Why anti-theism is a joke.

[Storm]

I think that goes for both sides.

I don't. I think it goes for individuals on both sides.

with that said

could you help me to understand what your talking about because I could not see it [his stereotyping]

Sure.

I'll only say that I think that label "anti-theist" is a way of trying to stigmatize those atheists here who are most vocal about their rejection of religion and theism.

Here. I for one don't consider all criticism of religion/ spirituality to be anti-theistic. Far from it.

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

Theists, particularly Christians, tend to be more evangelical by nature, since spreading doctrine to others is something of a divine imperative.

With the qulaifiers, this is fair.

So-called "new atheists" (Dawkins, Barker, Hitchens, etc.) are more evangelical, and that can be seen as "aggressive" by people who are used to seeing open religious evangelism as normal and acceptable.

I don't consider ANY evangelism to be acceptable. Normal, sadly, but incredibly arrogant and intolerant.

The fact is that we see religious advertising all around us, and those of faith do not find it offensive, even when the advertisement is for a different faith.

I do.

It is only when the advertisement is an encouragement to drop faith in God altogether that people really take offense and think of it as aggressive posturing.

Not in my case. I consider it aggressive no matter what side it's on. And I'm not alone.

Now, I have in the past expressed disapproval of atheist ads. Let me state for the record that I disapprove of all religious advertising. It's just that the pro-God campaigns don't get discussed so much.

Being openly "anti-atheist" is culturally far more acceptable than being openly "anti-theist".

Sadly, this is true. Bigoted believers are taken for granted. Bigoted non-believers are new and shocking. It's a double standard, but not everyone applies it. For me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

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. To assume that all, or even most believers do is the primary stereotype of the post in question.

 

[waitasec]

And I will say some beliefs need questioned and criticized....

i can appreciate this...however i am of the opinion all beliefs need to be questioned and criticized, at least for myself and applied if certain beliefs tend to trump my personal freedoms.

my next door neighbor believes he is better because he has a penis dangling between his leg. 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?

religion has proven itself no better than anything else...funny thing is, one would expect it to... everything (including religious beliefs) should be questioned and criticized.

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?...

do these beliefs tend to trump personal freedoms?

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? ...

mother theresa was a fundamentalist religious terrorist, perpetuating misery and calling suffering a gift from god, instead of breaking the cycle, she equated birth control as a form of murder...

For some people their God, even if imaginary, is the only source of comfort they have at the end of the day.

true and if most of these believers kept their sense of comfort to themselves, there wouldn't be a need to question and criticize religious beliefs

As a person, I say religion may do some harm. But in all reality what is 100% free from this?

one would expect religion would...

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.

if it were legal this wouldnt be happening...no different than the prohibition of alcohol

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.)

who are the biggest proponents of the defense of marriage act?

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),

i find it interesting that religion didn't have anything to do with his actions...

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?

exactly...but it just so happens that these people are generally religious and want to control individual freedoms

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.

again, religion should not be included in this list..it should stand on it's own
merit...which is exactly why religious beliefs should be questioned and criticized

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.

most problems in the world today involve religion in one form or another...
a third of the total population falls under the christian umbrella
a little bit less than that are under the islamic umbrella...
that would be just about two thirds of the entire human population...not a very small sample...

 

[waitasec]

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

as theism is hatred

 

[Storm]

as theism is hatred

Um, no. Not really.

 

[outhouse]

Thank you

I don't. I think it goes for individuals on both sides.

agree

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

I feel thats stereotypical

I have no hatred for theism and I honestly follow both of the previous

I don't consider ANY evangelism to be acceptable. Normal, sadly, but incredibly arrogant and intolerant.

I believe its because they are on the front line defending our education system and humanity as a whole, from religious zelots.

In this case I understand the truth hurts even if its subjective. You cannot dismiss that logic and reason do not always apply. Simular to evolution debates. science is cold on this, there is no place for religion to cross the lines of reality, they can seem cold stopping religion in its tracks as it should be stopped. It is religion who made the mistake crossed the line and got spanked, not science. This makes them look cold

just my opinion

in general science stays nuetral and doesnt fight religion as to where religion fights science tooth and nail with less then honest intentions to retain personal unsubstanciated belief.

Not in my case. I consider it aggressive no matter what side it's on. And I'm not alone.

I understand this point

 

[Storm]

Thank you

No problem!

I feel thats stereotypical

Howso?

I have no hatred for theism and I honestly follow both of the previous

I'm not sure what you mean by "the previous."

I believe its because they are on the front line defending our education system and humanity as a whole, from religious zelots.

They ARE religious zealots. They're just atheistic religious zealots.

ETA: Many believers do the same. Anti-theists don't care.

In this case I understand the truth hurts even if its subjective. You cannot dismiss that logic and reason do not always apply. Simular to evolution debates. science is cold on this, there is no place for religion to cross the lines of reality, they can seem cold stopping religion in its tracks as it should be stopped. It is religion who made the mistake crossed the line and got spanked, not science. This makes them look cold

We're not talking about evolution. We're not talking about science. We're talking about attitudes.

in general science stays nuetral and doesnt fight religion as to where religion fights science tooth and nail with less then honest intentions to retain personal unsubstanciated belief.

1) No, RELIGION does no such thing. Certain adherents do.

 

[Quagmire]

You can say that if you wish, I can’t stop you. But I am not going to say that because I think accuracy of terms matter.

Which is why I clarified what I was talking about.

It is possible to be an anti-theist without taking it out on theists. That seems obvious to me.

Well duh, that's why I specified that I was talking about people who do.

Like I said: this is going to be one of those debates where you have to phrase everything perfectly of someone's going to get bent unnecessarily.

Honestly, I'm sure if I said that I was speaking specifically about anti-religious people who wear chicken costumes and drive mopeds someone would come in here all irate and say "Hey! Not all non-religious people wear chicken costumes and drive mopeds ya know!!!"

What you call people does matter, especially if you want to be understood.

Yeah. I guess I shouldn't assume most people actually read explanations rather than latch on to random terms that they can take offense at. Sometimes I forget where I am.

If we are talking about people who are trolling theists then let’s talk about people who are trolling theists.

That's what I'm trying to do. Soon as you're done with your lecture on the proper use of language, maybe we can get to that.

Why are we talking about anti-theists?

Because that's what the thread is about?

Anti usually means against or opposed to, as opposed to people who are passively non-religious. Those are called non-religious people or non-theists.

Humpty Dumpty logic is not going to help.

As opposed to indignant emotional rants. Those are always constructive.

 

[outhouse]

Howso?

I dont feel all anti theist use only hatered

I'm not sure what you mean by "the previous."

Anti-theism is not rejection. Anti-theism is not criticism

 

[outhouse]

1) No, RELIGION does no such thing. Certain adherents do.

excellent point

 

[Quagmire]

you see the pattern there dont you???

Uh,yeah I see it. I was the one who just described it.

I find that offensive to a point.

So when people point out that believing and questioning something that is FLAT not there! or point out how religion has held back humanity in one form or another.

its slow trolling???

Look, all I can do is explain what I mean. If you want to ignore those explanations and pretend I'm talking about something else, there isn't much I can do about that.

 

[Willamena]

So when people point out that believing and questioning something that is FLAT not there! or point out how religion has held back humanity in one form or another.

its slow trolling???

I call that fighting to keep reality real.

its not a verbal war but, you yourself see that religion needs to evolve foward. There is a need that isnt imaginary. Should we all sing "coooom by ya" until things get better.?


I dont see it as trolling if done respectably

There's nothing respectful about referring to other people's beliefs as defying reality and supporting non-existent existents, with unsubtle references to singing around a campfire.

Edit: I get that you think they're doing their part to advance greater humanity, but then, so are theists.

 

[YmirGF]

Look, all I can do is explain what I mean. If you want to ignore those explanations and pretend I'm talking about something else, there isn't much I can do about that.

Oddly, I have run into this a few times in real life, of late. I explain something, as clearly as I think is warranted, and the person I am talking to says, "Oh, so you mean...." "Well, I think that is crap because..." I guess it's my formal introduction to the live strawman. It takes a bit to get back on track and get them off their tangent about what I wasn't meaning. Oy vey. The thing I don't really understand is why folks get huffy when you dig in your heels and say, "No, that's a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with what I was saying."

These little things are meant to try us, I suppose.

 

[YmirGF]

There's nothing respectful about referring to other people's beliefs as defying reality and supporting non-existent existents, with unsubtle references to singing around a campfire.

While that is true, and there is some merit to the idea of being respectful, I do honestly feel that sometimes some folks NEED a splash of cold water thrown on their thinking. I haven't discovered a diplomatic way to do this as of yet, but I am still young, so there is hope.

 

[Quagmire]

Oddly, I have run into this a few times in real life, of late. I explain something, as clearly as I think is warranted, and the person I am talking to says, "Oh, so you mean...." "Well, I think that is crap because..."

Wait, so you're saying puppies should be put in a sack and hit with baseball bats? Well I think....

I guess it's my formal introduction to the live strawman. It takes a bit to get back on track and get them off their tangent about what I wasn't meaning. Oy vey. The thing I don't really understand is why folks get huffy when you dig in your heels and say, "No, that's a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with what I was saying."

Probably because you interrupted the sermon they had prepared.

These little things are meant to try us, I suppose.

I think I'm beginning to understand why most mystics and contemplatives almost always spoke in poetic metaphor: it wasn't just that what they'd discovered couldn't be effectively expressed in mundane language, 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.

 

[outhouse]

Uh,yeah I see it. I was the one who just described it.




Look, all I can do is explain what I mean. If you want to ignore those explanations and pretend I'm talking about something else, there isn't much I can do about that.

it sfine bud

it came out a little harsher then I ment

 

[outhouse]

Oddly, I have run into this a few times in real life, of late. I explain something, as clearly as I think is warranted, and the person I am talking to says, "Oh, so you mean...." "Well, I think that is crap because..." I guess it's my formal introduction to the live strawman. It takes a bit to get back on track and get them off their tangent about what I wasn't meaning. Oy vey. The thing I don't really understand is why folks get huffy when you dig in your heels and say, "No, that's a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with what I was saying."

These little things are meant to try us, I suppose.

part of the problem is we all think differently, I think that a lack of properly communicating among are own species.

we all have different ways of saying he same thing.

 

[YmirGF]

part of the problem is we all think differently, I think that a lack of properly communicating among are own species.

we all have different ways of saying he same thing.

I think the real problem is that some folks think VERY differently. Lately, I have been struck by the, "How did you arrive at that conclusion?" with some folks. Logic is logic, but following some people's sense of logic is an exercise in patience I don't always win... and I am a pretty patient listener.

 

[Willamena]

I think I'm beginning to understand why most mystics and contemplatives almost always spoke in poetic metaphor: it wasn't just that what they'd discovered couldn't be effectively expressed in mundane language, 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.

:clap

 

[Storm]

I dont feel all anti theist use only hatered

I didn't say that's all they've got. I just see it as the distinction between anti-theism and atheism.

Anti-theism is not rejection. Anti-theism is not criticism

Then I honestly don't understand where you disagree.

 

[outhouse]

I just see it as the distinction between anti-theism and atheism

puts it into perspective.

sometimes I see my self as anti theist after a day of debating with YEC in another forum. Even with a "gloves off" forum I still dont hate.

Hope they see it like that