Why anti-theism is a joke.

[darkendless]

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?

Some people are a little vehement in demonstrating why they feel religion is an unnecessary part of our society.

That and i've noticed some people are offended by religion itself (as in the concept). Christianity is a big one, a religion that offends me to the core. However there isn't really any reason to parade around attacking christians.

Usually the newbies settle down once they work out that not all theists are the same.

 

[Storm]

darkendless, are you going to answer my question?

 

[darkendless]

Yeah, you should.

It doesn't take all day. What a lame ******* excuse.

... and I thought some people had better things to do. Its often an honest mistake but no, stereotype police to the situation.

And what's the difference between my hypothetical example and your actual statement?

Not a lot. You're right.

Then again, maybe the black people are just a minority. I'd like to see one of the people i highlighted actually admit they're wrong at least once.

There's a very simple, easy solution to your problem: stop doing it. Seriously, put 2 seconds of thought into what you just said BEFORE you hit the post button.

:slap:

Stereotyping is easier Brings out the stereotype police who linger in debates waiting for someone to either make an honest mistake or say the wrong thing.

Works both ways though. People need to be a little more understanding. I watch some of the senior members here turn people off this forum by attacking a generalisation. Pretty pathetic really.

 

[Storm]

... and I thought some people had better things to do. Its often an honest mistake but no, stereotype police to the situation.



Not a lot. You're right.

Then again, maybe the black people are just a minority. I'd like to see one of the people i highlighted actually admit they're wrong at least once.



Stereotyping is easier Brings out the stereotype police who linger in debates waiting for someone to either make an honest mistake or say the wrong thing.

Works both ways though. People need to be a little more understanding. I watch some of the senior members here turn people off this forum by attacking a generalisation. Pretty pathetic really.

So, stereotyping is ok when you do it?

 

[darkendless]

darkendless, are you going to answer my question?

Answered. You do realise its very easy to bait people who dislike stereotypes right?

 

[Storm]

Answered. You do realise its very easy to bait people who dislike stereotypes right?

You realize that doing so is trolling, right?

 

[darkendless]

You realize that doing so is trolling, right?

I'm baiting you to prove a point and it was a lot easier than I thought it would be. What if I made a mistake when posting and forgot to add one of the words I provided in an example which made it look like I was stereotyping? This time I did it on purpose but if I didn't?

My point is, once again, people here are very quick to jump down someones throat without asking any question or giving them a chance to explain themselves and i've just proven it.

I've been here long enough to know better but thats not to say I don't make the odd mistake. I'm sure many others here do exactly the same thing.

I think some people (myself included) need to be a bit more careful how quickly they jump onto others for making honest mistakes. Sure we should probably edit it but who really does that in a thread where there are 3 or 4 posts every 5 minutes? In threads that hot its hard to edit what you say because by the time you do the point of discussion has changed. Am I wrong here?

 

[Storm]

Am I wrong here?

Yes. You should say what you mean and mean what you say. Failing that (everybody misspeaks from time to time), you should admit your mistake, rather than whining that people should be psychic.

 

[darkendless]

Yes. You should say what you mean and mean what you say. Failing that (everybody sisspeaks from time to time), you should admit your mistake, rather than whining that people should be psychic.

I usually admit my mistake but you accuse me (this isn't the first time) of making excuses.

This time I baited you to show you exactly what you do to many around here and that is attack them as soon as they make a mistake. Now you're the one making demands to get out of being caught out.

You need to chill out because it seems as though you expect everyone to be as well spoken as you are?

 

[Storm]

I usually admit my mistake but you accuse me (this isn't the first time) of making excuses.

This time I baited you to show you exactly what you do to many around here and that is attack them as soon as they make a mistake. Now you're the one making demands to get out of being caught out.

You need to chill out because it seems as though you expect everyone to be as well spoken as you are?

Gee, how unreasonable to expect people to speak plain! Much better to expect them to magically know what you meant to say, even when you actually said something totally different!

I didn't "attack" you, kiddo. I responded to what you said.

 

[darkendless]

Gee, how unreasonable to expect people to speak plain! Much better to expect them to magically know what you meant to say, even when you actually said something totally different!

I didn't "attack" you, kiddo. I responded to what you said.

Speaking plain on a religious site is not as easy as you make it seem. Once again you seem to ignore that mistakes are possible and criticise first, ask questions later. If my bait statement was serious and I forgot to add the word "some" to it genuinly you've ignored what I said and instead picked out the stereotype. From here the debate draws away from what is being discussed.

 

[Storm]

Speaking plain on a religious site is not as easy as you make it seem.

Sure it is.

Once again you seem to ignore that mistakes are possible and criticise first, ask questions later.

No, I don't. I respond to what's said. If there's miscommunication, on either side, it can be cleared up. I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to ask for clarification on every sentence, no matter how simple.

If my bait statement was serious and I forgot to add the word "some" to it genuinly you've ignored what I said and instead picked out the stereotype. From here the debate draws away from what is being discussed.

If you forgot a word, there's nothing to ignore. I can't read your mind. It's on you.

 

[darkendless]

Dude, not to white knight for Storm or anything here, but whether you purposefully omitted the word "some" to make a point or not is kind of a moot point when you consider the fact that by doing so you're making an apparent blanket statement. Only bigots, people who are prejudice, and people who are ignorant make blanket statements. Anyone who would think that you're making a blanket statement would call you out on it, Storm just happened to get there first.

/see what I did there
//I'm prejudice towards ignorant bigots who suffer severe prejudices

It depends what you say. I'm not directly attacking Storm in any case, i've said a few times in this thread alone that people are far too hung up on calling out stereotypes or even mistakes which ruins debates.

I did it to give a concrete example of what I mean. I'm guilty of this too but everyone seems to eager to jump down everyones throat.

 

[Copernicus]

Because that's how language works. We name things.

That was an evasive answer. My point was that anti-theism can and is used to describe people who are not bigots. You choose to define it as a lable that only applies to anti-theists who are bigots. The question isn't why we name things but why you feel it necessary to name that particular type of thing with that label. I object to it, because the label invites others to generalize to all anti-theists, not just those who happen to be unfair or aggressive in the way they oppose theism.

Do you have the same objection to the word "racist?"

I do when it is used as a synonym for "racial bigot", so I tend to avoid using the label. The most insidious form of racism does not involve overt, abusive behavior. I'm an "anti-theist" who votes all the time for openly theistic political candidates (well, what other choice do I have? ), but there are a lot of non-abusive "anti-atheists" here who would vote against a self-declared atheist for public office on those grounds alone. Am I less biased than they are? After all, I am an anti-theist.

How in the world is it hypocritical? Again, is it hypocritical to designate racists?

It is hypocritical because you are insisting that the label's definition be limited to just those anti-theists who are "bigots". In your mind, that let's you off the hook for stereotyping people, but this label "anti-theist" is a pure stereotype. It is a bit like creating a label for "stingy" Jews and then saying that the label is OK because it doesn't refer to the non-stingy ones.

 

[Storm]

That was an evasive answer. My point was that anti-theism can and is used to describe people who are not bigots. You choose to define it as a lable that only applies to anti-theists who are bigots. The question isn't why we name things but why you feel it necessary to name that particular type of thing with that label. I object to it, because the label invites others to generalize to all anti-theists, not just those who happen to be unfair or aggressive in the way they oppose theism.

It's not so much a choice as my understanding of the word. What's yours?

 

[waitasec]

Sometimes, but not always. It's not a definitive trait.

as with anti theism...

 

[Storm]

as with anti theism...

By my understanding. Do you agree? If not, please elaborate.

 

[waitasec]

By my understanding. Do you agree? If not, please elaborate.

sure, both theism and anti theism are not just about hate.

 

[Storm]

sure, both theism and anti theism are not just about hate.

Theism and anti-theism aren't comparable, though. Theism and atheism are, and neither of those are inherently bigoted. In contrast, both anti-theism and anti-atheism ARE both bigoted by definition.

Make sense?

 

[waitasec]

Theism and anti-theism aren't comparable, though. Theism and atheism are, and neither of those are inherently bigoted. In contrast, both anti-theism and anti-atheism ARE both bigoted by definition.

Make sense?

no, not really. theism is bigoted by definition too.