Why anti-theism is a joke.

[Revoltingest]

Mmmmmmm.......cabbbbbaggggge!
Stuffed cabbage, boiled cabbage, kim chee, sour kraut, cole slaw, cabbage patch kids (BBQed)

 

[Apex]

This thread is still going on?

It has a good point, one that is very relevant to RF. And something that many posters have been trying to deny for quite a while.

 

[Revoltingest]

It has a good point, one that is very relevant to RF. And something that many posters have been trying to deny for quite a while.

It just became rather bogged down in personal drama.
I suppose that those demons needed exorcising, but it sure dragged on.
(I'm glad they reconciled.)

 

[Apex]

It just became rather bogged down in personal drama.
I suppose that those demons needed exorcising, but it sure dragged on.
(I'm glad they reconciled.)

It did get bogged down in personal drama. But the demons that needed exorcising didn't get it. They just got a little light shined on them. RF has gone far beyond being able to get rid of those demons in any kind of efficient manner.

 

[Copernicus]

Back from China now and recovering from jet lag.

It did get bogged down in personal drama. But the demons that needed exorcising didn't get it. They just got a little light shined on them. RF has gone far beyond being able to get rid of those demons in any kind of efficient manner.

I agree that little was resolved in my long exchange with Quagmire, and I have no wish to let it go further. I should not have let this discussion be about my personal assessment of Quag's posting style. The fact is that everyone can read his posts and mine and make their own judgments about that. It doesn't need to be turned into an open debate and can only lead to hard feelings in the end.

The larger question of what we mean (or ought to mean) by labels like "anti-theism" was what the OP was about. We all (myself included) have a tendency to overgeneralize these categories. People behave unfairly and rudely on both sides of every issue in internet discussion forums. I see nothing wrong with taking a stand against theism, but that doesn't mean I condone the debating tactics used by every anti-theist.

There has been an argument here that one can use "anti-theist" as a kind of private label that carries bad connotations, even if there is a more neutral usage defined in dictionaries. Normally, it is not a pejorative label, but let's say that there is a category of "anti-theists" who engage in bullying behavior in RF forums. Why not use the term just to label those kinds of "anti-theists"? I object to that practice on the grounds that it is a little like taking the term "Christian" to apply narrowly to just those Christians who proselytize Christian fundamentalism. You end up creating a false stereotype. I would rather not make up pejorative labels of that sort, which co-opt normal usage. They create confusion and stimulate anger against a broader class of people than may have been originally intended.

 

[Quagmire]

Listen Quagmire: (clears throat, mumbles twice, loses courage) I fully agree.

But I really agree.

I figured you understood what I was talking about.

And sorry if "listen Atanu" sounded like "See here, you" because it wasn't intended to (just realized on a re-read that it could be taken that way).

 

[blackout]

The larger question of what we mean (or ought to mean) by labels like "anti-theism" was what the OP was about. We all (myself included) have a tendency to overgeneralize these categories. People behave unfairly and rudely on both sides of every issue in internet discussion forums. I see nothing wrong with taking a stand against theism, but that doesn't mean I condone the debating tactics used by every anti-theist.

Categories and Labels 'like' "anti-theism" and "theism" alike.
There is at least an equal tendency to overgeneralize the category of "theism".
(the other half of the 'anti')......
as you yourself have made a stellar example of here--
in that last underlined statement--

"I see nothing wrong with taking a stand against theism".

Every bit as much an unfair generalization as "taking a stand against anti-theism".

 

[Copernicus]

Every bit as much an unfair generalization as "taking a stand against anti-theism".

Sorry, Ultra, but I just don't see such definitions as unfair generalizations. An "anti-theist" is someone who opposes or takes a stand against theism. One can just as easily take a stand against "anti-theism". AFAIK, there is nothing "unfair" about such philosophical positions. Being opposed to theism or in favor of theism does not make one a bigot.

 

[blackout]

A bigot? eh, but it is an impossible generalization,
to be anti every possible kind of theism.
There is no way anyone can understand the nuances and subtler points
of every form and personal interpretation of theism.

Anyway, just for the sake of asking,
what nuanced meaning of anti do you feel defines the anti of "anti-theist".

Every kind of anti?
Or just certain kinds of anti.

 

[Copernicus]

Ultra, this doesn't have to be as complicated as you are trying to make it. People use words like "god", "deity", and "theism" in conventional ways. That is what makes it possible for people to compile dictionaries with definitions of conventional usage. That doesn't mean that every speaker of the language is going to agree to use words in the way that a dictionary defines them. My understanding of your position is that you want to use the word "god" in a fairly unconventional way, and this affects what you may mean by words like "theist" and "anti-theist". If so, it may be the case that my concept of "anti-theism" is different from yours. All you seem to be saying is that I am not using the word "theism" the way that you want to use it. So be it. I choose to stick with the conventional meaning of those words. I see no particular reason to adopt your unconventional usage.

Now, if I have misunderstood the gist of your argument, I apologize. Please clarify it for me.

 

[blackout]

Ultra, this doesn't have to be as complicated as you are trying to make it. People use words like "god", "deity", and "theism" in conventional ways. That is what makes it possible for people to compile dictionaries with definitions of conventional usage. That doesn't mean that every speaker of the language is going to agree to use words in the way that a dictionary defines them. My understanding of your position is that you want to use the word "god" in a fairly unconventional way, and this affects what you may mean by words like "theist" and "anti-theist". If so, it may be the case that my concept of "anti-theism" is different from yours. All you seem to be saying is that I am not using the word "theism" the way that you want to use it. So be it. I choose to stick with the conventional meaning of those words. I see no particular reason to adopt your unconventional usage.

Now, if I have misunderstood the gist of your argument, I apologize. Please clarify it for me.

ok, so I'm tired.

What IS anti-theism as you define it?
(since the term aparantely is not self explanitory-as I was treating it)

 

[Copernicus]

ok, so I'm tired.

What IS anti-theism as you define it?
(since the term aparantely is not self explanitory-as I was treating it)

I prefer the meaning that Wikipedia gives it: active opposition to theism. It can also refer to the position that theism is dangerous or harmful, although I have an open mind on that subject. It can certainly be dangerous or harmful in some situations, but it also has beneficial effects. I actively oppose theism, because it leads people to wrong conclusions about reality and obscures the basis of morality. That is, theistic belief tends to teach people that supernatural beings control physical events and that morality ought to be based on arbitrary authority rather than humanitarian principles.

 

[cablescavenger]

Anti-theism seems to be the new orthodoxy.

It isn't any more tolerant or any less dogmatic or self-righteous than any of it's predecessors.

It is certainly the orthodoxy in the UK, where there are more non believers, than believers.

 

[cablescavenger]

Aw, calm yerself.

A few indignant atheists with a grudge doesn't make a new orthodoxy. Like myself, the general feeling amongst the atheists I meet (online or not) is that religion is a personal matter.

Religion would be a personal matter, but customs and traditions that are part of public life are steeped in religion. A friend dies, and you have to be patronised by some man in a frock, talking about your friend as though they knew him, and telling you of the great afterlife he is going to enjoy; which is pretty offensive when you are an atheist, and even more so when your dead friend was also an atheist. Then think of other special moments, weddings etc, and you see the problem.

Then when you realise that religion is organised, cash rich and political, and interferes with scientific developments, or you realise it is endemic in the schools, and they want to own your childs religious education and teach them beliefs which you do not share, then it ceases to be a harmless personal pastime.

That is why atheists get tired of this crap and kick up a stink.

 

[cablescavenger]

but it is an impossible generalization,
to be anti every possible kind of theism.
There is no way anyone can understand the nuances and subtler points
of every form and personal interpretation of theism.

Class, I need to remember your quote!

You are quite literally saying people have to sit there a listen to every religion under the sun, and all the stories they shovel out, in order to see if there is one that attracts you, before you reject religion altogether.

I have my own thoughts on that.

You don't always have to sniff the dog muck to know it stinks.

 

[atanu]

A friend dies, and you have to be patronised by some man in a frock, talking about your friend as though they knew him, and telling you of the great afterlife he is going to enjoy; which is pretty offensive when you are an atheist, and even more so when your dead friend was also an atheist. -----

That is why atheists get tired of this crap and kick up a stink.

I think you are pouring out bookish emotions. Probably you have not seen death from close quarters.

My father was a strong atheist and so was i. He died on my arms. I also revolted when ritualists tested my patience -- actually tested my ego. But then i realised my father was not what i considered him to be. He was not the body. The lifeless body was lying there and it had no capacity to say "I" or it was never going to lift a finger even if i poured glucose in his mouth. The person that said "I" was not the true property of the body that was lying there.

Atheist crap is ego crap.

 

[cablescavenger]

You are wrong if you think I get passionate about anything I read from a book, I speak from experience, but do not view death as the bad thing that many do, for me it is an unfortunatre fact of life.

I am sorry for your loss, but happy for your father who has experienced something very beautiful, and been fortunate enough to understand and appreciate most of it, and to be born at a time when understanding of our surroundings was rapidly growing.

I am sure he will live on in your thoughts.

 

[Quagmire]

Class, I need to remember your quote!

You are quite literally saying people have to sit there a listen to every religion under the sun, and all the stories they shovel out, in order to see if there is one that attracts you, before you reject religion altogether.

For one thing, to be "anti" something is more than rejection, it's opposition.

To reject something without attempting to understand it is shallow enough.

To openly oppose something without even knowing what it is is insanity.

I have my own thoughts on that.

You don't always have to sniff the dog muck to know it stinks.

Sometimes you have to sniff something to know that's it's dog muck, because lets face it, it comes in all kinds of disguises.

 

[Photonic]

I think you are pouring out bookish emotions. Probably you have not seen death from close quarters.

My father was a strong atheist and so was i. He died on my arms. I also revolted when ritualists tested my patience -- actually tested my ego. But then i realised my father was not what i considered him to be. He was not the body. The lifeless body was lying there and it had no capacity to say "I" or it was never going to lift a finger even if i poured glucose in his mouth. The person that said "I" was not the true property of the body that was lying there.

Atheist crap is ego crap.

Theist crap is ego crap.

 

[Quagmire]

Theist crap is ego crap.

Of course now we have to come up with a definition for "crap".