Why anti-theism is a joke.

[Quagmire]

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...

I asked:

=Why not?

Your reply:

i think it has to do with my background and it holds a sensitive spot in my heart. as a child being subjected to the indoctrination of the christian of christianity had a very big influences over the choices i made in life in which i have to live with for the remainder of my life...
i thought i knew the truth when in fact i didn't...and i'm quite certain i am not the only one...in other words, it takes one to know one.

I was just asking you why you don't specify.

Edit: also: could you do me a favor? If you're going to respond to a fragment of a post someone made 9 pages back, could you specify which post it was by number? Otherwise they have to go on a damn easter egg hunt in order to understand what the context was.

 

[waitasec]

Uh huh. It would be nice to see skepticism expressed in more constructive terms than "Nyah nyah nyah all religions are stupid" or various versions thereof.

when it comes to having a discourse, it depends on both parties involved...
the nyah nyah nyah doesn't come from no where, at least with what i am aware with concerning me...

Yeah, that's my point. In the post I was responding to, you suggested there was no difference between "going against" and idea and not having any definite knowledge about an idea. See the difference now?

but no one has any knowledge about this idea...and to say one does is like someone talking about something they have understanding of, just guesses which is rightfully so set up to be scrutinized. i mean everyone who can think clearly can have this conversation

So this means it's OK to bash or harass people who have beliefs about this thing that can't be known? Because that's the topic. That's what we're talking about here. I'd be really surprised if you realized it but your point so far, in the context of this thread, is basically that "since we don't know what god is, or if he is, it's OK to troll people who have specific beliefs about God".

it is never ok to troll around. i talk about if the conversation dictates it.
it that what anti theism is...trolling

Now you'll no doubt respond with something like "Oh no, I don't believe that". Doesn't matter: anyone who wants to take a good look at your posts in this thread so far can see that this is exactly what they add up to.

hmmm, can you please bring that to my attention...

There've been about half a dozen explanations about the distinction in this thread so far. Take your pick.

well as far as i am concerned, trolling is trolling being an anti theist is being an anti theist....those are two different things.





Edit: and you never answered my question: what do you mean by "going against"?

going against the idea that someone can know about something that no one else can know...

 

[Willamena]

i do not go around to churches actively telling church goers they are delusional.

Then you're probably not antitheist.

i will mention my position if it happens to come up in conversation. so would that not make me an anti theist?

Mentioning your position makes you communicative.

 

[waitasec]

I asked: Your reply:



I was just asking you why you don't specify.

maybe it's because i'm not perfect...

Edit: also: could you do me a favor? If you're going to respond to a fragment of a post someone made 9 pages back, could you specify which post it was by number? Otherwise they have to go on a damn easter egg hunt in order to understand what the context was.

well i gave you a link with in the post...thought that would be east enough.. sorry.

 

[Quagmire]

when it comes to having a discourse, it depends on both parties involved...
the nyah nyah nyah doesn't come from no where, at least with what i am aware with concerning me...

It often does "come from nowhere". There have been debates that weren't even vaguely about religion where someone chimed in with some snide remark about a specific religion or religion in general.

but no one has any knowledge about this idea...and to say one does is like someone talking about something they have understanding of, just guesses which is rightfully so set up to be scrutinized. i mean everyone who can think clearly can have this conversation

Again: and apparently these people deserve to be punished, right?

We're talking about trolling, you keep using "nobody knows" over and over again as a defense to justify ...what? If you're not one of the people the OP is talking about, what are you trying to defend here?.

it is never ok to troll around. i talk about if the conversation dictates it.

Again, then what point are you trying to make in this thread.

it that what anti theism is...trolling

Was there supposed to be a question mark at the end of this? If so, again: this question has been answered over and over again in this thread. If you're not seeing it, you must have some reason for not looking at it.

hmmm, can you please bring that to my attention...

I explained this already. Again: if you aren't seeing what I'm talking about, it's because you haven't looked. Go back and read your own posts. I would be surprised if that clarified anything for you, but that being the case there's no point in my trying any further.

well as far as i am concerned, trolling is trolling being an anti theist is being an anti theist....those are two different things.

For ***** sake.

OK, tell you what: come up with another term besides "anti-thiest". If it makes any sense, I'll be sure to use that one from now on.

going against the idea that someone can know about something that no one else can know...

OK, I'm going to try one-more-time, then I'm going to give up.

What do you mean by "going against". I'm not asking what it is you're going against, I got that part, I'm asking you what does the phrase "going against" mean to you in practical terms.

 

[Quagmire]

maybe it's because i'm not perfect...

You didn't seem to be acknowledging it as a mistake though. to me, it sounded like you were saying: this is what I do, this is what I intend to keep doing. and then in your next post you basically said "and here's why".

well i gave you a link with in the post...thought that would be east enough.. sorry.

Nope, you didn't.

 

[Storm]

Since I have already gone into detail on my understanding of the word, I see no reason to repeat myself. I have also explained why your understanding is irrelevant to my objection. It is equivalent to singling out any minority and making up a descriptor for some subgroup of that minority just so you can rag on it. All that does is foment anger towards the minority group, since not everyone will stick with your narrow definition.

Well, I must have missed it. Will you at least point me to the post, or are you just thumping your chest while running away?

 

[waitasec]

It often does "come from nowhere". There have been debates that weren't even vaguely about religion where someone chimed in with some snide remark about a specific religion or religion in general.

as there have been drive by theists who come off as morally superior...

Again: and apparently these people deserve to be punished, right?

i wouldn't say punished more like having a dose of reality... especially if they come off as one who has an undue sense of importance for being a theist

We're talking about trolling, you keep using "nobody knows" over and over again as a defense to justify ...what?

that is the root of it all...the foundation of a theist...claiming to know something that is impossible to know...it's purely subjective...to each his own

If you're not one of the people the OP is talking about, what are you trying to defend here?.

i don't remember "trolling" being mentioned.
this is my response to the OP...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2495660-post82.html

Again, then what point are you trying to make in this thread.

what i mean by "going against" is the position one takes in retaliation of a "know it all"
there would be no "anti theists" if theist kept their noses out of other peoples business, agreed?

Was there supposed to be a question mark at the end of this?

yes.

If so, again: this question has been answered over and over again in this thread. If you're not seeing it, you must have some reason for not looking at it.

the question may have been answered...without any substance....nothing has been added, not with any of the the discourses i've been involved with thus far

I explained this already. Again: if you aren't seeing what I'm talking about, it's because you haven't looked. Go back and read your own posts. I would be surprised if that clarified anything for you, but that being the case there's no point in my trying any further.

no you didn't...sorry.
you are going to have to back up your claim here...otherwise you are being unintentionally dishonest....again here is my response to the OP.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2495660-post82.html

For ***** sake.

OK, tell you what: come up with another term besides "anti-thiest". If it makes any sense, I'll be sure to use that one from now on.

anti theist will suffice...

OK, I'm going to try one-more-time, then I'm going to give up.

What do you mean by "going against". I'm not asking what it is you're going against, I got that part, I'm asking you what does the phrase "going against" mean to you in practical terms.

in opposition

 

[Quagmire]

as there have been drive by theists who come off as morally superior...

This isn't a contest.

i wouldn't say punished more like having a dose of reality... especially if they come off as one who has an undue sense of importance for being a theist

And all the other theists in the forums who read these posts and are offended without having done anything to bring it on themselves, they don't count aye?

that is the root of it all...the foundation of a theist...claiming to know something that is impossible to know...it's purely subjective...to each his own

If people had a "to each his own" attitude about it, there wouldn't be any need for threads like this one.

i don't remember "trolling" being mentioned.
this is my response to the OP...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2495660-post82.html

How does this answer my question?

what i mean by "going against" is the position one takes in retaliation of a "know it all"

You're still not answering my question. OK, I'll try to make this easier: do you consider "going against" simply disagreeing, throwing bricks through the other persons window, or something in between. And if it's something in between, please specify.

there would be no "anti theists" if theist kept their noses out of other peoples business, agreed?

And all theists are responsible for what every other theist does. Got it.

yes.


the question may have been answered...without any substance....nothing has been added, not with any of the the discourses i've been involved with thus far

You have am absolute genius for creating sentences completely devoid of any meaning.

no you didn't...sorry.
you are going to have to back up your claim here...otherwise you are being unintentionally dishonest....again here is my response to the OP.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2495660-post82.html

In other words, I ask you to go back and read your own posts, and you're saying no. Not a big surprise.

anti theist will suffice...

I'm just about done with you. All you've been doing all through this conversation is playing what I'm sure you think is a cute little game.

in opposition

If being vague and evasive were honorable traits, you would be worthy of great respect.

As far as I'm concerned every one of your responses has been a passive/aggressive "**** you". I'm not going to waste anymore time with you.

 

[fantome profane]

An atheist, just less opinionated.

I just said so. Why are you asking me to repeat myself?

As I said, it depends on the nuances of "oppose," which is why I asked you to clarify.

See, to me, opposing an idea means fighting it. Trying to stamp it out, whether through debate or more extreme measures. So, when you say that, what you communicate to me is someone who thinks it's completely unjustifiable to believe in God under any circumstance. That's the mild, best case scenario. And it's bigoted.

Bigots can also hold hateful opinions of other ideas.

Duh.

Not convinced on that one.

Ideas are not people. Holding a hateful opinion of an idea does not make a person a bigot. There are several ideas and concepts that I hate and would like to see stamped out. So to you I guess that makes me a bigot. I just don’t see it that way.

I know you think you are being fair to apply the label of “bigot” to both sides, but I think that just doubles the absurdity. Do you really think that an evangelical who wants to stamp out atheism is a bigot? From the evangelical’s point of view they are trying to save souls, they are acting out of love. And you want to call them hateful bigots. I just don’t get it. I am an atheist, and I don’t think it is bigoted of someone to want to stamp out atheism.

 

[lunamoth]

Ideas are not people. Holding a hateful opinion of an idea does not make a person a bigot. There are several ideas and concepts that I hate and would like to see stamped out. So to you I guess that makes me a bigot. I just don’t see it that way.

But, to play devil's advocate for a minute, you probably would not like this same argument applied to a situation like hating homosexuality, but still caring about homosexuals. No one buys 'love the sinner, hate the sin,' when it comes from a religious person. Why is it OK from a non-religious person?

 

[fantome profane]

But, to play devil's advocate for a minute, you probably would not like this same argument applied to a situation like hating homosexuality, but still caring about homosexuals. No one buys 'love the sinner, hate the sin,' when it comes from a religious person. Why is it OK from a non-religious person?

Actually I realize that there are kind caring compassionate people who are opposed to homosexuality. I said as much earlier in this thread.

Sometimes caring compassionate people hold positions that are harmful and destructive.

It is a fact that some people are opposed to homosexuality not because they themselves are bigots, but for other reasons (usually religious).

If we could come to understand why some people are anti-theistic rather than just labeling them bigots I think we could have some more interesting discussions.

 

[blackout]

Wouldn't you all rather have a cool title like
antichrist?

 

[fantome profane]

Wouldn't you all rather have a cool title like
antichrist?

I would prefer Auntie Mame. "Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death!"

 

[waitasec]

This isn't a contest.

who's making it a contest...it doesn't come out from no where...
it depends on the situation...sure there are jerks...on both sides of the coin.
why are you making this all one sided? are all theist angels...? don't think so.

And all the other theists in the forums who read these posts and are offended without having done anything to bring it on themselves, they don't count aye?

if they don't subscribe to that behavior why should they?
i'm a cuban, should i get up set at how cubans are portrayed in the movie scare face?

If people had a "to each his own" attitude about it, there wouldn't be any need for threads like this one.

yup

You're still not answering my question. OK, I'll try to make this easier: do you consider "going against" simply disagreeing, throwing bricks through the other persons window, or something in between. And if it's something in between, please specify.

you're making this far more difficult than what it should be.
i mean contrary to or in opposition of....
do you consider vocalizing an opposing opinion throwing bricks through a window...how about people knocking on your door or calling you on the phone or approaching you at starbucks when you're enjoying a cappuccino telling you your world view is wrong...would you consider that throwing bricks through a window?

And all theists are responsible for what every other theist does. Got it.

again it depends on the situation, wouldn't it?
and i always alluded to the fact the theists that are giving other theists a bad wrap are the conservative right wingers..
remember 2/3 of the entire population is either christian or islamic
and their record hasn't been so perrdy.

You have am absolute genius for creating sentences completely devoid of any meaning.

the question hasn't been answered, sorry...

In other words, I ask you to go back and read your own posts, and you're saying no. Not a big surprise.

i have and i do not see what you see, so if you want to back up what you're saying it's up to you to point it out...and thus far you haven't....so i am to think that you got nothing...in other words, prove it
:beach:

 

[Copernicus]

Well, I must have missed it. Will you at least point me to the post, or are you just thumping your chest while running away?

In post 106, I said:

Well, I think that that is the entire problem with this label "anti-theism". It can be construed as just opposition to religion in principle. In fact, Quagmire defined it that broadly to me, at first, but he later narrowed the meaning to refer to someone who aggressively or unfairly provokes religious people. My objection is to the label, because the label itself is used to cast aspersions on a group of people whose definition so easily shifts around. You call anti-theists "bigots"--sort of equivalent to "anti-semites"--but not all people generally opposed to theism are bigots.

Originally, Quagmire said that the OP might not be about me, but he then defined "antitheist" as someone who was opposed to theism in principle. I thought that a good definition and that it meant that the OP was describing someone like me. But Quagmire changed his definition after that to be someone who did not just oppose theism in principle, but did so in an aggressive or unfair manner. I saw that as moving the goalposts. You have gone even further by explicitly calling antitheists "haters" and "bigots".

You do not need to rely on my definition or Quagmire's. It is a word that has existed in English at least since the 19th century. It has always been used to refer to someone who is active or outspoken in opposition to theism. Is that person always a kind of "hater" or "bigot"? I am such a person, so you can understand where I might take offense at the way the label is being used here--as a punching bag for theists who are angry at some of the antitheists who have gone over the top (in their opinion) in this forum. I don't like to be called a bigot, and I know that you did not mean for me or all of the other antitheists in this forum to take it personally. I also object to trolling behavior by antitheists as well as theists. So, while I don't take the insult personally, I do realize that hateful things said about antitheists are going to rub off on those who do not always behave so badly. After all, we do still live in a world where atheism is a capital offense in some countries. It is one of the most hated minorities in the world. So I don't think it helps to have a special term for atheists whose behavior you can complain about. For too many people, that just means all atheists.

 

[elmarna]

in the essence of all that is we are working in the ways of humanity.
to see & act in thoughts & feelings- we should always turn to the golden rule...
DO ONTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE ONTO YOURSELF!
great thread thanks

 

[Storm]

Ideas are not people. Holding a hateful opinion of an idea does not make a person a bigot. There are several ideas and concepts that I hate and would like to see stamped out. So to you I guess that makes me a bigot. I just don’t see it that way.

Look up "bigot."

I know you think you are being fair to apply the label of “bigot” to both sides, but I think that just doubles the absurdity. Do you really think that an evangelical who wants to stamp out atheism is a bigot?

Yes, I do.

 

[Storm]

In post 106, I said:

Well, I think that that is the entire problem with this label "anti-theism". It can be construed as just opposition to religion in principle. In fact, Quagmire defined it that broadly to me, at first, but he later narrowed the meaning to refer to someone who aggressively or unfairly provokes religious people. My objection is to the label, because the label itself is used to cast aspersions on a group of people whose definition so easily shifts around. You call anti-theists "bigots"--sort of equivalent to "anti-semites"--but not all people generally opposed to theism are bigots.

That doesn't give me your understanding of the word, only your objection to mine.

Originally, Quagmire said that the OP might not be about me, but he then defined "antitheist" as someone who was opposed to theism in principle. I thought that a good definition and that it meant that the OP was describing someone like me. But Quagmire changed his definition after that to be someone who did not just oppose theism in principle, but did so in an aggressive or unfair manner. I saw that as moving the goalposts. You have gone even further by explicitly calling antitheists "haters" and "bigots".

I've also gone one to ask people who disagree to explain why. I'm TRYING to figure out what the hell you mean, and you're not making it very easy.

It has always been used to refer to someone who is active or outspoken in opposition to theism. Is that person always a kind of "hater" or "bigot"?

No. I've said that several times.

I am such a person, so you can understand where I might take offense at the way the label is being used here--as a punching bag for theists who are angry at some of the antitheists who have gone over the top (in their opinion) in this forum. I don't like to be called a bigot, and I know that you did not mean for me or all of the other antitheists in this forum to take it personally. I also object to trolling behavior by antitheists as well as theists. So, while I don't take the insult personally, I do realize that hateful things said about antitheists are going to rub off on those who do not always behave so badly. After all, we do still live in a world where atheism is a capital offense in some countries. It is one of the most hated minorities in the world. So I don't think it helps to have a special term for atheists whose behavior you can complain about. For too many people, that just means all atheists.

OK, that makes sense.

Please accept my most sincere apology. I have never considered you an anti-theist, and insulting you could not be further from my intentions.

I do still disagree that the label itself is the problem, though.

 

[Storm]

1) For the record, there are very few people on RF I would consider anti-theists. Copernicus, fantome profane, and anyone else who felt personally insulted by my posts, I sincerely apologize. I never imagined that you would dream my opinions applied to you.

2) It is my honest understanding of the word that bigotry is inherent to anti-theism. If you disagree, pleae take the oppurtunity to educate me. Time out on debate.

3) I do not consider criticism of theism (or any other position) to be intolerant, much less bigoted. I do, however, see a spectrum of disagreement, ranging from "I don't believe this because _______" to "Anyone who believes this is a moron." Obviously, bigotry lies on the far end of the spectrum.

So, feedback?