed to theists, or someone who is opposed to theism? Those are two very different things. I interpret the term anti-theist to mean someone who is opposed to theism, but it seems that others in this thread are interpreting it to mean opposed to theists.

But I would like to say that it is not bigoted to be opposed to an “ism”. It is not bigoted to hate an “ism”. In fact it is highly ethical and moral to oppose and hate certain “isms”.

 

[Wombat]

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.

I believe you are right and the mood is right across the board/Net.
There was once a much broader spirit of inter faith/cross faith/no faith ecumenicalism...a sharing and exploration and seeking mutual understanding.........don’t see much of that these days...but a great deal of proving and challenging and peeing competitions.
Ahhhh well...the pendulum swings and the great wheel turns and ballanced mutually respectful dialogue will come again.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

none of the educated attack religion as a whole here from what I see, those that even bash to hard are run out or put in the corner. educated or not.

Im probably the worse and with that said I direct my fight to and for the education of humanity.

I go after religion where religion crosses the line of reality in the name of faith against evidence.



there are positive aspects of religion, i dont fight that part at all. Would love everyone to keep there faith.

BUT you cannot state there are no negitive aspects of religions and that needs to be handled because its primitive thinking. as a whole humanity is moving forward, it doesnt need anything holding it back.

Agreed..

 

[Storm]

I think we need to more clearly define what we mean by anti(fill in the blank)ims. Is an “anti-theist” someone who is opposed to theists, or someone who is opposed to theism? Those are two very different things. I interpret the term anti-theist to mean someone who is opposed to theism, but it seems that others in this thread are interpreting it to mean opposed to theists.

I don't think you can separate the two. For instance, if you think theism is stupid and infantile, how can you avoid ascribing those traits to those who adhere to it?

But I would like to say that it is not bigoted to be opposed to an “ism”. It is not bigoted to hate an “ism”. In fact it is highly ethical and moral to oppose and hate certain “isms”.

Yes, certain isms. Not every ism that isn't yours. "Theism" is a category, not a belief.